Ignorance is the one thing this world will never run short of.

and you all drive hybrids and kept your heat off this winter

oldebayer: Ignorance is the one thing this world the US will never run short of.

fixed

Yea, let's not think about the made-up "evidence" for global warming, the rigged peer review process, or models that automatically fudge the data in favor of a predetermined result.



Other then that, Global Warming is a fine religion.

As a journalist, my rule is: I want every side of the story to biatch at me with equal ferocity. And they usually do.

I'm sitting here in -3 weather, with wind chill so I'm really getting a kick....

you know who else was a denier?

Well now that communism has been thoroughly debunked the anti-individualists need something need some other cause on which to hang their hat. And environmentalism is it.

The goals are ambiguous and require more and more government control. And anyone who disagrees is "against the environment" therefore the true believers are justified in their smug hate.

Headline sounds pretty spot-on to me.

Deniers...Alarmists...who do you believe?

Great another global warming thread. How quaint. This is why I will leave fark... same shiat different day.

Next we need a Sarah Palin thread.

Then a bbbbuuuuuttttt Bush/Clinton thread.

/then the day is complete.

Massive global wealth redistribution is NOT a energy production solution.

/drtfa

No, no, no, I'm telling you! Global Warming is a myth, just like American super power status.

FTFA:

The most comprehensive review yet of newspaper climate change articles, performed in 2004 by academics Jules and Maxwell Boykoff, found that 53 percent of them offered roughly an equal balance between the view that humans contribute to global warming and that it's exclusively caused by nature. But the Boykoffs couldn't find a single peer-reviewed scientific study that supported the later view -- out of more than 900.

"We respect the need to represent multiple viewpoints," the Boykoffs wrote, "but when generally agreed-upon scientific findings are presented side-by-side with the viewpoints of a handful of skeptics, readers are poorly served. In this case, it contributed to public confusion and opened the door to political maneuvering."

Climate change deniers either have an agenda or are easily led like moths to a flame.

GOEBBELS' PRINCIPLES OF PROPAGANDA

Based upon Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda by Leonard W. Doob, published in Public Opinion and Propaganda; A Book of Readings edited for The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.

1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.

2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.

a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.

b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.

c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences

3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.

4. Propaganda must affect the enemy's policy and action.

a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence

b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions

c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself

d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity

5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign

6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.

7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.

8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.

9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.

10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy's prestige or lends support to the propagandist's own objective.

11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.

12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.

13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.

a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.

b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment

c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness

14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.

a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses

b. They must be capable of being easily learned

c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations

d. They must be boomerang-proof

15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.

16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.

a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat

b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves

17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.

a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated

b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective

18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.

There does not exist one (not one) scientific organization, group, or fellowship worldwide which takes the denialist stance.

Obviously then the peer review process must be rigged, and all those rich climatologists driving around in their Porsche's are the clinching proof.

Good lord, get your heads out of your asses. Could climate change be incorrect? Of course it could, this is science. Lots of things with wide support eventually turn out to be wrong, particularly in science, that's part of the process.

Currently the best interpretations of available evidence, by people who have spent their professional lives on the topic, supports it.

On the other hand this sad and stupid fixation with conspiracy theories belongs with the UFO believers and their ilk.

One thing for sure that has come from all this bickering about Global Warming/Climate Change. Everyone is now a Scientist. Left, Right, Center, upside down, inside out, all aides of the aisle are now scientist.

Everyone yawning at this story will cause more global warming.

What I don't understand is why critical thinking skills are so absent in 'americans'.

Why is it we can prove that our pollution controls for cars and factories worked really well in reducing pollution, yet, this one remains so unbelievable. Particularly 'Americans' who pop a pill for problems you don't have "Have high cholestrol, take our pill, it MAY reduce your risk of a stroke" "Can't get a rock-hard boner? Take our little pill" "Sneeze? Take this" "Itch? Take this" . Most of us would take any pill the Dr. tells you to, yet you dis the climate scientists.

I think of it as a sort of impending auto accident - ride with me...We are driving down I-80 in Utah - you know, near Bonniville. Three miles ahead, there's a section of wall across the road - concrete, 3' thick. Now, I have to hit it at SOME speed, and maybe I don't know what that minimum is. Question then is this: Do you hit the brakes or do you leave the cruise control on at 80?

To simply: Would you intentionally not brake or would you try to hit the wall at say, 20 rather than 80?

To Wit: We may or may not 'prevent' global warming, because we also know the entire globe goes thru cycles, but if you thought you could reduce the effect?

But hey, eat drink, be merry, it's your kids and grandkids that get to pay the price, if any.

Trustafarian: GOEBBELS' PRINCIPLES OF PROPAGANDA

You had to GOEBBELWIN the conversation right out of the gate didn't you?
Pffft... Thread over.

I got to admit YEARS ago I despised Weaver95 comments on average, now they usually ring true with me.

The link below shows the Meterologist /Astrophysicist that is more educated on the actual topics at hand than us here on Fark.

target="_blank">C02 driven by temperature, not other way around!

Oh you should all know the world has been cooling for 7 years.

/Polluion is bad
//C02 is a life giving gas not pollution.

I hear the Competitive Enterprise Institute has determined that the jury is still out on... science.

Vanakatherock: One thing for sure that has come from all this bickering about Global Warming/Climate Change. Everyone is now a Scientist. Left, Right, Center, upside down, inside out, all aides of the aisle are now scientist.

Which points out that even the crazy denialists accept the power and relevance of the scientific method - they just want it to say something quite different from what it actually does.

Biggest argument I have against claims of GW, or at least of its being a problem that must consume all of our efforts, is the fact that while Cap 'N Trade is a long, long term potential solution (no, I don't really believe it is), no effort has been made to create a quick solution. Many scientists and companies have come up with a variety of solutions, many seemingly off-the-wall like pumping sulfur into the stratosphere, but at least which might have an immediate impact. Until Gore and his minions actually make a point of considering these I continue to call shenanigans.

Its just not real and in 20 years we will all be laugh at the lies. But we will be much poorer.

bmwericus: I think of it as a sort of impending auto accident - ride with me...We are driving down I-80 in Utah - you know, near Bonniville. Three miles ahead, there's a section of wall across the road - concrete, 3' thick. Now, I have to hit it at SOME speed, and maybe I don't know what that minimum is. Question then is this: Do you hit the brakes or do you leave the cruise control on at 80?

You do a lot of meth, don't you?

el wharrrgarblo: Oh God, this again...

Your login name is most apropos.
derp derp derp derp

Marshall Banana: Lots of things with wide support eventually turn out to be wrong, particularly in science, that's part of the process.

Denier. There is a consensus, the debate is over.

/sarc, of course.

Trustafarian: GOEBBELS' PRINCIPLES OF PROPAGANDA

Wow; you cut and pasted an entire segment right off a wiki page. No interpretation, no thought, nothing. What a good drone you are.

A poorly written article. That was hard to read and pretty much didn't deliver anything but the same old crap.

However, it does give the submitter a chance to sit back and watch as the same old charts and graphs come out.

FAIL.

2004?... Do you still think that is the prevalent thought?

I believe that global warming is mans best attempt to explain the changes in climate around the world... but hit has no more merit then the local meteorologists that can't even predict the weather from day to day with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

It's a best educated guess... not a fact.

If you're not a climatologist, believing anything for or against the possibility of global warming makes you a tool that has been manipulated by the media/politics machine.

Fact: if some skeptics waste time criticizing dumb journalists with no scientific background, it's no more relevant than AGW devotees seeking to debunk all arguments by linking every opponent to evil oil corporations. Or for the matter, either praising or berating a clueless guy named Al Gore.

None of things has any bearing on man's impact on the climate. It's a just a distraction for thinking people.

defects: If you're not a climatologist, believing anything for or against the possibility of global warming makes you a tool that has been manipulated by the media/politics machine.

No, you let yourself be manipulated when you lose the inherent ability to write a proper farking sentence.

Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

Can we hurry it along I'm getting tired of waiting for it to warm up?

el wharrrgarblo: Oh God, this again...

1. What are all of you global warming people going to do when everyone gets their new electric car and plugs them in over night?
You don't want nuclear, solar can't handle it, et cetera. And no, a gradual shift to electric won't minimize the amount of electricity (pollution) it takes to juice these cars.

2. Ice samples prove that the climate has changed rapidly before, without the presense of any humans.

3. The Earth has been here for what, 4.5 to 6 billion (6000 for some of you) years, and you think humans have caused it massive damage? Do you think we can stop it from doing anything it wants? We can't even stop hurricanes and snow storms.

4. I won't even get into all off the other science created "sky is falling" BS that we've been told was going to happen over the years. NONE of it has came true, as evidence of us all being here on FARK.

5. I'm not advocating pollution, of course, but let's just relax a bit before we give the politicians, who we know do nothing unless it fills thier pockets and ensures future electability, the ammo to make new laws.

Please excuse the massive amount of grammar and spelling mistakes, I just woke up and IE doesn't have the red squggly lines...

Wow. That could be used as a primer for arguments not to use to try and disprove global warming. Points 2 and 3 are particularly weak.

upright_apes_r_us: Can we hurry it along I'm getting tired of waiting for it to warm up?

The people that beleave al bore do not work outside.

Jon Snow: Weaver95: yup - it's what the climate change folks rely on to get their wacky ideas passed into law.

What is it about this issue that makes you so jaw-droppingly retarded? It's not like radiative transfer or the magnitude of Pleistocene glaciation cycles are "wacky ideas". It's not like cap and trade has never been used to reduce an environmental hazard. It's not like CBAs haven't been done to illustrate the folly of not curbing GHG emissions.

The problem with cap and trade as applied to ALL carbon energy sources is that it is manifestly worse than a flat energy tax.

What we need is more openness and transparency, cap n' trade is designed to obscure the true cost of energy conservation and it doesn't save anything. It just creates a complicated system and puts more power in the hands of a few.

The warmers will hang on to their beliefs no matter what. None of them even read the emails. None of them looked at the bogus artificial correction which has no basis in science and was a simple hack to make the graph look scary.

Educate yourselves warmers. You've no business telling people the science is settled when you don't even understand how you were duped

The real problem is that a person is called a "denier" even if they think the science of global warming may have merit but does not justify immediate vast expansion of government power at taxpayer expense.

AGW probably is happening. That doesn't mean you lefties finally get to put your master plan of slavery into effect. The private sector and scientific community will adapt and mitigate AGW, but will probably not do so until the eleventh hour.

The earth is on fire!
But they keep 'shoopin out the flames.

/show me some graphs!!!
//garrlbbll