Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[lord_casek]

what business are you in if you don;t mind me asking

 

IT. they needed an IT guy badly. i think they still do.

i need to call this guy after the holidays.

[WORDISM45]

CASEKS JOINING THE NWO!!!!!!!! ;)

[lord_casek]

CASEKS JOINING THE NWO!!!!!!!! ;)

 

not really. but i will take their money.

[lord_casek]

CNN weatherman calls gore's film fiction

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_weatherman_applauds_global_warming_skepticism_1004.html

[lord_casek]

good news for environmentalists NanoSolar's PowerSheet cells have reduced the cost of production from $3 a watt to a mere 30 cents per watt. This makes, for the first time in history, solar power cheaper than burning coal.

http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/

[the.crooked]

as CNN has been a bastion of good reporting in the last year or two.

[lord_casek]

as CNN has been a bastion of good reporting in the last year or two.

 

 

but this is a better quote

 

CNN reported on Thursday that a British judge has called Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth unfit for schools "because it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies and sentimental mush." British schools may now have to preface any showing of the film with a warning.

[the.crooked]

what i said was me being drunk and ironic.

 

 

cnn is shit as of late.

[lord_casek]

what i said was me being drunk and ironic.

 

 

cnn is shit as of late.

 

haven't been keeping up. lou dobbs is still the man.

i don't watch tv.

[thinksmall]

polar bears are almost endangered, and well could be. its not just swimming distances. their food are swimming away because of the change in landscape. its getting harder for them to get their food, because food is then farther/deeper away.

 

then you gotta think about mating season too. polar bear gotta eat up when they're pregnant. its 'spose to be twice their body weight (i think..). so that wont play in well with the landscape change.

 

save the polar bear. save the world.

[thinksmall]

i totally am not sailin the global warmin' boat duudes, but i thought this was funny in the boston globe. about scientists petitioning the kyoto protocol.

 

It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry.

 

the other half were.. scientists from the springfield cemetery? (the simpsons.. mayor quimby election.. and i know this because..)

[thinksmall]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

[thinksmall]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

 

oh snap!!

[russell jones]

This pope is weird, it seems like he is using condemnation of global warming to promote a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis.

[El Mamerro]

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The writer of the article must've been cracking up while writing that first sentence.

[the.crooked]

i wish i could props the author of that article. just for that line.

[fermentor666]

Idiocy. How many of you are environmental scientists? None of you. Especially not you, casek. More stupidity from you, as usual (to use your words, asshole). Almost every scientist who denies global warming, and there are very few, are tainted by oil money. Idiots like you (using your language, again) think it's some big conspiracy to control the masses, but you don't see the actual, glaring conspiracy on the other side, the one that denies global warming so that the oil industry can continue to make immense profits.

 

But you are a moron, and one of the most uneducated people I've ever talked to. So you buy into whatever conspiracy you can find, and you switch between them like cable TV channels. Your latest kick is right-wing paranoia, but soon you will get bored of that and find a new fringe group to promote. I'm glad I've kept you on ignore all this time, and believe me I will not be re-visiting this thread to look at whatever, idiotic, untrue, and insulting response you might have. Especially since you almost always respond by calling people a faggot and so forth, because you have no creativity and you have no debating skills and you have very little independent thought, relying instead on fringe trends and conspiracy theories to do your thinking. You've put all your trust into a TV personality, a weatherman, NOT an environmental scientist, and have used his silly little rant to try and prove to us that the argument is now over. The evidence is now conclusive! A TV news personality has explained it all! Look, he is a founder of a cable television station, he MUST be an expert!

 

You rely solely on the internet for information, perhaps the largest flaw in your misinformed mind. Idiocy, pure idiocy. Goodbye, asshole.

[thinksmall]

Have the courage to do... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. YAY FOR YOU!

 

Pretty sure Casek is just presenting the uncertainty in a generally certain idea.. which is a plus for real scientists.

 

 

To Mr. Oil-Companies-Want-To-Make-$$$$,

 

"Most of the people here [at the UN conference] have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.

 

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained.

 

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

 

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

 

 

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

http://www.icecap.us/ <-- good place.

 

oh the irony...

[thinksmall]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/whatgreenhouse/moncktongreenhousewarming.pdf

 

oh yeah, co2 doesnt affect the atmosphere.

[the.crooked]

Here is a simple argument.

 

As time goes on, entropy increases.

 

As we exist, we emit.

 

As time goes on, what we emit increases.

 

As closed of a system as earth is, this increase will only be compounded exponentially as our consumption and populations rise (exponentially as well).

 

The issue, again, is not that this or that specific broadcast of how the future of meteorology will be is right.

 

It is that just by pure logic, we must be putting things out that will have effect. It is just foolish to think the world is some thing that just takes whatever it's constituent parts puts out and adapts to it.

 

This is where humans fail as animals. We always here the cliche that we are the only animals that don't adapt to our environments we adapt our environments to us. But this is only half of it.

 

Not only do we adapt our environments to us, we seem to expect them to do it themselves.

 

Infrastructure, at least many of the antiquated and bullshit structures in the world today, are not made to be adaptable.

 

So whatever effect we as a species have, it is going to do things that our infrastructure is not ready for. Thus, it is an issue of concern for the upcoming century.

 

It ain't that hard folks.

 

I heard an interesting fact the other day that may give a sense of the impact we have on this earth. While I have problems with this type of computational regression, I heard at a talk recently on free will and evolutionary biology that like a couple thousand years ago, we comprised at most like 2 percent of the biomass on earth. To date we are at 98%.

[WORDISM45]

i'm presuming by 'biomass' you mean just fauna and not flora?

[the.crooked]

Yeah.

 

I should also give the qualifier that that is our biomass and our domesticated animals.

[El Mamerro]

It is just foolish to think the world is some thing that just takes whatever it's constituent parts puts out and adapts to it.

 

Actually, that is precisely what it does.

 

The problem is that this "adapting" may involve taking us out of the picture to remedy the issue.

[the.crooked]

It isn't that the world is consciously adapting to what we do, it's that what occurs is the changing of the world.

 

 

I think it is worse to think of this as a back and forth between us and "Gaia."

 

I think you are taking what I use as "necessarily changing" as "adapting" in this case.

 

maybe I'm wrong.

[thinksmall]

There are a lot of circumstance or adaption in population growth. For example, food and the green revolution. Maybe in the near future there would be fusion energy, sea water -> clean water efficiency, nanotechnology. Public opinion on makin' them babies could change in a changing society.

[the.crooked]

I don't see your point.

[russell jones]

Another important thing to remember is that humans are doing something that is unprecedented by nature, we are unearthing millions of years of stored carbon dioxide in a very short period of time. Much slower and less drastic changes in the carbon cycle have led to catastrophic climate change a few times in the history of life that has killed most species on the planet. Of course, we are somewhat protected in our epoch due to the spread of land mass towards the poles, but that may not protect us forever. So yeah, the earth will change, it's just that most animals and plants won't be able to change with it.

 

There's been far hotter times in the history of the world, and far colder times, but a bigger change in the climate of the world may not have happened often. Everything resists change and generally survives best in the environment that it evolved in.

[the.crooked]

^Yup.

 

Punctuated equilibrium.

 

 

I see it comin up.

[lord_casek]

plants breathe co2

[russell jones]

exactly, and we are digging up millions of years of dead plants and fauna. There are not enough plants in the earth to absorb the excess CO2.