shopping cart CART ITEMS: -
| CHECKOUT
Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET   |   NEW MEDIA   |   START-UPS   |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY   |   WIRELESS   |   COMPUTING   |   ENGINEERING   |   CEOS
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now

A REALLY Inconvenient Truth: Dan Miller

73
Likes
1
Dislikes
RATE
93,257 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

Page 3 of 12 12 3 45 Last »
morrison33 Avatar
morrison33
Posts: 33
Posted: 03.19.10, 11:23 AM
speaking of amateurs, i forgot, what are the qualifications of this guy, who so 'obviously' is 'in the know' and has decided to 'show us' the 'true' and 'horrifying' future which mr. Al Gore so magnanimously decided to spare us from, and whose lectures you are so fanatically backing???

He obviously didn't understand that al gore, the master manipulator of vast herds of cretins like yourself, was talking about using the right amount of fear, fear being a highly efficient and vastly used persuasive tool to guide sheep towards their own distraction, so that people would be terrified into agreeing with him; I am not saying this is some sort of conspiracy on his part, but he is a politician, and politicians are habituated into using fear.

I will sign out with this...don't have nightmares!
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 17
Posted: 03.04.10, 01:24 AM
balthazarF,
I suspect you directed your post at the wrong person.

Try morrison33 or Lloyd Burt, for individuals whose opinions are shaped by the Denial Industry, rather than science.

If I were asked for my opinion, I would guess that Lloyd Burt is paid, he spends so much time here. I suspect morrison33 is a rank amateur.
Permalink
balthazarF Avatar
balthazarF
Posts: 70
Posted: 03.03.10, 05:28 PM
What's this? Denial, willful ignorance and suspension of reason are evolved human traits? Dear gods, give me a break.

Impact on your business. Let's see, the worst case scenario occurs. You won't have a business. You won't have a you.

Have lots of kids (consumers), build more houses and roads, sell more cars and form committees. You're an American!
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 17
Posted: 02.28.10, 03:12 PM
Any excuse to chicken-out.

You know when you're beaten.
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 17
Posted: 02.28.10, 03:08 PM
If you could read, you would have found ample science [where required] and references supporting every assertion I made. But of course you are biased, not objective.
Permalink
DannyAstro Avatar
DannyAstro
Posts: 21
Posted: 02.28.10, 10:27 AM
For those of you who would like detailed references for many items in my talk, a paper I co-authored has just be published:
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issu...3-1_greene.pdf

Study Shows Emission Reductions Alone Are Unlikely to Avoid Dangerous Climate Change

Calls for Increased Geoengineering Research

March 1, 2010 (Ithaca, NY) -- Even if all man-made greenhouse gas emissions were stopped tomorrow and CO2 levels stabilized at today’s concentration, by the end of this century the global average temperature would increase by ~2.4ºC (~4.3ºF) above pre-industrial levels, which is significantly above the level which scientists and policy makers agree is a threshold for dangerous climate change, according to a new study published in the March issue of Oceanography Magazine. Of course, greenhouse gas emissions will not stop tomorrow, so the actual temperature increase will likely be significantly larger, resulting in potentially catastrophic impacts to society unless other steps are taken to reduce the Earth’s temperature.

The scientists also conclude that the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report likely underestimates the potential dangerous impacts that man-made climate change will have on society. Furthermore, while the oceans have slowed the amount of warming we would otherwise have seen for the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the ocean's thermal inertia will also slow the cooling we experience once we finally reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This means that the temperature rise we see this century will be largely irreversible for the next thousand years.

The study, “A Very Inconvenient Truth,” by Charles H. Greene of Cornell University, D. James Baker of the William J. Clinton Foundation, and Daniel H. Miller of The Roda Group, concludes that because the risks of climate change cannot likely be mitigated solely by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, society should significantly expand research into so-called geoengineering solutions that are meant to either reduce the amount of solar energy that reaches the earth or removes and sequesters greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere. Geoengineering solutions must be in addition to, not replace, dramatic greenhouse gas reductions if society is to avoid the most dangerous impacts from climate change.

For the full report, see http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issu...3-1_greene.pdf
Permalink
morrison33 Avatar
morrison33
Posts: 33
Posted: 02.28.10, 05:51 AM
I guess your idea of proof is radically different from mine. I am not giving you links to websites because that is neither proof nor evidence but opinions...there is quite a big difference between them, you might want to check that.

By the way --> "Cluck! Cluck!!!"...you are quite entertaining , and probably around 16 years old if not younger.
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 17
Posted: 02.28.10, 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by morrison33
The way climate scientist are behaving is despicable and bring shame to all other practicing scientist of other disciplines.
I have seen this repeated before as a coded reference to the stolen CRU emails. And as has been repeatedly shown, these emails show anger and some things that shouldn't have been said were said, but the reality is that there's no evidence that anything actually reprehensible was done – the emails prove no actual malpractice / illegal, but these words have been spun by liars into a great deal of malign froth.
http://tinyurl.com/CRU-emails-debunked
http://tinyurl.com/ye25des
http://tinyurl.com/yeqqonr
Climatologists under pressure [Nature] - http://bit.ly/6Efa1s

I believe your implied claim to be objective is bogus as were your other vague unsubstantiated innuendo.

I was not cherry-picking. I know of no evidence of improper behaviour by mainstream scientists. Yet again your use of innuendo. I believe my examples are representative and I could offer more, but they would be limited to pretty-well the same subset of individuals [for instance: Singer and Seitz have appently a long history in the tobacco denial industry, which was where the tactics of lies & innuendo were proved to works against scientific evidence] (google Fred Singer site:tobaccodocuments.org / google Fred Seitz site:tobaccodocuments.org). I'm aware of numerous accusations made against mainstream scientists which when traced-down are mere quote-mining; fabrication; and innuendo. And unlike you, I made substantiated claims that can be checked. Please show me where I am mistaken.

Your claims and innuendo is unsupported by evidence. All such claims & innuendo must treated as bogus and malicious until proven otherwise. - Cite your evidence!

But you didn't. You chickened-out!

Cluck! Cluck! Cluck! Cluck! Cluck! Cluck!
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 17
Posted: 02.28.10, 03:52 AM
The 'Science is settled' argument:
Like most denialists' arguments there is a seed of truth in this, but that 'seed' doesn't make the argument correct in its entirety. It's a straw-man and a lie!

New science is always uncertain, it's inherent in the scientific process, just like any field of human knowledge. Science is a continual process of challenging even established theories. But gradually, the soundest science emerges, because it has successfully survived all-comers, established theories often evolve during the process.

Established science would include the theory of gravity and the radiative physics of greenhouse gases, which were discovered 150 years ago and repeatedly confirmed, by new research.
Permalink
morrison33 Avatar
morrison33
Posts: 33
Posted: 02.28.10, 02:36 AM
You reply is both funny and revealing. Since this is not the place, I will leave the funny bit out and focus on the revealing bit. I take it from your answer that you are on the side of the concerned about Global Warming? I suppose you would, then, be a representation of sorts of other people in your group (not a scientific representation but good enough for this I guess).
The very first thing that strikes me is how you have read my modest piece of writing. Quite typically for people in your group, you have read what you wanted to read from it, not actually what was written. You appear to have placed me on the sceptic group, though neither am I in any group nor do I say so anywhere.

You do give me many examples of climate scientist behaving badly, exactly what I was saying by the way, but you accuse me of "cherry picking" while you yourself pick the examples exclusively from the "sceptic group", ignoring in the mean time the very well publicised examples of bad and unscientific behaviour from the other, or in this case, your side! Just tell me, you find that rational behaviour in your part (I do not expect a real answer by the way - since you are very very much biased, I suspect you will read into this, AGAIN, what you want to read).

Please, try to make an effort to read things properly. I do not fall in either group, in fact, the idea of taking sides is a rather bizarre thing in science. I practice science, but not climate science, therefore I do not have the knowledge or the tools to examine the claims made by either camp. What I can say for sure though, is the very clear and obvious fact that the climate debate is a political one, not a scientific one. It is however being portrayed as a science debate and the scientist I know strive to be objective and certainly do not make ridiculous claims such as "what I say is true" or that "science is settled" because, as every elementary scientist knows, human powers of reasoning or really not great, not great atll...at least not good enough to warrant such claims.

One more thing, you say "STFU" - that is also very typical of your kind. I cannot say that for the other group though.

Have a good day
Permalink
Page 3 of 12 12 3 45 Last »
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
JOIN NOW >>

Recommended

Sylvia Earle on the Oceans Sylvia Earle on the Oceans
00:00:00 min | 1,911 Views
Green Buildings: Best Practices from Switzerland Green Buildings: Best Practices from Switzerland
00:04:07 min | 578 Views
Maya Lin's 'What Is Missing' Maya Lin's 'What Is Missing'
00:31:42 min | 9,822 Views
Stewart Brand: Rethinking Green Stewart Brand: Rethinking Green
01:33:38 min | 37,653 Views
Food Security and Climate Change Food Security and Climate Change
01:37:01 min | 8,028 Views

Get Our Free Newsletter

Advertisement