Another Global Warming Post

[UrAteUp]

I was going to bump Phils' post but it didn't seem like this srticle fit his post. I found this article on Fox Nws this morning and thought it might make for some interesting discussion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

Pro or Con, do you think this idea would settle this debate? Why or why not?

[Dave B]

There is a local radio show here in the afternoon and everyday at 4:30 they give the weather report and the record highs and lows of the day. No matter what they are, the host says "more proof of global warming"-sarcastically.

The weather guy is Dave Dahl, he does TV and radio here in Mpls. He is also a poker player and plays at Canterbury at least once a month or so.

So I was about to get up on Tuesday and he sits down next to me fresh off the 10pm news. Well, I cant turn down TV weatherman money, do I stick it out for a while longer.

I say to him "more proof of global warming". He replies, "THE GREATEST fraud ever perpetuated on mankind".

Later, I beat him out of a pot after going 4 bets on the flop w/ just top pair K kicker and told him that he should stick to the weather. Anyother guy chimed in, "yeah, at the poker table you have to be right more than 1/2 the time to get paid."

[Phil14312]

he founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

• Click here to watch video of Coleman on "Fox and Friends."

Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles.
Related

*
Stories
o NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001, but Still Warmer Than Usual
o Study: Global Warming May Weaken Transport Infrastructure
o Green Groups Sue Government Over Polar Bears
o Southern Baptist Leaders Issue Surprising Call to Fight Climate Change
o Two Dozen World Cities Will Go Dark for Global Warming Awareness
Video
o Climate Debate

"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing."

• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.

Coleman spoke to FOXNews.com after his appearance last week at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York, where he called global warming a scam and lambasted the cable network he helped create.

"You want to tune to the Weather Channel and have them tell you how to live your life?" Coleman said. "Come on."

He laments the network's decision to focus on traffic and lifestyle reports over the weather.

"It's very clear that they don't realize that weather is the most significant impact in every human being's daily life, and good, solid, up-to-the-minute weather information and meaningful forecasts presented in such a way that people find them understandable and enjoyable can have a significant impact," he said.

"The more you cloud that up with other baloney, the weaker the product," he said.

Coleman has long been a skeptic of global warming, and carbon dioxide is the linchpin to his argument.

"Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said.

The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said.

"That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound," Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

"My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."

LOL. If you know anything about atmospheric science or the state of the global warming "debate," you would laugh at this idea too. NO ONE, and I repeat NO ONE argues against the greenhouse gas theory.

God not even Bush is denying global warming anymore. The opponents have accepted global warming but now the real debate is about regional effects of a global change. Some effects are well studied (i.e. loss of snowpack in CA and the subsequent earlier melting and less runoff available in the critical dry times of the year). Others, are not.

I for one actually think a supreme court case would be easily won by global warming, just as how the evolution vs. intelligent design played out in the courts.

Cue Dave B with some random uninformed piece of news that says global warming is false.

[Phil14312]

There is a local radio show here in the afternoon and everyday at 4:30 they give the weather report and the record highs and lows of the day. No matter what they are, the host says "more proof of global warming"-sarcastically.

The weather guy is Dave Dahl, he does TV and radio here in Mpls. He is also a poker player and plays at Canterbury at least once a month or so.

So I was about to get up on Tuesday and he sits down next to me fresh off the 10pm news. Well, I cant turn down TV weatherman money, do I stick it out for a while longer.

I say to him "more proof of global warming". He replies, "THE GREATEST fraud ever perpetuated on mankind".

Later, I beat him out of a pot after going 4 bets on the flop w/ just top pair K kicker and told him that he should stick to the weather. Anyother guy chimed in, "yeah, at the poker table you have to be right more than 1/2 the time to get paid."

Individual days or even years do not have any merit over global warming. Just like if you flip a coin twice and its heads both times - you probably don't have a weighted coin. Or, just like losing a hand or session in poker doesn't make you a losing player, when you significant evidence that you are in fact, the opposite.

[Dave B]

Cue Dave B with some random uninformed piece of news that says global warming is false.

No need. I think it is becoming clear to anyone with an open mind that man made global warming is a hoax.

[Felting]

Cue Dave B with some random uninformed piece of news that says global warming is false.

No need. I think it is becoming clear to anyone with an open mind that man made global warming is a hoax.

Would that be the same open minded people that passed the UIGEA?

Or the same open minded people that took us to war in Iraq to find WMD's? Or was that to get rid of sadam? No wait, it was to get El Queda in Iraq.

Or the same open minded people that took us from a budget surplus to record deficits?

Or the same open minded people that have ruined the economy?(How's that $4 a gallon gas working out for u?)

[Phil14312]

If Bush is on "our side," I don't think the world is coming around to yours. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 611-2.html

I really hope if I ever meet you, you can bust up laughing in my face that you've had us all fooled.

[Dave B]

Would that be the same open minded people that passed the UIGEA?

You mean the bill that had strong support from both Dems and Republicans?




Or the same open minded people that took us to war in Iraq to find WMD's? Or was that to get rid of sadam? No wait, it was to get El Queda in Iraq.

You mean the UN?





Or the same open minded people that took us from a budget surplus to record deficits?

You mean the Clinton.com bubble and subsequent recession followed by 7 years of economic growth under Bush?





Or the same open minded people that have ruined the economy?(How's that $4 a gallon gas working out for u?)

You mean 7 years of GDP growth, personal income growth and sub 5% unemployment? The economy is great if you dont listen to the newspapers and fear mongering. Since when are recessions (which we havent yet had, simply a slow down) NOT a part of the normal business cycle????
We would have $2 gas if the hippies and commies let us drill in ANWAR, off the US coastlines, let new refineries be built or let a nuclear facility come online for the 1st time in over 30 years.
You cant save the Pacific Northwestern Spotted Titmouse and have low cost energy at the same time.
BTW, I am OK w/ not drilling our oil. Let the Arabs, Mexicans and Canadians drill up their oil at $20-$110/barrel. We will drill up ours at $500-$1000.



Thanks for playing.

[Felting]

You mean the bill that had strong support from both Dems and Republicans?

I'm not a dem remember? They are too conservative

You mean the UN?

Just because someone tells you its okay to poke a hornet nest with a stick does that make it a good idea?

You mean the Clinton.com bubble and subsequent recession followed by 7 years of economic growth under Bush?

If your idea of good economic growth is the top 2% getting richer, a shrinking middle class, record numbers of working poor under the poverty level, record numbers of people without health insurance, and more and more high paying jobs being shipped out of the country then sure.

We would have $2 gas if the hippies and commies let us drill in ANWAR, off the US coastlines, let new refineries be built or let a nuclear facility come online for the 1st time in over 30 years.

Yep that 6 month supply in ANWAR should do the trick. Maybe if Neocon's hadn't destablized the oil market by invading Iraq and constantly sabre rattling toward Iran and venezuela oil wouldn't be $105 a barrel.

You cant save the Pacific Northwestern Spotted Titmouse and have low cost energy at the same time

We agree on something

BTW, I am OK w/ not drilling our oil. Let the Arabs, Mexicans and Canadians drill up their oil at $20-$110/barrel. We will drill up ours at $500-$1000.

Damn, we agreed twice

Thanks for playing.

Anytime, I like a soft game

[tame_deuces]

Doesn't really matter. Now all the money are being pumped to china for future regulatory actions that is never going to happen on a scale big enough to make back what more emissions there will be.

But I guess it can clear the conscience, if not the atmosphere.

Not that it really matters, fossils fuels comes to an end soon enough, and global warming doesn't have to enter that equation.

As for greenhouse gas theory, not many objects too it, but the prognosis they made back in the 70s when they still bought into 'the balance of nature' crap was completely off. And the same for the 80s, and pretty much the 90s. Now they're spot on, but hindsight helps. Of course you can't say because then you are a dirty conservative who chops down rainforest with a chainsaw with alligator teeth.

And for what it matters - nuclear power was always the way to go, but was stopped by the same halfassed politics that is being led today. As an interim solution it will probably be a necessity now anyway.

But atleast protecting the environment makes a lot of people a lot of money in cushion jobs, so to hell with trying to make a solution, right?

[zinn0]

to the nations of Europe, which I will be visiting for the first time as President.

Funny, yet alarming.

[snoogins47]

I don't even understand why the debate is over the extent to which humans/carbon/f*ck is contributing to climate change.

I have, based on whatever very limited bits of evidence I've come across, my own opinions on this, but I'm too woefully ignorant to even begin to start fudging ratios as far as how much different factors (including fossil fuels, cow farts, dumb luck) are affecting things. I, for one, cannot wait for the paradigm shift (omg, buzzword alert) we're going to experience when people start realizing that within a relatively short period of time, fighting climate change for the sake of our species may turn entirely from a tree-hugging hippie movement, to what is nearly the antithesis.. a sort of "f*ck the planet, we gots to survive!" sort of thing. I really don't care if we f*cked up the environment, or the environment is going to f*ck us up, and I don't think anybody else should either. It might change our strategies as far as reducing emissions/whatnot, but does that really change anything in the big picture?

To the dirty Norwegian re: Nuclear Power... here in the states, nuclear power = Prypriat = lol communists. God forbid we do anything the russkis tried and screwed up half a century ago! I don't want a damned nuclear power plant pounding me with a tad bit more than standard background radiation!!11 Now excuse me while I go get extraneous x-rays and deeply inhale some of the radon that I ignore in my house because it saved me $4k on the purchasing price.

You mean the bill that had strong support from both Dems and Republicans?

Yeah, pure voting records are a great indicator of partisan support in the case of a bill that is primarily focused on Port Security and had basically entirely unrelated internet gambling sections inserted in the midnight hour. Like it or not, love them or hate them, to even pretend to claim that the Republican party wasn't very, very, very, very much more behind this lovely bit of legislation is downright insane. The "fun" part inserted into the port security bill was mostly taken from a house bill that was written up by a Republican, cosponsored by 32 Republicans and 3 Democrats, strongly supported on the floor by prominent Republicans (Frist, anyone?), outwardly lambasted by many of the Democrats who allegedly "strongly supported" it, and now has seen a bill introduced, with a goal of overturning it, introduced by.. shocker.. a Dem?

Or the same open minded people that took us to war in Iraq to find WMD's? Or was that to get rid of sadam? No wait, it was to get El Queda in Iraq.

You mean the UN?

Wait, you really said that? You really, really, truly said that?

[xDiamond_CutteRx]

What snoogs said...

+1

[Jernej Zorec]

Dave is right in a way tho
the global warming shit has gone a bit too much overboard,

not only is the sample size we have too small to make any conclusions
on how the temparatures are doing (its like playing 10 hands and basing how good u are at poker) but there is also a lot of false data and miss-information
sure a lot of peopl esay there is no global warming coz it hurts their buisness, but lets face it a lot of people who say there is global warming also have strong financial interests in it.

we have been bombarded with shit from both sides
Yes emissions should be kept to a level, not to prevent that tiny temp. raise but just for the sake of keeping air and waters less polluted( i also said that before on this forum)

BTW Hydrogen Car is one of biggest bullshit there is

plase do read this article titled
The Hydrogen Economy
Savior of Humanity or an Economic Black Hole?

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-03-12.html

[supafrey]

People aren't the cause of global warming!
sustainability is too expensive!
energy demands require environmental destruction!
everyone talks about the problem in purely american standards!
barrels of oil should only be traded in US currency!
venezueueuela is led by a crazy!