Hundreds Die in Cold Waves -- Media Keep Flogging Global Warming

[acptulsa]

Unless you are willing to live 1800 or before, this is pointless.

Unless you are willing to admit that there's much, much more about climate dynamics that we don't know than what we do know, the whole damned conversation is pointless.

Unless, of course, you stand to make a financial gain from the resulting hare-brained, could be a cure worse than the disease legislation that results.

 

[Tpoints]

Oh man, don't the members of the Church of Climatology get sick of changing their tune? Let me get this straight an invisible, all-powerful, super destructive force will burn us all up if I don't change my ways.........Hmm where did I hear this before? This is the religion for people that don't believe in God. Mind control is mind control, especially when it "makes sense".

BAH BAH:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
A magazine cover doesn't represent scientific consensus. So yes, you had the media saying they feared global warming in 1970s, doesn't mean scientists did. And today, the media is largely reporting what scientists say (except when you have Fox News which help create the lie "30,000 scientists are suing/have sued Al Gore"). If you want to know what scientists say, look and asks what they say, don't take the front page of a magazine.

Besides if you're going to use the argument "They were wrong then, so they must be wrong now" when will we get to say that about hyperinflation alarmists? How long before we can say hyperinflation alarmists are full of crap and just trying to force a gold standard on us or scare us into buying gold?

 

[Tpoints]

Unless you are willing to admit that there's much, much more about climate dynamics that we don't know than what we do know, the whole damned conversation is pointless.

Unless, of course, you stand to make a financial gain from the resulting hare-brained, could be a cure worse than the disease legislation that results.

I do admit that there's things we don't know about the past, but what point would that give us? That "therefore it can happen again"? Or "Therefore it won't happen again"? What does whether it happened in the past do about what will happen in the future (nothing, at most it'll tell you how to prepare for it).

 

[Tpoints]

I'm assuming the Holocene Climate Optimum is when cavemen discovered fire.

Tell Sandy survivors that they still live better than those half naked cavemen. Their relief efforts must be scam, don't they know they have things available to them at lower cost than that one caveman times?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Besides if you're going to use the argument "They were wrong then, so they must be wrong now" when will we get to say that about hyperinflation alarmists? How long before we can say hyperinflation alarmists are full of crap and just trying to force a gold standard on us or scare us into buying gold?

The point of juxtaposing those Time magazine covers is not to say that "they were wrong then, so they must be wrong now." The point is that the same people who were once pushing one claim are now pushing the exact opposite claim - and with just as much (which is to say, just as little) justification. Hence, your "hyperinflation alarmists" counterexample is only valid if the same people were once "hyperdeflation alarmists" - which is not the case.

 

[Mach]

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/

Gee, a ‘warming’ of a couple of C over 30 to 40 years… where have I seen folks wringing their hands over a warming of a couple of degrees C in 30 to 40 years ….. Oh, that’s right, the IPCC… and AlGore. So an absolutely normal rapid warming of a couple of C in about 30 to 40 years is followed by? Oh, that’s right, a whole lot of cold…

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Can you prove it ISN"T happening? Or just share "it might not be happening" tales as well?

The burden of proof is on the positive claimant(s).

 

[Tpoints]

The point of juxtaposing those Time magazine covers is not to say that "they were wrong then, so they must be wrong now." The point is that the same people who were once pushing one claim are now pushing the exact opposite claim - and with just as much (which is to say, just as little) justification. Hence, your "hyperinflation alarmists" counterexample is only valid if the same people were once "hyperdeflation alarmists" - which is not the case.

If you want to listen to the media, go ahead. I won't. I listen to the scientists. But basically you're saying it doesn't matter if people were once right or once wrong, as long as they don't change their views regardless of the reason?

 

[2young2vote]

How about the global warming alarmists spend some money and take freighter ships full of ice from the antarctic ice sheet and give it away or sell it. Considering they think it will all disappear eventually, it seems like it would be a waste to just let all that potential fresh water melt into the ocean and get contaminated with the salt water.

 

[Occam's Banana]

If you want to listen to the media, go ahead. I won't. I listen to the scientists.

Nice try - but I said nothing at all about "listening to the media" one way or the other.

For the record, though, I have as little use for "the media" as I have for "scientific consensus" ... both are products of self-reinforcing "party line" groupthink.

But basically you're saying it doesn't matter if people were once right or once wrong, as long as they don't change their views regardless of the reason?

I am not. I specifically pointed out that the sort of global-cooling alarmism represented by the earlier issue of Time magazine had "just as much (which is to say, just as little) justification" as the diametrically opposed sort of global-warming alarmism represented by the later issue. (Both were motivated not by any desire to usefully & truthfully inform the public but rather to drive circulation & sales.) I then pointed out that your analogy with hyperinflation alarmism was faulty, in that the hyperinflationists were not previously hyperdeflationists (which is what is required in order for your analogy to work).

 

[Smart3]

I absolutely don't acknowledge "climate change", by the way why did y'all stop calling it "Global Warming",were the holes in your theories just to immense to cover up anymore?

Every time I here "climate change denialism" or "carbon emission regulations",I say there goes another Fascist.
There is no way that anybody who wants to regulate "carbon dioxide emissions"AKA exhaling,should be allowed within shooting distance of anybody who considers themselves a libertarian or any part of the freedom movement.

If you want to worship Gaia,then Al Gore or Lisa Jackson or Ken Salazar might be your Political touchstone,not Ron Paul.
Perhaps they have their own websites.

Global warming is a lot like "Big Bang". No one is proposing that there was an explosion, nevertheless the masses understand "Big Bang" or "Global Warming" much easier than "singularity" or "climate change".

 

[Tpoints]

Nice try - but I said nothing at all about "listening to the media" one way or the other.

So then don't ask me why Time magazine says one thing or the other, unless you want to listen to them.

 

[Tpoints]

I then pointed out that your analogy with hyperinflation alarmism was faulty, in that the hyperinflationists were not previously hyperdeflationists (which is what is required in order for your analogy to work).

In that case, as long as I can find scientists (which are most, sadly for you), that have never claimed global cooling was coming, but have always claimed global warming was, then they're at least more credible than Time magazine's sensational covers?

 

[RPtotheWH]

In that case, as long as I can find scientists (which are most, sadly for you), that have never claimed global cooling was coming, but have always claimed global warming was, then they're at least more credible than Time magazine's sensational covers?

First they said we were entering an ice age, then global warming, now its climate change. You can worship and live in fear of your God. Just leave the rest of us alone. Don't worry it is covered under the 1st amendment. No one will take it from you.

You keep mentioning Sandy survivors. First off if you build a house on the water and am shocked that some day it is swept away, you are an idiot and that is what happens to idiots. The ocean has been shaping the face of this planet for billions on years and now because some asshole built a house near it the ocean should stop?

 

[Tpoints]

First they said we were entering an ice age

who is "they"? Scientists?

 

[Tpoints]

You keep mentioning Sandy survivors. First off if you build a house on the water and am shocked that some day it is swept away, you are an idiot and that is what happens to idiots. The ocean has been shaping the face of this planet for billions on years and now because some asshole built a house near it the ocean should stop?

there are harsher ways to say "screw Sandy survivors, they deserve it all", if you wanted to.

 

[Tpoints]

then global warming, now its climate change

this crock has been debunked way too many times, with ZERO RESPONSE, all people have been able to do is ignore it. The term climate change has been used as early as 1939, then a more popular time in 1955, or worse yet, by Hansen in 1988 (Do you know what IPCC stands for?)

Global warming was introduced as a phrase around 1975.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMunulJU7w
While there may be a recent PR factor in what phrase to use, it's obviously "worked" on you, since you think it was meant to fool ignorant people like you (and it was, ironically, you fell for the lie propagated by Inhofe and Luntz).

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

Tell Sandy survivors that they still live better than those half naked cavemen. Their relief efforts must be scam, don't they know they have things available to them at lower cost than that one caveman times?

They live next to an ocean that spits out 8-15 storms a year. Occasionally they'll get hit by a storm. It happened before, it'll happen again. Climate change has nothing to do with it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

So then don't ask me why Time magazine says one thing or the other, unless you want to listen to them.

Do you even keep track of what you are talking about, or do you just throw out whatever comment happens to pop into you skull at any given moment?

You - repeat: YOU - are the one who responded (post #42) to the poster who brought up the Time magazine thing. I replied to YOUR response by pointing out that the analogy you had used was invalid. Nothing more. Nothing less.

If you have such contempt for media coverage of these kinds of things, perhaps you should indulge that contempt by doing something other than basing faulty analogies upon it.

But if you do so anyway, you certainly have no business hypocritically lecturing others about paying attention to such contradictory media stories. You don't get to have it both ways.

In that case, as long as I can find scientists (which are most, sadly for you), that have never claimed global cooling was coming, but have always claimed global warming was, then they're at least more credible than Time magazine's sensational covers?

(Aside: for the sake of clarity, you should not put question marks at the end of sentences that are not in an interrogative form - it makes your statements appear weak, tentative and/or confused.)

Sadly for me? How so? I have said absolutely nothing regarding what "most scientists you can find" have claimed about anything (except to make the general observation that "scientific consensus" is no less prone to the phenomenon of groupthink than any other human endeavor that involves mutually-reinforcing assessments of information).

Further, your use of "sadly for you" indicates that you have made entirely baseless presumptions about how I have assessed the issues of "global warming/cooling" or "climate change" (or whatever it is now being called). This is not surprising. In my experience, those who most loudly bruit about their alliegance to "science & reason" are highly prone to indulging in presumptions about what their interlocutors think or believe, as well as to engaging in ad populum ("scientific consensus") and ad verecundiam ("scientists say it is so") fallacies - all of which you have done in this thread.

 

[KingNothing]

Tell Sandy survivors that they still live better than those half naked cavemen. Their relief efforts must be scam, don't they know they have things available to them at lower cost than that one caveman times?

I'm not sure why you are saying this. Hurricane Sandy happened, true. Why are you just assuming that it happened because of climate change?