Ever notice how cons keep changing their story on global warming?

Question

First they said the earth wasn't even warming. They blamed the increase in temperatures on Rush Limbaugh's "urban heat island" theory.

Then they again denied the earth was warming and pointed to satellite data saying the earth was actually cooling. But then the guy who came up with the data, John Christy, admitted he made several mistakes, said the earth really was warming, and signed an AGU statement in support of MAN MADE global warming.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/18/MNGNV3PH9D1.DTL&type=printable

Then they said ok there is global warming, but there is no scientific consensus that it is MAN-MADE global warming. Then I show them statement after statement from SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS (each representing tens of thousands of scientists) supporting MAN MADE global warming.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkwOyrlFUiJZAZ_HCO273ijsy6IX?qid=20070420055626AAqN4pB

So now their current EXCUSE is ok sure there is a scientific consensus on man made global warming, but consensus is not fact and therefor means nothing.

SURE. A scientific consensus based on OBSERVATION, EXPERIMENATION, MODELING, and PEER REVIEW, means absolutely nothing.

I think you cons have lost it.

jinxmch,

You must be pretty young, because I remember cons making those exact arguments. Google "urban heat island" and "John Christy".

Answer 1

How many fossil fuels do you think are burned to power up your computer so you can ask the same questions OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER???

Answer 2

The story hasn't changed:

The so-called Hockey Stick misrepresents the handle in that cherry picked data is plugged into a model that always spits out a downward sloping handle, that same model fails to pick up the 20th century warming (so why would it pick up the 10th-12th century warming?), and other models using a greater amount of proxy data show the MWP and LIA.

The so-called Hockey Stick also misrepresents the blade in that it reflects surface temperatures which are exacerbated by the heat island effect. The issue isn't that there's a heat island effect ergo there is no real warming, but that surface temperature increase is much greater than low atmospheric temperature increase.

The "consensus" is mostly among scientists and activists hand-picked by the UN. There are scientists who disagree as to whether human-generated CO2 is the proximate cause. The only physical evidence of the causal role of the increased atmospheric CO2 is the cooling stratosphere, a phenomenon that dates back to the early 1990s, while the warming trend dates back to the early 1890s.

The AGW side has changed its story countless times with respect to what weather patterns global warming would produce. We've gone from Boston will have the climate of Atlanta to New England and Europe will actually be colder due to the slowdown of the THC to the weather will just wildly fluctuate on a scale never before seen and back to Boston will have the climate of the Carolinas.

The AGW side has also misrepresented basic facts, such as the climate history. The MWP HAPPENED. The Holocene Maximum HAPPENED. During the peak of both periods it was warmer than today. It was warm though not quite as warm as today for several centuries during Roman times. During all these three periods the tree line in mountain ranges from the Alps to the Sierra Nevada was 300 feet higher than it is today. During two of these periods the Alps were ice free. During the MWP the plains buffalo migrated 500 miles north into Canada, the Norse settled and farmed parts Greenland not arable today with modern farming equipment, England was wine country, and in Germany they grew fig and olive trees. During each of those periods atmospheric CO2 concentration was lower than it is today - meaning the driving factor was something OTHER than atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Does that mean atmospheric CO2 concentration has nothing to do with it? NO. It does mean that there's at least one other factor that is stronger and that how it works is not nearly as settled as the AGW side represents.

Mostly this comes down to the credibility of the side arguing for more government power - if you want that power without a proven factual case, you really need to have some credibility, and these people have none, due to the above items and due to the fact that this is the last of a long line of different - in fact sometimes contradictory - arguments that they've launched as to why they should have this power.

The same people saying "give us this power or the earth will boil over" are the same people who in the 1970s said "give us this power or the earth will freeze over."

Get a life.

Answer 3

The problem there is conflicting data. If the globe is warming, why is the antarctic ice shelf growing? Yet in some parts of the globe they have higher than normal temperatures.

Science ought not need a consensus and that is one great scientific truth taught daily on the Rush show. When scientists are being hurried by politicians to come to a consensus about something, all of our warning lights should be going off. Science gets proven in its own time, we have to be careful not to fabricate it as we have manmade global warming.

Answer 4

nicely it extremely is exciting there are a number of perspectives differing in this. the reality of the subject is the earth is warming. no count if or no longer this could be a organic heat like there has been interior the previous or guy-made in my opinion is quite obtrusive. even with the undeniable fact that there have been 2 simmilar warmings interior the previous, the two have not been everywhere close to the magnitude of this warming. extra over the upward thrust in temperatures suits quite much completely the upward thrust in CO2 ranges. That on my own could point out that there is a correlation between the two, for this reason because of the fact the business revolution, guy has been the reason for the present international warming. and having reported that it extremely isn't any longer that the earth is warming according to say, the greenhouse result's merely increasing and conserving extra warmth.

Answer 5

Many people don't want to face the consequences and admit to being part of the problem - it's the 'psychology of denial'. Criminals do it all the time when arrested - unable to corroborate their story they have to keep changing it, ultimately it weakens their argument.

There's also a strong element of 'selective retention' - believe what backs up your viewpoint without questioning it but dismiss out of hand anything you don't like. The above answer is a good example of this. The link provided is to the 'Oregon Petition', a petition against global warming. The deniers faithfully believe in the petition despite that fact that it's been exposed time and time again as being fraudulent (Google 'Oregon Petition' or 'Frederick Seitz' - the man behind the petition).

The other answers refuting global warming substantiate what I've already said. Despite being unfounded or disproven they're still relied upon as 'evidence'. There is actually far more compelling evidence to use in the case against global warming but to use it requires an understanding of the subject. As you'll know yourself, there's almost no-one with an understanding of GW that denies it.

Another issue is that of 'individual responsibility'. It's much harder for individuals to change their viewpoint than it is for an organisation where each individual is anonymous. Consequently every major oil company in the world and every governemnt in the world now accepts global warming and is able to switch viewpoints without any one individual losing face.

In time people do change their viewpoint. 50 years ago smoking was quite acceptable but in the light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary people began to change their mind (apart from the above mentioned Frederick Seitz who still disputes the effects of smoking, but then he was employed by the tobacco industry and tasked with discrediting the science).

Answer 6

i remeber the liberal New York Times talking about a coming Ice Age in the 1980's...hum....I believe it was scientists that thought the world was flat, and the universe revolved around the earth...humm...are you saying that the earth has stayed at a constant temperature before man arrived....humm..no Ice Age, No tropical rainforest in Utah and Arizona....humm....your scientific prowess does not impress me. Several NASA scientist have come out against the Global Warming theory, but I guess they don't count do they.

Answer 7

The story keeps changing as the FACTS convince more and more people of the truth. Note that the story on WMDs in Iraq kept changing until the Iraq conflict became solely a war on terror which was not a problem in Iraq until we made it one.

Answer 8

Actually, you appear to have lost it. If you are so convinced in the theory, then do something about it instead of insulting those who do not agree with you. You can start an organization to fight for your cause, or you can run for office and if you are elected, then you can make all the changes you want.

Sitting in front of your computer throwing insults isn't helping your cause.

Answer 9

The GWD-Global Warming Deniers- are too selfish and ignorant to accept the scientific proof.

Answer 10

Did you look up "global cooling" on wikipedia?

Liberals have changed their story more times than anyone can count.

There is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE.