Topic: Alex Jones Vs. Rothschild: The Best Global Warming Debate in History (Read 2350 times)

If you're interested in what's really going on with the planet, here the best explanation I could find:
"Kryon - Changes on Earth"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4aT7LCfDcg

You'll find a small surprise (a metaphor) if you're patient enough to make it through the first half of the video.
Just my 2 bits.

Demonstrate it to yourself by simply digging a little deeper with regard to the authors of material denying Global Warming. This is not difficult to do. If your ideology insists that Global Warming isn't happening, then you won't bother digging deeper. I can't help you if you don't want to learn.

That is why fighting any simplifying demagogue is worthwhile.
Just prove wrong to get a better result at the long run.

And there is the problem.  Large complex systems like the climate or the human body have been studied for some time.  The simple "X action causes Y reaction" stuff is pretty well understood.  But the stuff where you have massive numbers of simultaneous actions and reactions are not understood.

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/02/features/trials-and-errors?page=all

Since the science probably can't provide an answer, all sides yell out their own preferences.  Not all the things people suggest are scientifically proven but the science will always be unclear enough that you can't get agreement.

uhm to whom?

Demonstrating might be quite impressive, ... but to whom?

True. But when you can demonstrate quite clearly that those who argue against Global Warming constantly engage in falsifying data, typically have limited scientific credentials, are often associated with also being paid by the tobacco industry to claim cigarette smoke does not cause cancer, and are funded by Exxon/Mobil, then that should raise some flags.

- Falsifying data: Oregon Petition
- Limited scientific credentials: look up the credentials of the editors of such rags as Environment and Climate News.
- Limited scientific credentials: Google the credentials of the signers of the Oregon Petition
- Tobacco industry ties: learn about the background and history of Frederick Seitz
- Funded by Big Oil: look where the funding comes from regarding every report against Global Warming

Challenge #1: Find credible reports calling into question Global Warming that does not meet many if not all of the above that equal even five percent of the scientific studies saying Global Warming is real.

Challenge #2: State a classic Global Warming denier argument, and it will be explained why it is false or misleading. A classic example is the statement "Icebergs have already displaced the water, so even if they do melt, the sea level will not rise, and thus rising temperatures will not cause a sea level rise."

So get out of this sheep vs wolf, forget any ideology, ...
False data or wrong conclusions, whatsoever ideologies are just meant to distract.
The bane is to tell ideologies apart from the real thing.

The regular scientific approach runs like this: Falsify it!
Doesn´t work for the real thing or just improves it.
Plus ideologists usually do the rocket when confronted to such an approach.

Except both sides believe the other's data is falsified.  So that doesn't get you anywhere either.

Arguing about the arguments is a distraction. If you aren't examining the data you're doing worse than wasting your time.

My tl;dr is: sheep vs wolf
The sheep herd blaahme for murder, whilst wolf pack howls in starvation.

These Operas on TV aren´t meant to help at all, made to make money and remind me of the roman empire: panem et circenses
But still, whenever namecalling starts, ideologies pop to the surface. I consider that good! Not those names, getting ideologies pinpointed. So don´t worry or care too much about the names. Look underneath the surface ...
- Are there arguments?
- Do you understand it? (In the sense of disproving doesn´t fail just because you lack the details.)
Finally understand it does not bring aggree to it along.
Do the assumptions those arguments are based on collide with your attidudes?
If yes, rather attack the assumptions than the arguments, plus avoid attacking a person, you might easily just kill a messenger.

p.s.
Getting exited is either juvenial enthusiasm, so don´t blame for that. It could also be an underhand approach to disguise a lack of persuasiveness, beware of that. Once having that sorted you can decide to pick up war against demagogues or enjoy helping to get complexity sorted.

So that's a yes... we've devolved into name calling.

As long as there are buffoons who think the principles of greed and exploitation via an unconstrained free market are more important than the state of the Earth, then yeah, there will be a perpetual argument.

This thread appears to be a re-enactment, then?

Yes - I understand your general lack and depth of understanding.

I see you trying to understand. Jolly good approach, carry on!

There's a lot of contradictory and opinionated views in there, some not true, and there are some conclusions in there that don't really follow. Let me see if I can summarize your view:

Kettonmonster's view in a nutshell: Science isn't applying the proper methods to properly predict Global Warming even though Global Warming is probably happening, so we shouldn't try and find alternatives to burning oil and coal even though it's really stupid to burn oil and coal. Weather isn't predictable two weeks out, and that must mean we can't do science.

Sorry just looked into your arguments considered them void, so opposed to see wether you can bring along something profound.

What I have learned about global warming is:
- Math is abused.
Take a look into what they do and be amazed. They tune the models until able to perdict the past. Then of cause this will work for the future ...
Ok those scientist don´t claim to have a valid proof. But as soon as its out to Television everything is so pretty obvious ... but still rubbish.

So I just love to laugh about "audience's ignorance".

No doubt burning oil and coal is second most stupid idea ever, right behind nuclear power blasts (weapons are out of my consideration here).
But there is no point in putting wrong arguments for a right cause. People like me show up pick them, prove them wrong and thus cancel your reasonable goals by your own faulty arguments. Don´t let this happen in the wild out there (btw. it already happend).

You have probably heard of the waldsterben. In my youth I learned, those trees I nowadays chop for firewood died long years ago.
They came up with wrong arguments, concluded the wrong medicine, made things even worse. But the german forest is still prospering.
Same thing for ozone depletion. It happens around south pole, so its cause has to be defeated on the northern half of the planet. 
And now ... global warming. you can´t predict the weather for the next two weeks, but climate for centuries?!? That is ignorance at its best.

The problem I see is the sand in whomsoever eyes, could be you do so as well. But rubbing does not help. Stop the guy throwing that sand.
Global warming might be a very important issue. But you will never solve it. So take care for what you can handle and stick to that.
Do never ever pick up arguments you can´t validate, just because they are stamped by some important whatsowever.
 ... just my 5 satoshis.

Kettonmonster,

Here are some things for you to study:

- The Oregon Petition
- Frederick Seitz
- The background of those running the Heartland Institute
- Brownlash, as coined by Paul Ehrlich
- Ice albedo feedback loops
- Heat retention of ocean water
- Ice age sea levels
- Species extinction rates
- Milankovitch cycles
- Steady state economics
- Methods of determining the accuracy of historically recorded temperatures
- Correlation of independent data: ice cores, atmospheric temperature readings, sea level, satellite photos, etc.

Kettonmonster,

If you have some logical conclusions to draw based upon observations and data, please share. If you wish to provide examples which would allow one to draw a conclusion counter to the things I've said, then do so.

Is this approved by your profound experience?