D'Juhn Keep on 8/3/2008 at 18:04

---

We've had to endure much, you and I, but soon there will be order again, a new age. Aquinas spoke of the mythical City on the Hill. Soon that city will be a reality, and the IPCC will be crowned its kings.




or better than kings

GODS

jay pettitt on 9/3/2008 at 10:34

---

Of course there is room for reasonable doubt. There's nothing reasonable about the arguments put forward or the manner in which they are presented in that bloody programme though. The assertion that Climate Change is a Marxist conspiracy is both disingenuous and absurd. I'm sure the IPCC can be criticised for all sorts of things (I happen to think it's far too conservative for starters) but that isn't reason to dismiss it out of hand, not even nearly. There is value in the IPCC and the process it uses to present current understanding of climate change to policy makers and society has chosen to invest it's faith there in.

You may not, but you haven't yet provided an argument other than you think I'm a Marxist trying to tell you what to think.

@DJKEEP - you made me dribble coffee.

heretic on 9/3/2008 at 20:52

---

Wrong.

Over 19000 scientists have signed petitions to the contrary in the US alone. This is in addition to a similiar number in a coalition I linked earlier from Australia, New Zealand ETC.

On the contrary, some of the loudest voices in the global warming movement are not scientists, but politicians and artists.

This isn't to say there isn't some evidence behind their claims, but to blindly accept one side only to decry the other when both have valid data and research is very close minded.

The jury is still out, whether the media has caught on or not.

(http://www.oism.org/pproject/) "Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals."

One interesting (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html) editorial more inline with the political overtones of some of the posts.
(Not meant as a rebuttal, just food for thought...)

"So far I have emphasized the political elements in the current climate hysteria. There can be no question, however, that scientists are abetting this situation. Concerns about funding have already been mentioned. There is, however, another perhaps more important element to the scientific support. The existence of modern computing power has led to innumerable modelling efforts in many fields. Supercomputers have allowed us to consider the behavior of systems seemingly too complex for other approaches. One of those systems is climate. Not surprisingly, there are many problems involved in modelling climate. For example, even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions. At presently available resolutions, it is unlikely that the computer solutions are close to the solutions of the underlying equations. In addition, the physics of unresolved phenomena such as clouds and other turbulent elements is not understood to the extent needed for incorporation into models. In view of those problems, it is generally recognized that models are at present experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable.

While there is nothing wrong in using those models in an experimental mode, there is a real dilemma when they predict potentially dangerous situations. Should scientists publicize such predictions since the models are almost certainly wrong? Is it proper to not publicize the predictions if the predicted danger is serious? How is the public to respond to such predictions? The difficulty would be diminished if the public understood how poor the models actually are. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to hold in awe anything that emerges from a sufficiently large computer. There is also a reluctance on the part of many modellers to admit to the experimental nature of their models lest public support for their efforts diminish. Nevertheless, with poor and uncertain models in wide use, predictions of ominous situations are virtually inevitable--regardless of reality.

Such weak predictions feed and contribute to what I have already described as a societal instability that can cascade the most questionable suggestions of danger into major political responses with massive economic and social consequences. I have already discussed some of the reasons for this instability: the existence of large cadres of professional planners looking for work, the existence of advocacy groups looking for profitable causes, the existence of agendas in search of saleable rationales, and the ability of many industries to profit from regulation, coupled with an effective neutralization of opposition. It goes almost without saying that the dangers and costs of those economic and social consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger. That becomes especially true when the benefits of additional knowledge are rejected and when it is forgotten that improved technology and increased societal wealth are what allow society to deal with environmental threats most effectively. The control of societal instability may very well be the real challenge facing us."

Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

edit : Linked full editorial

Ben Gunn on 9/3/2008 at 22:31

---

Wow I feel like when Im arguing with my GF... you understand what you want to understand and distort anything Ill say if it suits your fancy... you are a woman, aren't you? (I reckon.. not even a gay francofil will choose the nick you chose..)

First of all I never "accused" you of being a marxist (as if it's a crime. im not much of a capitalism fan). All I wanted to say is that you are acting in a parental way, like a totalitarian state, when you "prohibit" the folks here to watch this film and not giving them credit to take it with caution and think for their own.
I wanted to make use of the totalitarian aspect of bolshevism- it got nothing to do with marxism. At first I thought to use the old church to illustrate my case (you know- banned books etc.) but then decided it might convey the false impression that Im claiming the man-made global warming theory is a religion while its adverseries are the true science.
This cautious approache earned me a nazi title... go figure..

I felt free to use bolshevism because NOWHERE IN THE MOVIE IT IS SAID THAT THE MMGWT IS A MARXIST CONSPIRACY. NOWHERE.
In fact, the one and only time that the movie hints at conspiracy is regarding Africa. Not in so many words, but it's kinda obvious that the movie claims there is a western conspiracy to keep Africa underdeveloped. This, surely you must know, is a CAPITALIST, GLOBALIST kind of conspiracy, not Marxist.
Dont know how you come up with this shit.

Secondly- my last post's aim was not to defend the anti-mmgwt position but to explain my use of the term "power" and why it is not a conspiarcy theories movie, despite the "swindle" in it's title.
I never claimed it holds the truth and I certainly didnt start doing it there. Please read it again.


Please watch the movie again.

And lastly-

Sigh. The OP asked for this kind of links, Im not pushing this film in the www for the kick of it.
I explictly stated that a. It's controversial. b. I dont know if it's truthful.

The conclusion? Your reading comprehension skills are severly lacking. It's lucky you have a wonder nose.

Starrfall on 10/3/2008 at 16:20

---

You're awfully credulous for someone so skeptical.

You live in California. We're relatively low in per capita greenhouse gas emissions. What exactly do you think the harm would be in getting other states to match us? Do you feel constrained in your energy use? Do you feel unable to take advantage of the wonders of technology? Would you really miss the NOx and SOx and mercury and all of the stuff that wouldn't be as prevalent if we were to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Can you pin down an actual negative effect that you're hoping to avoid by not taking steps to reduce emissions? And I don't mean show me another article or movie, I mean the specific harm you are trying to save the rest of us from. You've got to have something more than inertia or the desire not to be "taken in" just in case it's all a big lie and the specter of "massive social and economic consequences," right?

edit: oh yeah, keep in mind that California has a larger economy than most countries despite it's suicidal focus on reducing greenhouse gases