Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

"Global warming on trial" (8 posts)

  1. "Global warming on trial"

    Global warming on trial
    Sixth-graders decide that humans aren’t to blame

    By Ben Ready
    The Daily Times-Call

    LONGMONT — Humans don’t cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.

    “They’re pretty young for this kind of thinking. They did great,” paleontology teacher Ken Poppe said after the 40-minute “trial” in his classroom.

    With Earth’s warming accepted as a tenet, pre-teen “lawyers” and “scientists” debated whether humans have caused it.

    Continued: http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=1535...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. Lock-down, delete and ban the heresy guys, I’m waiting.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. truthmover
    Administrator

    I just don't get it.

    Dem,

    Dem, if you think we are going to delete a post, why would you post it? Seems like trolling. Why would you do that? With so many things to talk about, that we see you talking about at 911Blogger, you keep returning here just to post about this one subject. If you were really trying to change our minds, you would be simply pointing us to more sources of data. Instead, you simply keep restating your hypothesis using stories and documents that we have found to be far less than convincing.

    Dem, I honestly don't want to get the impression that you are trying to get kicked off so that you can have a grudge against us. You did recommend that we get an ad up at 911Blogger. A great suggestion. Is your support contingent upon us dropping our environmental section all together. Its not going to happen, and you aren't helping us make it better by presenting us with sources that we would never reference. In fact, you are giving us lots of links that would help us get this up at the disinfo page.

    Dem, for all your blustery independence, and cut to the chase attitude, this interest of yours seems exactly as suspicious or ego driven as Nico's pushing TV Fakery. Whether or not your argument has merit, you haven't been able to make it well. And when I look this stuff up on my own, I find that nearly everyone supportive of your position, has industrial bias. They used to work for Shell Oil. Or they also wrote a book about eco-terrorists.

    It is you who seems to be unconsciously shilling for the man in this case. (Don't like the sound of that either, do you?) It is your hypothesis that was likely something handed down from above with the specific intent of having the impact that it has had on you and those who you push this at. Could it be that you are the one who got unconsciously caught by the cointel op. Your position facilitates division that specifically undermines the premise of a Truth Movement.

    TruthMove has made the claim that most progressive organizations have a common commitment to exposing the public to valid facts. The anti-war, election reform, environmental, and 9/11 truth movements all strive to promote public education on under-reported information. For this reason, we think that a general movement for truth is implied. And so we want to work with these groups, in order to spread this message of unity. Your hypothesis and approach prevent your finding common cause with those in the environmental movement, and this is the exact reason why your position seems programmatic, and is not appropriate here.

    I'm giving this response a lot more than just erasing it, so I hope you will not only read it, but try to understand where we are coming from. We face environmental and humanitarian disaster, whatever the cause. And saying that human consumption tied to the growth in population isn't leading us to an environmental disaster is simply naive. I could agree with you, but would that end this debate? Sure, all global warming is caused by the sun. That wouldn't change the TruthMove strategy one bit. But while I'm quite certain that your data has some merit, you seem impervious to mountains of data, that simply could not all be due to a worldwide conspiracy to misguide the public. And I certainly acknowledge academic bias.

    Ultimately, we are not going to have this debate endlessly floating at the top of our forum. As I said when I locked your previous thread, unless your approach changes, this debate is over, at least in here.

    And once again, I can only hope that you would like to join the discussion here about things we do agree upon.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. I'm just trying to help people who been duped by this, I'm not trying to be hostile. Low blows like trying to compare me to Nico make your argument look very desperate. That also goes for the blanket unthinking statements about anything contrary to the "man-made global warming" theory being "from the oil industry". I don’t like the oil industry either, but if there is anything originating form them in regards to this I would submit that it's more likely to be in aid of creating false credence for the "man-made global warming" theory.

    I'm sorry if I haven’t presented this well enough for you, but you've also got a belief system that you’re trying to protect so there's an inherent bias on your part also.

    Lets kick the facts, from what I've read CO2 does not drive climate change period, it follows it. So when the earth heats up things like the sea release massive amounts of CO2, so the relationship is one of reaction. Al Gore's film makes out that when there's more CO2 the earth gets warmer, with CO2 being the driver. This is totally incorrect but as far as I can tell you guys believe that? If I'm wrong please correct me.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. truthmover
    Administrator

    First of all, thanks for a response that seems a little more discursive and less dogmatic. I might actually have a question or two now that we're talking.

    <I'm just trying to help people who been duped by this.>

    This is the part we can agree on. A good place to start. I'm just as concerned as you about the intentions of industry propaganda, whether is supports my position or not. No rejection of this data was implied.

    <I'm not trying to be hostile. Low blows like trying to compare me to Nico make your argument look very desperate. That also goes for the blanket unthinking statements about anything contrary to the "man-made global warming" theory being "from the oil industry".>

    You need to work on your turnabout. Your behavior seemed Nicoish to me. Just trying to get your attention really. You know perfectly well that I referenced him for affect. No one could really be compared to Nico anyway. He's an entity unto himself. But it did seem like you were spamming us about this without concern for our position or response. Now, if you really stand behind this, and really want us to look seriously at your data, we are not trying to simply ignore you because we disagree. We really are trying to get it right, and your concern is basically on topic, if not very credible to us at this point.

    And I didn't directly imply that all of your data was from industry sources. I said that in looking into this myself, that I had found most people advancing this theory to have obvious bias. Your position can be utilized by 'the man' just as ours can.

    <I don’t like the oil industry either, but if there is anything originating form them in regards to this I would submit that it's more likely to be in aid of creating false credence for the "man-made global warming" theory.>

    Once again, we acknowledge this possibility.

    <I'm sorry if I haven’t presented this well enough for you, but you've also got a belief system that you’re trying to protect so there's an inherent bias on your part also.>

    We do have a belief system, and we are trying to promote it. But we are very specifically not trying to protect it. We are as interested as any scientist in finding data that refutes our position. That's the essence of the scientific method, in fact. Seeking out everything that disproves your hypothesis.

    <Lets kick the facts, from what I've read CO2 does not drive climate change period, it follows it. So when the earth heats up things like the sea release massive amounts of CO2, so the relationship is one of reaction. Al Gore's film makes out that when there's more CO2 the earth gets warmer, with CO2 being the driver. This is totally incorrect but as far as I can tell you guys believe that? If I'm wrong please correct me.>

    If that last paragraph had been your first post about all of this, the conversation would have gone very differently. Here's my personal opinion on the matter.

    I think that we have little ability to predict what is about to happen to our environment. We see a number of factors operating as a system, but it is far too complex for a world full of our fastest computers to comprehend. Trying to say that the course of our environment will be determined by any one factor is overly simple. We don't, for instance, understand the CO2/temp relationship as well as some would imply.

    It wouldn't surprise me to find that Al Gore's movie had some spin, or that some of the science upon which it is based would come to be supplanted by new data and conclusions. I am well aware of the manner in which the environmental movement has been infiltrated as much as any progressive movement to the extent that there are many people and organizations that intend to distract the public from the most pressing issues.

    But others are genuinely invested in getting their fact straight, as much as you for instance, and they are all telling us that we face a global humanitarian disaster, regardless of the exact cause. I'm more concerned about the likelihood of that disaster, than trying to do the impossible, and figure out exactly what form the disaster will take.

    Finally, just because data has been used to manipulate people doesn't mean that the data is flawed. We've looked at a lot of data, and drawn our own conclusion shared by many, that we face an emergency. You're not arguing that we have no impact on the environment, are you? That would be to suggest that concerns about water and air quality, and species diversity are pointless. As though we hadn't poisoned the rivers. But we have. We are poisoning the world. And in fact, if we kill off enough plankton, the atmosphere, and the food chain going all the way up to us, could drastically change in a very short time.

    So I guess I am still left wondering exactly what it is that you are arguing. What do you want us to do? What specific information or strategy do you think we need to modify? And once again, if its remove the environment section, you might as well not waste your time.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. Thanks for the response Jules, and I'm not dogmatic about this just highly sceptical if anything. Here's some information on CO2 following temperature and it's from a source that highlights what I take issue with the most;

    What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004...

    “From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a [ice age] termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antartica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to further CO2 release.”

    (There’s more, but the above sentences are the meat of the argument).

    Here’s the problem, if we use his argument, the world’s temperature should have continued to spiral up and up and up, which it did not do. In other words, following his last sentence: “This leads to further CO2 release” should have been added “which leads to more warming, which leads to further CO2 release, which leads to more warming, which leads to…”

    You see?

    The climate is way more complicated than that, but this transfixion on the role of CO2 (which is one of the smaller greenhouse gases, water vapour making up the vast majority) and "cutting emissions or the world's going to end" is like tunnel vision. It takes a well-meaning intention (helping the environment) and marries it to a idea with a tendency to bias.

    Here's another article that probably has a bit of bias in it also, but it echoes my sentiments on this issue for a good part;

    Solar and Celestial Causes of Global Warming
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html

    ^ Please read that. Also I think your Environment section is a brilliant idea, no way am I suggesting you scrap that. What’s I’d suggest is that you qualify it, i.e. with the “Peak Oil” section include Greg Palest’s arguments and reports as a counterweight. And for Global Warming include the Solar and Cosmic Ray hypotheses/data. At the very least do it to cover your asses and demonstrate that truth pursuing Scientific/non-bias stance.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. truthmod
    Administrator

    ahhh...well....

    ok this is a much more reasonable conversation. i agree that it might be prudent for us to include some of the legitimate, honest, and informed skepticism on those pages. but i expect we will have severe differences about what qualifies as such.

    since you brought up palast...

    it seems he is simply confused, misled, ignorant, or deceptive on the issue of peak oil. his writing here is not cold and scientific but rather biased and frankly, laced with propagandistic tones and techniques.

    where the hell does he get his evidence that hubbert's theory was a deception for the benefit of the oil industry. as far as i understand the theory was and is scoffed at by the entire establishment. oh but that must be a huge conspiracy to make it seem like peak oil is legitimate and subversive.

    http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2295/No_Peaking_The_Hub...

    Palast seems to misunderstand the nature of the argument. Hubbert didn’t predict that oil supplies would run out. The “peak” in peak oil is the point at which the energy expended in extracting the oil exceeds the energy obtained.

    Another sublimely clueless aspect to this piece is the fact that OPEC has never ceased shutting up about how much oil they have on hand, and how there’s no reason for prices to be as high as they are. US oil companies similarly make claims about how there’s no reason at all to promote energy efficiency.

    Why is the editor of Harper’s considered sufficient sourcing on this article? Just because Lapham’s ancestors founded Exxon doesn’t grant him intimate knowledge of geology. Would we also take this man’s word at face value if he was denying global warming?

    Oh well, if nothing else this will guarantee Palast another appearance on Alex Jones.
    Shogo @ 05/23/06 11:18:40

    “Oh well, if nothing else this will guarantee Palast another appearance on Alex Jones.”

    lol @ shogo!
    mikemayberry @ 05/23/06 11:26:18

    What a surprisingly ill-informed and poorly reasoned article by Greg Palast. This article amounts to disinformation—and easily exposed disinformation at that.

    I’m not a Peak Oil doomer, but I’m familiar with the arguments, and Palast significantly misrepresents some key points here.

    1. Hubbert predicted we’d run out of oil by 2006. False. Even the graphic that Palast links to refutes this (check it out—it goes on until 2200!). Hubbert knew there would be future discovery, and that was obviously factored into his projections.

    2. Hubbert’s prediction of U.S. peak missed the mark. False. Hubbert was dead-on in his projecton of U.S. production peak. Palast seems not to understand the difference between discovery and production. (Does Palast think U.S. Peak Oil hasn’t happened yet? It seems possible—and, if so, quite embarrassing.)

    3. Hubbert’s projected global peak missed the mark. Technically true, substantially false. If you factor in the decline in production due to the 1970s oil shocks, Hubbert was dead-on if we are peaking now. And Saudi Arabia’s behavior indicates it is indeed at peak right now. (Why does Palast attack the straw man of internet nutcases instead of expert Matthew R. Simmons’ book “Twilight in the Desert”?)

    4. Known reserves represent the most important data point. This is such a basic mistake it’s embarrassing. What matters is how many barrels of oil can be pumped daily, and how much energy it takes to pump them. There’s oil we know about that will take twice as much energy to obtain it as it would provide for us. This oil is useless.

    What’s telling in this article is that Palast does not address the tough questions. One of them would be:

    -<>What does Palast believe the highest barrels per day global production level will be? That is Peak Oil, and if you can’t name a rough figure here, you aren’t ready to criticize those who do. So, Palast-name a figure

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. truthmod
    Administrator

    heinberg response

    http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/171

    An Open Letter to Greg Palast on Peak Oil

    Dear Greg,

    Congratulations on your new book, Armed Madhouse. As with your previous work, I admire your dedication in exposing the machinations of government and corporate miscreants.

    However, this time around you’ve also taken a potshot at a target that I happen to know a good deal about and have been closely involved with for a few years—the efforts by a growing number of analysts to forecast the arrival, and prepare the world for the consequences, of Peak Oil. In this instance I think your negative comments about Peak Oil and those of us who study it are not well informed. Ordinarily I wouldn’t respond to an ill-considered statement by an otherwise admirable author; but unfortunately you go on for several pages on this theme, and I’ve started receiving e-mails from folks who are troubled by what you said. In my many years of fighting to protect our planet from environmental destruction, I have learned how important it is to make sure that our supporters have the most accurate information possible. Time and again, I have seen our opponents seize on internal disagreements as wedges in their drive to weaken and damage the credibility of the environmental movement. I feel the responsibility to help sort out the factual issues in this instance particularly strongly because you have worked so hard to earn your reputation as a truth-teller in these perilous times.>

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.