Topic: Art Bell and global warming

[fabucat]

Amen, Brother Paper*Boy.

I'm personally tired of seeing rants on virtually any thread, no matter the topic, where a certain member is incapable of posting without mentioning Bush or Cheney or conservatives or Republicans, etc. ad nauseum, perhaps approaching a level of mild pathology.

I'm all for an open forum, and I have posted provocatively in the past, but I try to take it to "Open Lines" thread, rather than pollute so-called "On-Topic" threads with political frothing and drivel. It's become quite loathsome indeed.

Oh - and for those who enjoy reading falsified data/emails from that University in Europe about climate change (so-called "Climate-Gate"), I immediately downloaded the original files about two years ago and archived them - was one of the first people to help disseminate the info back then - a steady stream of folks still download these emails to this day... in fact you can get them yourself here:

http://www.rapidshare.com/files/309919401/FOI2009.zip

They're pretty boring, but it's clear certain segments of the scientific community will falsify data to fit their political agendas.

Carry on CoastGabbers - I'm back in the bushes (and goodness knows I like a good bush)   

When someone ostensibly links Art Bell with Al Gore, of course guys on the other side of the political spectrum will be bashed.  Interestingly, even most Republicans these days aren't terribly fond of Bush and Cheney.  I'm sure they're happy you're defending them, but in this respect, you don't represent the majority of conservatives.

[fabucat]

I've got better things to do with my life than wander around forums and look for topics that piss people off. I came here to discuss Art, not the merits of global warming, which is why I got out of the conversation when it took a left turn. I'd like to attempt to steer it back now and pose the questions I asked in the post above. Thank you.

I feel sorry for your dog, who probably is too good for you, lol. 

I think that there were causes of Art leaving C2C that we don't know about.  So Art didn't follow your idea of a paint by numbers conservative and now you're sore.  I think that the world would be a better place if ALL talk show hosts were not paint by numbers idealogues.  I assume you're a conservative and there are plenty of points upon which you and Art agree, which should comfort you but nooooooooooo......everyone's got to think alike and to think like you.

It's silly to think that Premier forced Art to retire because he believes that climate change is real.  Yes, Premier employs Noory and Limbaugh who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, but they also employ Randi Rhodes, who does.  All three have emphatically stated that Premier never censors content unless it violates FCC regs.  At the very worst, if Art were so chummy with Al Gore, he'd have a show on Current TV, which would be AWESOME, but I doubt it would happen. 

[fabucat]

I hate how people fight over these things like they matter. Who cares if it is real or not? Honestly, do you think anything will change in our lives? If you want to take the bus and that makes you feel good, then do it.


If you want to use crappy light bulbs, then do so. If you want an electric car, buy one. However, don't force me to do the same because you think I'm pouring the equivalent of spent nuclear fuel by gassing up my SUV.


Get over it people! Live your lives and make the most of everyday. Living in fear and division is pointless.


The people above us, Gore and his counterparts don't even fight like this, and they have a big stake in the issue.


I just want to ask some of you this though: Does it not bother you that Gore doesn't live how he expects others to live?


Does it not bother you that he invests and takes money from companies that hurt the earth and farmers? Monsanto and DuPont?


I think a bigger problem is Mercury that is spent by factories. That's more lethal to us than global warming and it is more easily resolved.


I guess there's no big bucks for Gore and crowd in helping us stop mercury poisoning and pesticide illness. So much for caring for the Earth.

  So Al Gore's not a saint.  But if he'd been President, he wouldn't have gotten the US into Iraq by making up phoney stories about Saddam hanging out with Al Qaeda.  I really don't give a shit about how Al Gore lives, just as I'm sure you don't care about the lavish lifestyle that some Republicans live.  I agree more with Al Gore and you agree with Republicans.  And whatever someone does in his/her personal life isn't really going to change our respective political philosophies.

[fabucat]

Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.

The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press spanning the period from Feb. 3, 2006, to Jan. 5. That is far more than the typical Nashville household, which uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

I thought that this thread was about Art Bell and global climate change.  If you diehard righties really care about Art, you wouldn't mix his name up with Al Gore, heaping on all kinds of negative comments about Gore all the while.  This "innocent poster" throws a bombshell claiming that Art can't get on the air because of his beliefs regarding climate change, and that he's making all kinds of money because of these beliefs. 

I wonder if the creator of this thread is a Noory acolyte who just wants to insinuate some smack about Art Bell....

[HAL 9000]

Interestingly, even most Republicans these days aren't terribly fond of Bush and Cheney.  I'm sure they're happy you're defending them, but in this respect, you don't represent the majority of conservatives.

I'll respond this one time... then I'll move on to other threads, as I don't post often.

What in my post, would lead you to believe, in any sense of intellectual congruity, that I support or defend either Bush or Cheney? Simply because I noted that you are incapable of posting without bashing them?

I'll keep my opinions of the Bush presidency private, as it is too complex, and quite frankly, boring as hell, for anyone to read or care about here. Your implications, however, by reading into a post facts not in evidence, is as drearily loathsome as those who concoct abortion rights from the 14th Amendment.

You'd make a horrible member of a debate team. Just sayin' 

[fabucat]

Stupid question or not, it was a question I had. I guess that makes me stupid, right? Either way, I'd rather be known as someone that asks stupid questions than be known as a troll; the lowest form of life on the internet.

And no, I'm not invested in mutual funds any longer. I don't want to get into why, but I haven't been invested in mutual funds since 1999.

I've been called a troll several times in my life, my ego is intact.   Personally, I'd rather be called a troll rather than be called someone who asks stupid questions. 

Also, I doubt that you were old enough in 1999 to have invested in mutual funds or anything else. Your initial query, which inexplicably links Art Bell to Al Gore (even Alex Jones wouldn't go that far) doesn't sound like a mature one.  At best it shows a type of ingenious malice. 

[fabucat]

Dear America,
Your currency is supported by one thing only: Oil! Think of all the dictators we have supported because they are willing to support our currency via oil. Think of the people who have toiled under those dictators. Don't let them die in vain.


Honestly, it is so fucking dumb to be anti-oil. I am an animal lover and a lover of Mother Earth. However, I am human and I wish to survive. I'm not going to pay 10 bucks a gallon for gas because Al Gore's kids need more trust money.


Fuck the Democratic party. I have never been less impressed with a bunch of people. Anyone who votes for Cap and Trade better have an alternative energy in mind before punishing the people of this country for using the resources they need to live, work, and survive.

Personally I think that the Republicans are so awesome.  LOL.  Like Rick Perry.  I can't wait.  Maybe Snoory DOES have a point about 2012 and the apocalypse.  Note that I didn't say fck the Republicans. 

[fabucat]

I do hate Alex Jones, but I will give him credit for his ability to speak in complete sentences and for his ability to read clearly. His jokes are also better.

Alex Jones tells JOKES?  Not intentionally in my limited experience....then again I can't stomach his shows that often....

[fabucat]

The comparison between the two groups is apt.  Both groups ignore the overwhelming, irrefutable facts for idealogical reasons.  They deny the facts, and adopt a faith based position  ("I don't believe the holocaust was real"), usually by vilifying the source of the facts ("Jews are evil, therefore the holocaust is a Zionist conspiracy").  In the case of global warming deniers, the argument is that leftists are forwarding an agenda, therefore it can't be real ("Al Gore is evil, therefore global warming is a left wing conspiracy").

Therefore, global warming deniers are just that - people who deny the facts based on their own belief system.  As I said before, you can choose to believe what you want, you can believe the earth is flat, or that the moon is made of cheese, or that global warming isn't real, or that it isn't caused by mankind.  But if you do, it is because you don't believe, not because of the facts.  Because the facts prove you wrong.

Are you sure you're really a conservative???  I'm not complaining, mind you.  I'm sure there are thousands of things that we would disagree on, but here you've read my mind.  Also the fact you're a Morrissey fan means that you have impeccable taste.

[fabucat]

I'll respond this one time... then I'll move on to other threads, as I don't post often.

What in my post, would lead you to believe, in any sense of intellectual congruity, that I support or defend either Bush or Cheney? Simply because I noted that you are incapable of posting without bashing them?

I'll keep my opinions of the Bush presidency private, as it is too complex, and quite frankly, boring as hell, for anyone to read or care about here. Your implications, however, by reading into a post facts not in evidence, is as drearily loathsome as those who concoct abortion rights from the 14th Amendment.

You'd make a horrible member of a debate team. Just sayin' 

  OK I've confirmed the fact that you were personally picking on me. 

Go through my posts I've written DOZENS of things, most of which DON'T mention Bush and Cheney.  You don't like me, you don't like what I write, and your accusation is untrue.  Go back to your echo chamber.

Bush still is the worst President in history, I've got to say.

[Northcoaster]

I feel sorry for your dog, who probably is too good for you, lol. 

I think that there were causes of Art leaving C2C that we don't know about.  So Art didn't follow your idea of a paint by numbers conservative and now you're sore.  I think that the world would be a better place if ALL talk show hosts were not paint by numbers idealogues.  I assume you're a conservative and there are plenty of points upon which you and Art agree, which should comfort you but nooooooooooo......everyone's got to think alike and to think like you.

It's silly to think that Premier forced Art to retire because he believes that climate change is real.  Yes, Premier employs Noory and Limbaugh who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, but they also employ Randi Rhodes, who does.  All three have emphatically stated that Premier never censors content unless it violates FCC regs.  At the very worst, if Art were so chummy with Al Gore, he'd have a show on Current TV, which would be AWESOME, but I doubt it would happen.

There's been way too much name-calling and personal attacks and just flat wrong assumptions toward myself so far and I've only been here for two days! Go ahead and keep assuming the worst about me when you know absolutely nothing. I don't involve myself in politics as I don't believe you can trust either party in power right now because they're both owned by too many special interests to count. The only potential candidate for president I could see myself voting for is Ron Paul, but then again who knows who's financing his campaign? He'll probably end up being just like all the rest of em. Ideologically, I'm a mixed bag to say the least. I'm probably more liberal than conservative if anything.

I never thought Premier forced Art out because of his liberal views, in fact, this is the first time I even heard that non-theory. Even if Al and Art were pals, I think Art would probably want to distance himself because I don't think he wants to be tied into any political party. I just think Art believed false climate data, as I did myself. Even the great ones can be wrong sometimes. The problem is that Art committed to his view while regular people, like myself, can flip-flop without any repercussions.

[Northcoaster]

I've been called a troll several times in my life, my ego is intact.   Personally, I'd rather be called a troll rather than be called someone who asks stupid questions. 

Also, I doubt that you were old enough in 1999 to have invested in mutual funds or anything else. Your initial query, which inexplicably links Art Bell to Al Gore (even Alex Jones wouldn't go that far) doesn't sound like a mature one.  At best it shows a type of ingenious malice.

So now you're calling me a liar on top of the other attacks. Who's the immature one?

[Scully]

this is horse shit.


people are free to post whatever they want on this forum, so long as it conforms with the terms of service.  the fact that you don't agree with the OP's personal opinion of art's climate change convictions does not make him a troll.  he isn't required to have X number of posts under his belt before posting something controversial.  i mean... WOW... someone posts something on a forum that gets people talking.  the humanity!!  i personally enjoy these types of discussions on this forum.  i get sick of talking about george fucking noory's mustache or his workout supplements. 

posts like yours are making this look like some sort of shitty clique forum.

I think this is perhaps a a bit of an overreaction on your part, Michael.
 
Am I not as free to post whatever I want to as the next person?

[Northcoaster]

  OK I've confirmed the fact that you were personally picking on me. 

Go through my posts I've written DOZENS of things, most of which DON'T mention Bush and Cheney.  You don't like me, you don't like what I write, and your accusation is untrue.  Go back to your echo chamber.

Bush still is the worst President in history, I've got to say.

Someone's picking on you? Maybe saying something about your cats and how they're too good for you? Poor you.

[onan]

I thought this was an interesting article.

http://www.pewclimate.org/blog/hoffmana/climate-debate-word-clouds-conflicting-discourse-climate-change

I dunno if it advances anything but at least it does give us a place to draw a line to leave politics out of the debate.

[RealCool Daddio]

Are you sure you're really a conservative???  I'm not complaining, mind you.  I'm sure there are thousands of things that we would disagree on, but here you've read my mind.  Also the fact you're a Morrissey fan means that you have impeccable taste.

Thank's, and the feeling is mutual (by the way, I read an interesting editorial in a uk mag a while back that argues that Moz is a conservative).

There is no doubt my beliefs are on the centrist side of conservatism, but conservative they are.  For example, if you are a conservative, you are in favor of gay marriage ( and vice-versa). 

[morphiaflow]

Most conservatives are not young Earthers. It's a small segment to my knowledge.

Perhaps not, but I'll bet you pennies to pounds that all young earthers would identify themselves as conservatives.

And in any case, the conservative politicians are happy to court that particular fringe for votes--as minimal as it is, when's the last time you saw a conservative politician speak out against young earthers' efforts to include creationism in public school curriculums?

And anyway, the abiotioc oil theory seems to go hand in hand with both climate denial and creationism. Sorry, but if it looks and quacks like a duck...it's fowl. Or foul.

[M Knight]

Speaking of facts, George Noory sucks.

George Noory Suckage is a major source of global warming.

[M Knight]

I'm impressed with your knowledge of the geological and climatic history of the earth, M. Knight, but don't your fellow climate deniers give you shit for implying that the earth is more than 6000 years old?

I think you missed the elements of my post.  I believe the scientific "facts" indicating a changing climate.  I would be astonished if the climate suddenly stopped changing.  The garbage that humans are pumping into the atmosphere is one factor of many contributing to the speed and type of change.  "The many" includes the effects of the sun; methane release from permafrost (actually a sub-effect) and from animals; volcanic activity;  and many more.

To assign blame primarily to human activity is missing the complete causal structure, and is unscientific. 

Want to take a bold and effective stand against climate change?  Turn off all electricity consuming devices in your house permanently.  And, by the way, buy a bicycle. 

[Lovely Bones]

I really don't want to get into a game of "bring me a rock" with you, but on the off chance that you are unable to use Google, you will find a nice summary of the dozens and dozens of position papers by every major scientific body in the world here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
If you do a little more research, at any of the websites for the scientific bodies listed on that handy summary, you will find that the global scientific community is as close to unanimous as possible - global warming is real, and mankind is to blame.  Sure, there are a few fringe elements that might dissent, but that is true of evolution, gravity, the earth rotating around the sun, etc.

[bolding mine]

I had these snippets saved in files for a discussion of an entirely different issue having nothing particular to do with climate change, merely using climate change as an example that helped further a point I was making in an on-going debate with a moron:

But there are experts out there with superb qualifications in the science of climate who will tell you that the conventional wisdom is nonsense. Professor Richard Lindzen is one such expert. He is not a chemist, or statistician or sociologist trying to ingratiate himself with his government. Lindzen, Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, is an expert on climate.

He pours scorn on those who would invoke the notion that there is some kind of “consensus” on our involvement with climate change. And even if there was, “consensus” is not a scientific concept. Scientific concepts have to be proven. The fact that lots of “scientists” think a notion is true is a worthless consensus. Its provability is the only important thing. Consensus and a dollar will get you on the subway, or whatever it now costs to ride the New York City underground.

There is a clear attempt to establish the truth not by science but by repetition.

http://www.wintonsworld.com/news/opinion-text-2006/gore-ideas.html

_______________________________________

Science has nothing to do with consensus.
Consensus is politics.
Science requires one investigator to be right.
Results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science, consensus is irrelevant.
What is relevant is reproducible results.
The greatest scientists are great because they broke away from consensus.

Consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong.
They believed continents did not move.
Mark Twain said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/statistics-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/


______________________________

Interesting is the one thing this scientific consensus BS isn’t. Einstein was asked about the many scientists who were skeptical about his theory of relativity when it first came out. His response was “It only takes one to prove me wrong.” Scientific consensus once held that eugenics was respectable science. It means nothing to hear 7 papers predicted global cooling while 44 predicted global warming. This is the kind of thing that impresses non-scientists. The less you know the more you rely on “consensus.”

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/statistics-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/

___________________

Science does not work by consensus; one has to consider the argument based on its merits- meaning its consistency with the entire available body of knowledge.
____________________________

[bolding mine in all quotes above]

Bottom line IMO: any unanimity you speak of is essentially worthless BS.  Einstein is correct.  It takes but a single correct scientist to prove all those others wrong. 

[analog kid]

Einstein was asked about the many scientists who were skeptical about his theory of relativity when it first came out. His response was “It only takes one to prove me wrong.”

Has Richard Lindzen proven that AGW is not occurring? Wouldn't your argument be a moot point otherwise?

Also, more Gore Derangement Syndrome.

[MV]

this is horse shit.


people are free to post whatever they want on this forum, so long as it conforms with the terms of service.  the fact that you don't agree with the OP's personal opinion of art's climate change convictions does not make him a troll.  he isn't required to have X number of posts under his belt before posting something controversial.  i mean... WOW... someone posts something on a forum that gets people talking.  the humanity!!  i personally enjoy these types of discussions on this forum.  i get sick of talking about george fucking noory's mustache or his workout supplements. 


posts like yours are making this look like some sort of shitty clique forum.

by the way... i'd like to apologize if i seemed excessively abrasive in the above post.  my vitamin D levels are off.

[MV]

Has Richard Lindzen proven that AGW is not occurring? Wouldn't your argument be a moot point otherwise?

Also, more Gore Derangement Syndrome.

since those who believe in man made climate change are proposing sweeping changes to both industry and taxation as a remedy to the "problem," i think the onus is on them to prove their case... and simply repeating the word "consensus" doesn't get it.

[analog kid]

I think the findings of the climatologists can be separated from tax or industry proposals or an ad populum fallacy without losing validity. It's not like the piles of data don't exist, either.

[Paper*Boy]

Excuse me, but we live in the USA, which is FAR from being Communist.  Even most Communist countries are pretty shitty these days about being Communist.  China and Vietnam are doing excellently being capitalist.  There are only two *real* Communist countries:  North Korea and Cuba.  Cuba has recently instituted capitalist reforms. 

And you're worried about "the left" in the US turning this country Communist?  What "left"?  If you consider Obama, Schumer and Durbin to be "left", Jamie Diamond and Jeff Immelt will be laughing at you. 

In the USA no one can control you without your permission.  Only Alex Jones and you are worried about a Communist takeover in the USA.  Worrying about Communism is like worrying about the Vikings attacking.  Such things once were real threats, but now they are in history books.

Until the Left is in the history books for good, they are a threat.  Of course they aren't going to call themselves Communists - that would tip folks off to their true agenda.  They've run through and sullied quite a few labels, right now they call themselves 'Progressives'.  But really, they are the same people we've been resisting since King George III.
 
Of course most 'Progressives' aren't murderers and thugs, the rank and file are more what Lenin referred to as the usefull idiots.  Can't happen here?  Tell that to the Cambodians, and the rest.  I really hope I'm not doomed to repeat history just because too many fellow citizens don't know theirs.

[RealCool Daddio]

___

[bolding mine in all quotes above]

Bottom line IMO: any unanimity you speak of is essentially worthless BS.  Einstein is correct.  It takes but a single correct scientist to prove all those others wrong.

This is true when proving (or disproving) a theorem - E=MCsquared, for example.  But a dissenting voice in the wilderness does not DISprove that A) the burning of fossil fuels creates polution, and B) this polution is toxic to human life in many forms, and C) many of the byproducts released from the burning of fossil fuels are greenhouse gases, which contribute to the warming of an atmosphere.
 
If you don't believe that the polution caused by burning of fossil fuels is harmful to life, here is a simple test you can try:
 
Step 1:  Pull your car into your garage, and leave it running.
Step 2: Close the garage door, sit in your car, open your car windows.
Step 3: Breathe deeply for the next hour or so.
Step 4: Let us know if you survive.
 
NOTE: For those reading this who might not appreciate the fact, following my instructions above will certainly lead to your death.  This is not a "belief", it is a scientific fact.  Even if poster's here can find the odd bit of dissenting information on some wingnut's website, rest assured - THIS ACTIVITY WILL KILL YOU.  DO NOT ACTUALLY DO THIS!  YOUR CRAZY ASS BELIEFS WILL NOT PREVENT YOUR CERTAIN DEMISE!

[Lovely Bones]

This is true when proving (or disproving) a theorem - E=MCsquared, for example.  But a dissenting voice in the wilderness does not DISprove that A) the burning of fossil fuels creates polution, and B) this polution is toxic to human life in many forms, and C) many of the byproducts released from the burning of fossil fuels are greenhouse gases, which contribute to the warming of an atmosphere.

"Contributing to" would be the operative "weasel words" in your post. 

No "deniers" I know deny

a) that climate changes exist (and how interesting that the climate change folks have changed the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change"--kinda covers all bases for when we head toward a mini-ice age again . . . );

b) that burning fossil fuels contributes to pollution; or that

c) in some measure, burning fossil fuels may be one of the factors post-Industrial Revolution society ought to examine when looking at climate changes.

That said, everything I've read and heard about so-called climate change is based on data

a) that extends no further back than a hundred years or so, an incredibly small slice of time when talking about climate as opposed to weather;

b) that is based largely on predictive models;

c) likely miscalculates or misrepresents the measure of man's (and all those nasty fossil fuels') impact on climate change; and

d) would not be changed by wiping man (and all those nasty fossil fuels) off the planet anyway. 

I was raised from a pup to conserve natural resources and have always practiced those principles.  But I'll be damned if I'm going to have the government sticking its nose into my business, attaching a smart grid to my house and telling me when I can turn certain appliances on or making decisions about what kind of car I can buy when there is nothing "settled" about this science in the first place. 

There is no consensus in the data--we're not just talking theory here.  Consensus is politics, not science.  And the politics have tried to drown out the opposition science.  Witness the fellow who tried to confront Gore with facts about the polar bears. 

[analog kid]

a) that extends no further back than a hundred years or so, an incredibly small slice of time when talking about climate as opposed to weather;

Any reason you're not counting ice core samples?

[Lovely Bones]

Any reason you're not counting ice core samples?

I was talking about data recorded contemporaneously with the time period, not data extrapolated backwards. 

[analog kid]

I was talking about data recorded contemporaneously with the time period, not data extrapolated backwards.

You said

everything I've read and heard about so-called climate change is based on data that extends no further back than a hundred years or so, an incredibly small slice of time when talking about climate as opposed to weather

So either you're wrong, or you're saying the ice core data that reaches back hundreds of thousands of years is in a separate category and doesn't count, which isn't the case either. It sounds like you're not completely familiar with the data or how it's collected, yet you've already made up your mind. Presumably from politically ideological reasons, yet you ascribe politics to the scientific consensus. You don't see a problem with that?