The Climate Change Hoax

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by gonzo, Nov 29, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dave Gudeman
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 135
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 359
    Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dave Gudeman Senior Member

    Good grief. No one is doubting the basic physics of greenhouse gasses, Boston! That's called a straw-man argument --attribute a completely ridiculous position to the opposition so that you can easily knock it down. The issue isn't whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is whether the complex interactions of the atmosphere combined with the relatively small contribution of human activity can lead to an increase in temperatures and whether that increase in temperatures, if it does exist, is even a bad thing.

    The conspiracy only has to back as far as the mid 90s when they started rewriting much of the "settled" climate science to go along with their alarmist theories, starting publishing papers based on secret temperature data unavailable to skeptics, started abusing the peer-review process to shut out dissenting voices, and when the IPCC was formed --a powerful international political organization dedicated to the alarmist premise.

    Up till then, there were controversial positions on the issue, but the controversies were debated in the usual scientific way, by research and argument. After that point, the controversies were resolved by political fiat. It was no longer science.
     
  2. Dave Gudeman
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 135
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 359
    Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dave Gudeman Senior Member

    Agreed. Anyone who begins with that premise is a crank. However, this does not mean that anyone who comes to that conclusion is a crank. Just as, for example, anyone who begins with the premise that war in Iraq was based on a conspiracy and a hoax is a crank. But that is different from someone who has studied the evidence and come to that conclusion based on evidence and reasoning. Right?

    That is, at least in part, because you (1) exaggerate the number of people who would have to be involved, (2) caricature the motivations of people who would be involved, (3) dismiss all evidence, and (4) have an idealized and unrealistic image of how science actually works.

    I don't know how many examples you have seen, but the emails show actual conspiracies (that is, secret agreements between two or more people) to do each of the following (1) suppress dissenting opinions from journals, (2) punish people who allowed dissenting opinions to be published, (3) hide data from skeptics, (4) manipulate presentations to hide facts that would go against their conclusions, (5) manipulate software to get the results they wanted.

    I don't know what else you want. Do you expect to see an email that says, "Well, guys, we all know this global warming thing is a hoax but we sure put one over on those guys, huh?" You won't see that because this is a conspiracy, not a hoax. You really should stop conflating the two.

    Since the climate scientists involved in the conspiracy almost certainly really believe in what what they are preaching, it is not a hoax. No doubt they, apparently like you, think that their dishonesty is justified in the course of saving the world. The problem of course is that this attitude makes it impossible to trust their judgment and reasoning. And since your side has nothing to go on except for their judgment and reasoning, you really have nothing reliable on which to base your belief.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    not accurate at all
    the basics had been building up for hundreds of years and the theory started making numerous accurate predictions way back in the 50s. The number of scientists who believe in the theory has steadily grown until what just might be the largest consensus ever within any science. The IPCC actually conducts no science at all nor does it pay anyone to conduct science, it only collates information through the scientific process and reports back to the UN. Why? because an energy industry PR campaign was attempting to confuse the public concerning the effects of global warming fearing any significant policy changes might effect its bottom line. Not because there was any great debate going on in scientific circles. There is no conspiracy. Its a simple tug of war between the energy industry's PR people who want to continue raking in billions at the expense of public health over the scientific information, plane and simple.


    a great example of this PR campaign is that the so called leaked e mails ( stolen actually and most likely doctored or forged ) were released just in time for the climate summit in an thinly veiled attempt to throw a wrench into the works
    stolen and not likely to be authentic by the way
    in 17 years or was it 11 worth of your e mails Im betting I could find you admitting to a sex change eventually
    Industry will stoop to any low in order to maintain its profit margin
    theft
    forgery
    and blatant lies
    nice bunch of folks that energy industry eh

    I think we should trust them :p
     
  4. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    Gotta' love having to debate someone in complete control! (Sorry Bos, I WASN'T talking about you)
     
  5. Paul No Boat
    Joined: Dec 2009
    Posts: 99
    Likes: 5, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 149
    Location: Indiana

    Paul No Boat Junior Member

    kind of hard to take an alarmist viewpoint on global warming with winter coming on. Try me in July.
     
  6. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Why are you bothering us with this? Why would we care about whether you care or not?
     
  7. wet feet
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 1,391
    Likes: 434, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 124
    Location: East Anglia,England

    wet feet Senior Member

    If the e mails had been doctored or forged,the university could have demolished the entire episode by publishing the original versions.That they have not done so is telling,and it may be telling some of us things we would prefer not to hear.
     
  8. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

  9. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Wrong. Although the justifications for the Iraq War were pretty shaky, the lead-up to the war itself played out in public. No one who spent any amount of time reading newspapers was ever in any doubt that Bush was going to invade Iraq, come hell or high water. Nor is there any comparison between massaging the short-term, available intelligence on Iraq and creating imaginary science over a long period of years.
    Again, no. The number of climatologists who support the idea of human-influenced global warming add up to a very large number. Not to mention that they work for different organizations, in different languages, in different countries all over the world. There's no way anyone is going to retain tight enough control of those people to make them produce false data, fake research, and lie about their conclusions.

    How am I caricaturing the people who would be involved? I'm not the one claiming a bunch of them put their pointy little scientist heads together, and decided they were smart enough to fool the entire world.

    I'm not dismissing all evidence; I'm looking at the conclusions drawn by a large group of people over a long period of time, and saying that cherry-picking, quibbling and nibbling around the edges don't invalidate those conclusions. Particularly when people are throwing shaky "evidence" to the contrary at me, and claiming it as established, settled fact.

    Nor am I the one with the unrealistic image of how science works. I don't believe it has to be carried out by a bunch of supremely logical, unemotional Mr. Spock types, who never let personalities and grudges interfere with their work. Therefore, I'm not devastated when they turn out to be real people instead.
    You're vastly overstating the scope of what's discussed in the emails, as well as the results. There's no evidence that any more of that sort of thing was going on than in any other scientific endeavor, much less that it was the norm in the field.

    I say again, mate: if that's the best the skeptics could come up with out of over 10,000 emails, it's laughable.
    Hold on a minute, while I double check the name of this thread.....yep. Just as I thought: "The Climate Change Hoax.":p

    And it's obviously impossible to pull off a hoax on the scale claimed without a major conspiracy, so I'm not quite sure why you think I'm mistakenly 'conflating' the two....
    See above....:p:p
    Nowhere have I even implied, much less said, that "their dishonesty is justified in the course of saving the world." You folks are getting pretty good at sticking words in other people's mouths. But I guess you've had a lot of practice.

    My side has nothing reliable on which to base my belief? According to some polls, 97% of climatologists beg to differ. It's so bad for you knee-jerk skeptics that Jimbo was crowing a while back, because only two thirds of the meteorologists in one poll agreed with me. Quite frankly, I think those climatologists have a lot more credibility than you and Jimbo do....and they certainly aren't massaging the available data as much.;)
     
  10. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    My last response is a typical example of the interesting fact that it takes a lot more time and words to respond to and refute baseless claims or accusations, than it does to make them. That's why Van Daniken got away with his "Chariots of the Gods" books; each one he wrote would have needed a dozen in response, to refute the sheer number of nonsensical things he said.
     
  11. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    Every time I read one of Troys "rebuttals" I'm reminded of that old line from another fantasy, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".......


    Except the bogus snake oil the wizard was trying to sell didn't involve creating a global entitlement class.
     
  12. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    So apparently you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion, instead of falling back on snide remarks?
     
  13. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member


    Discover Channel (or was it PBS? God I hope not) devoted an entire 2 hour dog and pony documentary to that crackpot Van Daniken just about a month ago. To be fair, it was sandwiched between several "They're out there!" type 'pro-UFO conspiracy' programs. But yeah he's still at it, now saying the Mayan ruins prove the ET's were here and gave us all the tech we have now, never mind that we can prove the provenance of all human invention.:rolleyes:

    (They never said it was true, just entertainment:D )

    On the AGW thing, Troy, you never did say what it would take to falsify your personal belief in the AGW narrative. I've already told you what it would take for me to abandon my skepticism, and I'll reiterate if you wish. BTW, not one item on my 'wish list' has emerged from the 'evidence' so my skepticism remains intact.

    So how about it, Troy? What would it take?

    Jimbo
     
  14. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    To convince me that global warming might not be happening, or at least might not be partially caused by humans? I'd settle for a sizable chunk of climatologists changing their minds, based on new evidence or a better review of the old. Not necessarily a majority; just a significant number.

    To convince me it's a deliberate hoax, and/or a conspiracy? Ain't gonna happen, Jimbo. There's a difference between being open-minded, and letting the wind whistle between my ears.
     
    1 person likes this.

  15. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    Actually I've posted quite a bit of substance, far more than the dogma you have been spouting. You refuse to see the real agenda of these folks and it is not about climate change. Boston for example, he favors the a total ban on the manufacture of plastics among other no-growth nutcases that the AGW movement gives them a platform for. What is being ignored is that the C02 reduction goals of the AGW KoolAid club can not be met, and even if they were, their mitigation factor would not be worth the effort. Oh wait, I mispoke, the goals can be met, but only by turning back the clock of civilization say to 1900. Under current laws and governmental structures that can't happen. The politicians would be lucky to escape with their lives. However, with a new all powerful one world government led by the IPCC and embraced by the left for it's ability to coerce social recontruction, the creation of a socialist utopia would be within the grasp of those who want to penalize the producers of this world and impose a mass mediocrity to assuage whatever guilt drives them. Just take a look at the mass victim mentality so prevalent in the talks at Copenhagen. It's not about climate change, it never was.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.