No more global warming?

[a completely inoffensive name]

ummm, wat? Have you lost your mind? "I want to make the world better only under this pretense! I don't like this other pretense and I don't want to make the world better if we are going under this pretense, only the pretense I like!"

Guess what, I am not going to clean the dust from my computer if I have to do it to stop my computer from "overheating", I am only going to clean it if I am cleaning to unclog my fan!

EDIT: To sum up. Your reasoning is an excuse not to do anything. You and everyone should be making the world better for the sake of making the world better.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

ummm, wat? Have you lost your mind? "I want to make the world better only under this pretense! I don't like this other pretense and I don't want to make the world better if we are going under this pretense, only the pretense I like!"

No. I don't appreciate being lied to. I don't appreciate the rationalization. If you want to clean up the environment, call it cleaning up the environment. Don't hide it beneath something else or use it as a tool. I don't believe that the ends justify the means.

EDIT: To sum up. Your reasoning is an excuse not to do anything. You and everyone should be making the world better for the sake of making the world better.

Exactly. For the sake of making the world better. Not for global warming.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Exactly. For the sake of making the world better. Not for global warming.

The point of global warming is to make the world better or the worlds climate will be less suitable for our survival. It's the same as doing it for the sake of making the world better but you have that second part to it where if we don't, Philadelphia will be closer to the ocean then ever before.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The point of global warming is to make the world better

Glad to hear it.

It's the same as doing it for the sake of making the world better but you have that second part to it where if we don't, Philadelphia will be closer to the ocean then ever before.

It is not just the what that matters, but also the why. It isn't the same as doing it to make the world better, especially when it is used as an excuse to shovel more free money into third-world countries.

[a completely inoffensive name]

First I wantyed to clear up what I said earlier. I meant:
The whole point of acting on global warming is to make the world better.
Just wanted to clear that up.

It is not just the what that matters, but also the why. It isn't the same as doing it to make the world better, especially when it is used as an excuse to shovel more free money into third-world countries.

See, this is where you need to turn off the Hannity.
A. Third world countries are reluctant to help with action on global warming because it will probably limit their economic growth in terms of industrialization (AKA less factory jobs for their people).
B. In terms of foreign aid, to talk about "shoveling" free money to third world countries is laughable considering the U.S's two biggest receivers of foreign aid are Israel and Egypt.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

See, this is where you need to turn off the Hannity.

I don't generally watch pundits.

A. Third world countries are reluctant to help with action on global warming because it will probably limit their economic growth in terms of industrialization (AKA less factory jobs for their people).

Yes, I know why they say they want it, I just don't agree that we should give them money, or at least not very much. Again, if we gave money to help environmental causes such as deforestation in those nations, I wouldn't object (as long as it was responsibly spent, whereas quite a bit of the money given at Copenhagen to African nations especially will probably end up in Switzerland anyway, if you know what I mean).

B. In terms of foreign aid, to talk about "shoveling" free money to third world countries is laughable considering the U.S's two biggest receivers of foreign aid are Israel and Egypt.

Yes, the US does give a lot of money to Israel and Egypt (and Egypt could probably be considered third world), but it also gives a lot of money to third-world countries. Yes, the international community (I wasn't discussing the US) shovels money to the third world. There isn't really another way to describe it. And yet, I recognize the political uses of foreign aid and don't really object to it as long as the amounts aren't excessive. I don't recall mentioning foreign aid per se, just payments under Copenhagen.

EDIT: And you're using pre-2000 figures for your foreign aid recipients. The top recipient now, or at least using more recent data, is Iraq, with the second being Israel, third Afghanistan, fourth Sudan, fifth Ethiopia.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes, I know why they say they want it, I just don't agree that we should give them money, or at least not very much. Again, if we gave money to help environmental causes such as deforestation in those nations, I wouldn't object (as long as it was responsibly spent, whereas quite a bit of the money given at Copenhagen to African nations especially will probably end up in Switzerland anyway, if you know what I mean).

Please tell me where you are getting this idea that we are going to take billions of dollars and just give it over to third world countries.

Yes, the US does give a lot of money to Israel and Egypt (and Egypt could probably be considered third world), but it also gives a lot of money to third-world countries. Yes, the international community (I wasn't discussing the US) shovels money to the third world. There isn't really another way to describe it. And yet, I recognize the political uses of foreign aid and don't really object to it as long as the amounts aren't excessive. I don't recall mentioning foreign aid per se, just payments under Copenhagen.

EDIT: And you're using pre-2000 figures for your foreign aid recipients. The top recipient now, or at least using more recent data, is Iraq, with the second being Israel, third Afghanistan, fourth Sudan, fifth Ethiopia.

I am looking at the 2004 figures right here:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf
and it is saying yes Iraq is #1. But not counting the wars which is basically forced foreign aid (since the point is that building up Iraq and Afghanistan is more for National Security then charity), Israel is 2nd and Egypt is 3rd. Basically shifting one down due to Iraq. Afghanistan it says is 4th (probably now 2nd shifting Israel and Egypt down another spot), then it is Columbia 5th and Jordan 6th. Ethiopia is down at 10th and Sudan is at 14th.

And when you look at the list in the pdf given, the amount of money actually going to third world countries (i.e. not the middle east which is practically national security spending) then you have:



Colombia 0.57

Liberia 0.21

Peru 0.17

Ethiopia 0.16

Bolivia 0.15

Uganda 0.14

Sudan 0.14

Indonesia 0.13

Kenya 0.13

for a total of 1.8 billion. Wow, so much money being shoveled at about 509 million people. That's about 3 and half dollars per person. Break out them shovels.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Please tell me where you are getting this idea that we are going to take billions of dollars and just give it over to third world countries.

Fifty years of history? Sure, we get some things in return, such as support for wars and access to natural resources, but that's something else. The gist of it is that we would be giving up billions of dollars to give money to African nations to "make up" for something. Which is silly.

I am looking at the 2004 figures right here:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

2005: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/18...7b15004f_o.jpg

and it is saying yes Iraq is #1. But not counting the wars which is basically forced foreign aid (since the point is that building up Iraq and Afghanistan is more for National Security then charity), Israel is 2nd and Egypt is 3rd. Basically shifting one down due to Iraq.

By that logic giving to Israel is also forced foreign aid.

Afghanistan it says is 4th (probably now 2nd shifting Israel and Egypt down another spot), then it is Columbia 5th and Jordan 6th. Ethiopia is down at 10th and Sudan is at 14th.

1. Iraq
2. Israel
3. Afghanistan
4. Sudan
5. Ethiopia
6. Colombia
7. Egypt
8. Jordan
9. Pakistan
10. Serbia

for a total of 1.8 billion. Wow, so much money being shoveled at about 509 million people. That's about 3 and half dollars per person. Break out them shovels.

Did I at any point say I was opposed to a reasonable amount of foreign aid? I said I was opposed to the Copenhagen deals to allocate money to third world nations, not that I was opposed to foreign aid.

[a completely inoffensive name]

2005: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/18...7b15004f_o.jpg

Hmmm, what website did you get that from if you don't mind me asking?

By that logic giving to Israel is also forced foreign aid.

Sure, I think I said that later down.

Did I at any point say I was opposed to a reasonable amount of foreign aid? I said I was opposed to the Copenhagen deals to allocate money to third world nations, not that I was opposed to foreign aid.

The purpose of foreign aid is to help third world nations through allocation of resources that they need for various reasons. The only ones who need resources and money from others are third world nations. I am for charities lending help to others but I don't like when decisions are made that give money to the poor or starving.

[Furunculus]

We have seen the skeptics go through many stages over the last 2 decades.

First they said there was no such thing as climate change. Then they said that there might be minor natural changes. Then they said there might be large natural changes. Then it was large natural changes with some human element. And now we have statements like the above.

equally we have witnessed the IPCC fan-boi's change the branding from Global Warming to Climate Change.

perhaps this results from an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the science on both sides?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I just read SuperFreakonomics and it has a chapter about Global Warming and deals with it in a very neutral way. I can see why it got flak from environmentalists when it even goes so far as to somewhat talk a little smack to those who are putting emotion above calm logic when it comes to the issue and it even cuts down Al Gore a little bit.

[Beskar]

You know, the biggest threat to Europe (Great Britain especially) is the Ice-caps melting as the distruption of the Gulf Stream. If you didn't know, United Kingdom is on a similar level to parts of Alaska. However, the big difference is, the Gulf Stream bring heat to the United Kingdom, which significantly increases the temperature (hence we are far warmer than those parts).

With the ice-caps melting, it could critically distrupt the Gulf Stream, vastly changing the climate of the United Kingdom.

[Furunculus]

what you say is all true, but what matters is the cause............

[Major Robert Dump]

I just read SuperFreakonomics and it has a chapter about Global Warming and deals with it in a very neutral way. I can see why it got flak from environmentalists when it even goes so far as to somewhat talk a little smack to those who are putting emotion above calm logic when it comes to the issue and it even cuts down Al Gore a little bit.

Freakonomics was a good book. Although I don't have an opinion on global warming, the author pointing out that a bunch small, green farming operations cause more pollution and resource waste than a few big farms was spot on. He also went on to show that there is no evidence that smaller operations would break eco-law any less than big operations, because small ops are in it for profit as well and even suffer greater harm and cost from restrictions and having to adhere to regulations.

And the tongue lashing he got from the greenies shows just how immature people can be on when they are faced with overwhelming facts that their model is not perfect.

And I think the change from "global warming" to "climate change" was made because of all the psuedo-intellects who liked to sarcastically point out global warming wasn't happening because of how cold it is on a particular day. While it's a funny take on language vs labels, it's really not an argument because one-half of the earth is always facing away from the sun and it doesn't really prove that global warming does not exist

[Beskar]

Also the fact Winter keeps getting colder.. then there is also the comment "Global Warming is not all bad, it would be blessing to have weather here like it is in Spain".

[Furunculus]

are you reading this out by rote from the realclimate rebuttals page?

[Subotan]

Are you reading your points out by rote from climate realists FAQ's?

The problem appears to be:
1. Disrupted weather patterns cause winters to be colder and more extreme than average. This leads to claims that global warming doesn't exist.
2. In recognition of this, the term "climate change" is adopted. This then leads to claims that we're flip floppers who can't make up our mind.
ad infinitum

[Furunculus]

are you accusing me of being a climate realist, i might have to accept that title?

[Subotan]

http://climaterealists.com/faqs.php?id=197

lol, some title

[Furunculus]

never heard of the webpage before now, but i'm fine with the title in and of itself.

[Fragony]

lol

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...4914-1,00.html

Note the date of the article, read it for a good laugh, and most of all

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID

[Furunculus]

one i quite like for the parallel that will cause knashing teeth here:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archiv...cold_wars.html

[Subotan]

Why is that climate change sceptics, who profess to have such a deep understanding of the climate, cannot tell the difference between the weather and the climate? If we're going to resort to anecdotal evidence, then the fact that it has been so long since we last had a winter like this is at least a suggestion that climate change is happening.

@Fragony
Time Magazine publishes a lot of junk (See their adoration of Chiang Kai-Shek in WWII for the best example). A few scientists proposing some hypotheses in a non-peer reviewed, non-science specific magazine is under no circumstances equivalent with the overwhelming majority of scientists agreeing that man-made climate change is a reality.

[Fragony]

Scored me 30 pages of hate in a different forum, including wishing me cancer, going to let this one pass

vuk you are gonna love it

[Furunculus]

Why is that climate change sceptics, who profess to have such a deep understanding of the climate, cannot tell the difference between the weather and the climate? If we're going to resort to anecdotal evidence, then the fact that it has been so long since we last had a winter like this is at least a suggestion that climate change is happening.

ah, you only got as far as the first sentence, how sweets.

[Vladimir]

Which would you rather have: A cold world with no ozone layer or a hot one with ozone? I think the choice is clear.

[Furunculus]

Which would you rather have: A cold world with no ozone layer or a hot one with ozone? I think the choice is clear.

i didn't realise it was all that simple, thanks.

[Subotan]

ah, you only got as far as the first sentence, how sweets.

No, I did read the rest of it. It just wasn't worth commenting on because it was such rubbish.

Not only have none of Miliband's "experts" (sneer quotes entirely deliberate) been able to predict the recent succession of colder winters; it goes way beyond that. The point is: these experts assured the world, or allowed their more ignorant followers to assure the world, that these cold winters would not happen, and despite all their protestations now about how weather is not climate, well, shouldn't they have born this in mind when saying, only a few short years ago, and have been repeating ever since, that winter snow in places like Britain would be a thing of the past

This is complete BS. Ignoring the fact that the only answer that Ed Milliband could give that would make this guy happy would be "We have all been lying for the past 30 years", What the Met Office actually said was:

"Early indications are that it's looking like temperatures will be near or above average,"[Said a Met Office spokesman]: "But there's still a one in seven chance of a cold winter – with temperatures below average."

That's hardly saying "these experts assured the world...that these cold winters would not happen". He has written terrible science and terrible journalism.

He then goes into a typical rant comparing "warmists" with Marxists, ravings about the mainstream media and why isn't he a real journalist yet etc.

[Furunculus]

He then goes into a typical rant comparing "warmists" with Marxists, ravings about the mainstream media and why isn't he a real journalist yet etc.

i thought you'd like it.

[Ironside]

Very negative NAO (north atlantic oscillation) index this winter, so artic winds is what to expect.