Stantis: End Of Debate

36 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  LifeAquatic on December 16 at 8:57 a.m.

  I believe its something like 90% of the scientific community and 35 countries accept the science behind global warming and the cause as pollution due to our habitation of the planet. So deniers until you get a degree and provide the populace with years of scientific data to contend this GO TO HELL.

• 

  Charles_Dixon on December 16 at 9:06 a.m.

  Well done LifeAquatic. Way to summarize the sentiments of the global warming community. Except that your numbers are a bit questionable. I don’t think anyone has actually polled the “scientific community” about global warming. The science itself is under scrutiny because those scientists who produced it haven’t exactly been forthcoming in letting others look at it. If 90% of the scientific community actually agreed on it, why have they developed this bunker mentality as to what they do, telling people who don’t agree with them to … well, to go to hell. If there was actually a 90% consensus about it you’d think they’d be a bit more confident in their own work.

  The fact is this issue is 90% politics and 10% science. People who have no clue what the data is or what it purportedly says have strong emotional opinions on the matter.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on December 16 at 10:27 a.m.

  Science is always best served by questioning the “consensus”. I think this cartoon makes that point quite well.

• 

  Charlie on December 16 at 10:30 a.m.

  History repeating itself once again. Debate over, oops! This old Earth has had many many Climate changes over hundreds of billions of years. The wizards of smart say it’s to warm, what is the temperature supposed to be? Follow the money!

• 

  LifeAquatic on December 16 at 10:57 a.m.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

  Polling the scientific community in a sense. Oh and I tend to agree with NASA when they make statements concerning atmosphere. A bit more confidence? The only dissenting opinions are from organizations funded by big oil, coal and other polluters. Or those who hope to topple the current party in power.

  The top spokesmen for anti global warming are politicians (follow the money), radio hosts (non educated, fear mongers) and people with degrees in communication from the University of ID.

• 

  Smacky on December 16 at 11:04 a.m.

  Don’t forget Jesse Ventura, LifeA. He’s all over it.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 16 at 11:31 a.m.

  Actually the cartoonist inadvertently demonstrates his poor understanding of history and the inherent fallacy of his assertions. The classical world more accurately is fitted with the claim of flat earth, although arguably Ptolemy demonstrated that to be false. Most of that knowledge was lost to the Christian world during the so called dark ages but thankfully was preserved in the Muslim world. It was about the time of Magellan that this erroneous assumption was made manifest about the time of the 16th century garb of the guy in the second panel. And of course he certainly didn’t believe he’d sail off the edge or he never would have left Lisbon.

  It was the Catholic Church during the Renaissance who famously contested Copernicus’ discovery that the earth revolved around the sun and threatened to burn him alive unless he recanted it. So it appears that the scientists in history actually got it right, but not without massive debate against an entrenched and ignorant status quo. That debate rages on while science again awaits the cold hard judgment of history.

• 

  otisgexperience on December 16 at 12:07 p.m.

  This is what I don’t get.

  This “global warming” scare has had obvious impacts over the last few years. “Green” thinking has become mainstream, even popular. Hybrid cars are now commonplace, and fuel efficiency in general has increased. Recycling, which few cared about for years, is now incorporated into everything. Everybody wants to do their part for the environment. All of a sudden, global warming… uh…. doesn’t exist.?? Even if that’s the case… so what? Why wouldn’t we continue doing what we can to preserve what we have?

  Why is it so important for people to prove the concept wrong? So they can feel good about their Hummer?

• 

  BillH on December 16 at 1:18 p.m.

  LA, you forgot to write “First!”.
  The best link you can give us is wikipedia and the rest of these vultures ;-) gave you a pass on that? Must be holiday mellow around here.

  Merry Christmas all you Huckleberries!

• 

  Escapee on December 16 at 1:24 p.m.

  I can’t see how we DON’T have any impact on climate change. There’s more people on the plane, each one leaving his or her own carbon footprint, and those footprints can’t help but degrade the atmosphere. I think those who say it isn’t so ought to at least look into this without blindly denying it.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 16 at 2:25 p.m.

  China is well on track to clean our clocks on developing and producing clean energy systems such as solar PV. Their installed base of solar thermal water heaters dwarfs every other country.

  “The future of sustainable energy is here.” The words are emblazoned on a wall at the world’s largest nongovernmental solar research center. It was built by an American company, Applied Materials, in the central Chinese city of Xian.
  …
  At Applied Materials’ $250 million research center in Xian, Elizabeth Mayo, a process engineer from Santa Clara, Calif., is working with local staff testing solar panels in the Sunfab panel reliability test lab. This simulates extreme weather conditions, and the company boasts that it is the world’s only laboratory capable of testing 61-square-feet solar panels.

  Mayo is impressed by the facilities in Xian. “We don’t have facilities like this in the U.S. We don’t have anything of this magnitude,” Mayo says. … ”

  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121512377

• 

  Charles_Dixon on December 16 at 2:31 p.m.

  Here’s the deal. Global warming is nothing more than a scientific theory. It is an idea that posits that carbon emitted from humans is causing a slight warming of the Earth’s atmospheric temperature. And as with all science, a theory is nothing BUT an idea until it becomes generally accepted as the truth through a process of experimentation and vetting by other scientists.

  Global warming has not undergone the vetting process necessary for it to be accepted as a true theory. While many scientists believe in this theory, they have yet to explain to the world just exactly how carbon emitted by humans can increase global temperatures, nor have they accomplished the even more important task of proving that this is actually occurring. And the recent Climategate emails provide solid proof that 1) these scientists were fudging their own data to prove their theory when in reality the data disproves it; 2) these scientists were frustrating the peer review process by threatening journals that published contrary viewpoints; 3) these scientists were threatening scientists with opposing viewpoints instead of welcoming a debate and a chance to validate their theory; and 4) these scientists were denying other scientists access to the data they claim proved global warming, even going so far as to disobey the law in denying this information.

  But while global warming has not been vetted, it has turned into a political football that has been espoused by people who have used it to further their own political purposes. It has also been espoused with enthusiasm by entrepreneurs and business who have literally cashed in big time on the theory. Carbon credits, carbon offsets, carbon neutral technologies, alternative fuels, green living, etc., etc., etc. have all established a multi-billion dollar industry based on an unproven idea. Scientists who work on global warming issues benefit tremendously from grants and other funding that comes from government and private sources, which raises a very basic and substantial conflict of interest issue when those same scientists try to discourage opposing viewpoints.

  Al Gore personally has raked in over $100 million from his work on the global warming issue, this while jetting all over the world in private jets, being chauffeured around in motorcades of SUVs, and living in a house in Tennessee that utilizes more energy than some entire towns do. These so-called global warming believers emitted more carbon in convening the Copenhagen conference than some countries emit in an entire year.

  In other words, you have a theory—an idea—that hasn’t been proven, hasn’t been vetted, is used as a political football, and brings in billions of dollars to people who believe in it. I think another word for that phenomenon is a racket.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 16 at 2:54 p.m.

  “While many scientists believe in this theory, they have yet to explain to the world just exactly how carbon emitted by humans can increase global temperatures, nor have they accomplished the even more important task of proving that this is actually occurring.”

  Utterly laughable and demonstrably false.

  “carbon emitted by humans” What? You actually wrote that, and expect to be taken seriously?

• 

  idawa on December 16 at 3:04 p.m.

  Danny Westneat wrote a pretty good article in the Seattle Time this sunday on the issue where he asked a guy at the UW his opinion. See Here; http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2010494699_danny13.html

• 

  Charles_Dixon on December 16 at 3:04 p.m.

  “Utterly laughable and demonstrably false.”

  Ok. Demonstrate it.

  “carbon emitted by humans” What? You actually wrote that”

  Yeah, that’s pretty funny. You know what I meant. Although in my defense, some people do talk about methane emitted from cows having an effect on global warming.

• 

  Smacky on December 16 at 3:22 p.m.

  “In other words, you have a theory—an idea—that hasn’t been proven, hasn’t been vetted, is used as a political football, and brings in billions of dollars to people who believe in it. I think another word for that phenomenon is a racket.”

  Other names for it would be 9-11, swine flu, avian flu, Y2k, lifetime warranties and skim milk….

  Point is, people make money off of ideas and theories all the time. If this one idea is wrong, but the resulting effect is still beneficial to the planet and makes some people rich in the process, what on God’s green earth is wrong with that?

• 

  Cabbage Boy on December 16 at 3:22 p.m.

  OtisG,
  Do some research on the footprint of the hybrid cars. Batteries are made from nickel. Mining it is an environmental disaster. Then it is shipped to Europe for processing. Then to China for finishing. Then shipped to the US for purchase.

  The environmental impact of a hybrid is about 3 times that of the Hummer when factoring in all this and comparing lifespan.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 16 at 3:28 p.m.

  “And as with all science, a theory is nothing BUT an idea until it becomes generally accepted as the truth through a process of experimentation and vetting by other scientists.”—this is a very dishonest assessment of the scientific process. Particularly after the last time when I gave you a ten minute tutorial explaining the process. Its probably the single most vetted theory in science. Evolution is just a theory, but the only one to fit the facts. So far. Same for the theory of relativity. But considering the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were leveled from weapon based upon the theory I’d say theories are slightly more concrete than the pedestrian definition you try to pass off here. Same for man caused climate change. The step after theory is law, like the law of gravity or thermodynamics. Which is a very difficult status to achieve.

  What’s laughable about your assessment, chuckles, is your willingness to accept as gospel, out of context emails from certain people doing certain work in the area. Yet the data amassed from any other scientists you are willing to throw out as nonsense.

  Internalizing the costs of pollution is always much preferable. Wouldn’t it have been much better if the silver mine owners would have paid as they destroyed the silver valley? Instead they pocketed that money as a ‘duty to their shareholders’ and left the burden on taxpayers to clean it up. And the irony of demonizing Al Gore as the charlatan bankster is also pretty funny. Nevertheless I’d like some fact on the allegation of the $100 million Gore has amassed. Them’s Tiger wages.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 16 at 3:30 p.m.

  “idawa on December 16 at 3:04 p.m.

  Danny Westneat wrote a pretty good article in the Seattle Time this sunday on the issue where he asked a guy at the UW his opinion. See Here; http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html…”

  Very good article. Now that was fair and balanced, unlike most of the blather out there.

• 

  Smacky on December 16 at 3:40 p.m.

  CB, I would expect more from you than to just repeat drivel that has been completely found to be false. How ironic that you would use a completely disproven study to argue against the validity of a theory.

  http://www.slate.com/id/2186786

• 

  Phaedrus on December 16 at 3:47 p.m.

  The environmental impact of a hybrid is about 3 times that of the Hummer when factoring in all this and comparing lifespan.—Cabbage Boy

  Disappointing that CB didn’t actually look into what on the surface seems unlikely and might cause the curious to look deeper. This took me 5 minutes.

  http://green.autoblog.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hummer-is-not-greener-a-prius/

  http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/regarding-prius-outdoes-t1360.html

  http://wallofcheese.blogspot.com/2007/04/prius-outdoes-hummer-in-environmental_03.html

• 

  Bent on December 16 at 3:52 p.m.

  Sis, what are you recruiting southern idaho posters to argue this issue or what? I have been slammed and just noticed this very entertaining thread…maybe I can get to it tonight…but obviously some of you global warming alarmist have trouble reading facts… sheesh…

  Here is a list of 100 FACTS that all you experts on climate change can start with:

  http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

• 

  Bent on December 16 at 3:57 p.m.

  Here is another prediction based on this oh-so-credible theory that cannot be replicated (because they destroyed the base data). I guess we will get to see if you guys are right in 5-7 years…

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6815470/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Al-Gore-condemned-over-Arctic-ice-melting-prediction.html

• 

  Bent on December 16 at 3:59 p.m.

  And, Spoke, are you getting soft??? I figured you would have already argued that Stantis doesn’t even exist, so this debate is irrelevant…

• 

  Bent on December 16 at 4:03 p.m.

  Oh, and here is that story to go with the list of FACTS, but you should read this quote first:

  “This demonstrates how tenuous, improper and indeed false the scientific and political claims are for man-made global warming, from claims that climate change can be controlled by human activity to the proposition that CO2 emissions represent a severe threat to our way of life, when in fact there is little evidence to support any of these claims.”

  http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146139

• 

  Cabbage Boy on December 16 at 4:30 p.m.

  Smacky and Phaed,
  Oops. I guess that e-rumor did seem a bit too “gotcha” to be true. Guess we all have a little blind spot for things that confirm our beliefs.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 16 at 4:33 p.m.

  Really Bent, when you publish nothing but rants from notorious conservative British tabloids, you’re just supporting the claim that the debate rages on in the media, not that one exists in the scientific community. And the case is almost as plausible as WMD’s in Iraq.

• 

  hmoffsuite on December 16 at 4:37 p.m.

  Here is an item that just crossed the newswire. Another reason the skeptics of GW exist. I would say this is useful information to put in the equation, considering the human factor in warming. Lots more of us now and cars cleaner by 90% also, Just fwiw

  http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/record-low-temperatures-responsible-for-high-ranking-on-storm-index-79456677.html

• 

  Phaedrus on December 16 at 4:45 p.m.

  Guess we all have a little blind spot for things that confirm our beliefs.— CB

  Fair enough..

• 

  otisgexperience on December 16 at 4:54 p.m.

  Yeah Cabbage Boy, I know that hybrid cars have their own environmental problems. Hell, even “electric” cars have to be charged, from an outlet powered by a gas or coal burning power plant.

  My point is that because of the warming “scare”, people are being more conscientious about the environment. If it doesn’t exist, does that mean we stop thinking about it?

• 

  Bent on December 16 at 5:04 p.m.

  “…when you publish nothing but rants from notorious conservative British tabloids…” — Sys

  Sys, are you kidding me…?

  Let’s look at this, all you ever do is dismiss the information in those articles without adressing any of it. At least Spoke goes out and cites the allegedly flawed IPCC AR4 report (the same one that is being investigated as a result of climategate).

• 

  spokelooneh on December 16 at 5:05 p.m.

  The source that Bent cites for his FACTS!(how tre dramatic!) is a UK based right wing think tank whose major effort is trying to get the UK out of the European Union. When a topic is approached from a “100 reasons blah blah blah”, it’s usually a gimmick.

  In other words, not a credible source for conclusions or even opinions regarding SCIENCE.

  There is a gigantic propaganda war going right now.

  The primary source in the article mentioned by Idawa is an actual climate scientist, with many papers published in the field. He’s appropriately critical of certain AGW claims, while noting that the evidence and science are sound.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 16 at 5:24 p.m.

  Interesting info from PEMCO, hmoffsuite.

  To the extent, and it’s not much, that a two week long series of weather events can be explained by AGW, is in the volatility, which is predicted to various extents by AGW scientists.

  With the bitter cold snap of Dec. 7-13, then yesterday’s heavy snowfall, breaking the record going back to 1906, and then today’s big melt off is indicative (though certainly not conclusive) of AGW’s volatility predictions.

• 

  Bent on December 16 at 6:54 p.m.

  Classic emperor’s clothes…

  I love the so-called arguments you guys put up… you can’t argue the merits of the claims from legitimate scientists who study this stuff for a living, so you just declare them biased or say that the historical facts they put forward never existed…

  That is a list of very valid historical, scientific and politcal points that cannpot be explained using the IPCC theories— no matter where they came from.

  For years, the skeptical scientists have been asking the IPCC scientist to explain these points in relation to AR4 climate change findings. The IPCC refuses to even aknowledge them and proceeds to demonize anyone who dare ask the question…

  And some of you drank so much of the green koolaid that all you have left to argue from are a bunch of flawed reports written by people who are currently inder investigation for allegedly cooking the so-called science behind those reports and destroying the evidence that would prove it…

  And again — just to be clear — I tend believe Climate Change is probably happening, but I don’t believe the UN, the IPCC or NOAA or NASA on this issue BECAUSE they all refuse to submit their complete body of work for a legitimate peer review.

  You guys should look again… the emperor has no clothes…

• 

  Me on December 16 at 10:31 p.m.

  Don’t you all know that in order to have credibility, you have to be a scientist that has been bought and paid for? If you have the credentials, and do what you are supposed to, then those that don’t quite buy what you are selling are told ‘shut up he is a real scientist’. Doesn’t matter if you can back it up or if you ‘fudge’. The money makes it all legit.

  I find it so funny that people say the insurance industry is politically interferring with health care reform, but they don’t see the green industry doing anything of the same sort.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 16 at 11:22 p.m.

  “Bent on December 16 at 3:59 p.m.

  And, Spoke, are you getting soft??? I figured you would have already argued that Stantis doesn’t even exist, so this debate is irrelevant…”

  Still promoting that falsehood that because Newsweek featured some off the wall scientists in the 70’s who believed in a coming ice age, that the majority of scientists agreed?

  Once again, by a margin of SIX to ONE, climatologist in the 60’s and 70’s were predicting global warming, not cooling. The science has been consistent. Not that that matters to the political hacks.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic