The Bogosity Forum

The Show => Future Episodes => Topic started by: MrBogosity on October 16, 2008, 05:03:52 PM

Title: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on October 16, 2008, 05:03:52 PM
This one will almost certainly be in the 10-12 batch. Here are the videos I'm using:

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle
Bjorn Lomborg's TED Talk
Richard Mullers lecture at Berkeley (it's EXCELLENT, but the video's such low quality I may only use it as a source)
Patrick Michaels' Global Warming Environmental Concerns

Anyone know of any more? As usual, good videos on both side of the debate are desired.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Andy120290 on October 18, 2008, 08:38:26 PM
What is the debate you are trying to get at? The one between whether global warming is real or not or whether it is man-made or some sort of cycle (assuming it is real).
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on October 18, 2008, 08:46:01 PM
I'm looking into the brouhaha on both sides--the alarmists and the deniers--and how it's getting in the way of public understanding of the real science and finding a good solution.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Tom S. Fox on October 20, 2008, 06:58:33 PM
So ... how bad is it really?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Horizon on October 23, 2008, 11:41:43 AM
I'm looking forward to it. Potholer54 has made a great video about the scientific debate going on.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: lennyhipp on October 23, 2008, 12:55:21 PM
actually, i think this was just a teaser of things to come. If i'm not mistaken, Potholer plans a pretty in depth video(s) about it.

LH
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on October 23, 2008, 01:13:12 PM
actually, i think this was just a teaser of things to come. If i'm not mistaken, Potholer plans a pretty in depth video(s) about it.

LH

In-depth is saying a lot...looking ahead, I'm not planning to get in-depth, just cover the basics and debunk the myths, and I'm wondering how that's EVER going to fit into half an hour...
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Real Captain Olimar on October 23, 2008, 04:58:44 PM
I suggest "Global Heating Swindle Swindle"
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Atheos5150 on October 26, 2008, 12:15:25 AM
"The 11th Hour, hosted by Leonardo Dicaprio"  http://wip.warnerbros.com/11thhour/

And I'm not talking about the TV show.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Teredona on October 27, 2008, 11:20:43 AM
Cool, this topic is the subject of a debate I'm doing in my college comp course.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Tom S. Fox on November 03, 2008, 05:08:41 PM
See this (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/End%20of%20the%20World/junk_science.htm) for an excellent argument against Global Warming!

Quote from: David J. Stewart
If indeed the earth’s glaciers are melting, attempting to stop them from melting by covering them with reflective material wouldn’t work. According to Global Warming proponents the earth’s temperature is increasing. So what good would it do to cover the glaciers? The sun’s rays are not the problem. This just shows the fallacy of Global Warming. One minute they claim that the earth’s temperature is rising, and then they set out to protect Greenland’s glaciers from the sun’s rays. Well, which is it, the sun’s rays or the higher temperatures on earth? If, as Global Warming proponents claim, the earth’s temperatures are rising, then protecting glaciers from the sun’s rays is a complete waste of time and money.

Damn, I think he is onto us!
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Atheos5150 on January 14, 2009, 10:20:25 AM
Here is something you guys might of missed and I hear it a lot from Christian groups, as an argument against Global Warming. 

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/gop_rep_to_environmentalists_j.php#comments

Quote
"[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she's just trying to save the planet," Bachmann told the right-wing news site OneNewsNow. "We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet -- we didn't need Nancy Pelosi to do that."

That's right...Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, the Christian Right champion from Minnesota says we don't been to save the planet, Jesus already did... 

Makes me worried that these people are in Office.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on January 14, 2009, 10:37:18 AM
See, this is the perfect example of the kind of thing I'm talking about:

Alarmist: It's not the sun, it's the greenhouse gases!

Denier: It's not the greenhouse gases, it's the sun!

Actual Scientist: It's both, you morons!

The alarmists and deniers together have set up a false dichotomy, which does not include the actual science.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 14, 2009, 12:47:11 PM
Here is something you guys might of missed ...

*Ahem* That is "might have."
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on January 14, 2009, 01:12:19 PM
*Ahem* That is "might have."

Well, irregardless of that fact...  :P
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Atheos5150 on January 14, 2009, 03:50:37 PM
*Ahem* That is "might have."

You know, that's almost as annoying as Real Captain Olimar title suggestions.  :'(
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 14, 2009, 04:17:59 PM
You know, that's almost as annoying as Real Captain Olimar title suggestions.  :'(

Woah! Hey there, don’t say things you may regret later!
Besides, this is, like, only the second time!
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 14, 2009, 05:00:59 PM
Well, irregardless of that fact...  :P

So what you are saying is, you could care less?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on January 14, 2009, 05:27:21 PM
So what you are saying is, you could care less?

Well, don't, like, literally be a poo-poo-head!
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 14, 2009, 05:29:14 PM
A very cromulent objection.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on January 14, 2009, 08:06:25 PM
You embiggen this board with every post!
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 14, 2009, 08:15:04 PM
Here, here!
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on January 14, 2009, 09:33:52 PM
Are we through here, all of the sudden?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 15, 2009, 08:26:04 AM
Yes, I think your right. Their is not much left to say.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Real Captain Olimar on January 15, 2009, 07:36:59 PM
Yes, I think your right. Their is not much left to say.

Is there much right to say?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Atheos5150 on January 16, 2009, 08:56:26 PM
I'm sorry Tom.  You are in no way as annoying as Real Captain Olimar.  I'm sorry if I offended you.   ;)
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: 11mc22 on January 16, 2009, 10:24:55 PM
some John Stossel

Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: 11mc22 on January 16, 2009, 10:41:20 PM
some Glenn Beck

Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: 11mc22 on January 16, 2009, 10:48:51 PM
this one is called 'Debunking "The Great Global Warming Swindle"'

Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 17, 2009, 10:23:10 AM
I'm sorry Tom.  You are in no way as annoying as Real Captain Olimar.  I'm sorry if I offended you.   ;)

Thank you. I appreciate this.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: 11mc22 on January 18, 2009, 03:29:47 AM
this guy is saying that people should take action against global warming anyway regardless of whether you believe it or not

Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Tom S. Fox on February 16, 2009, 02:43:08 PM
I have a question: Is it confirmed that the climate change is man’s fault or not?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on February 16, 2009, 03:19:47 PM
11mc22: Yes: "I'm right, and even if I'm wrong I'm right!" Besides, isn't this just a re-wording of Pascal's Wager?

Tom: According to the IPCC report, there is a 90% chance that man's contribution to the warming since the late 1950s is significant.

Make of that what you will. IMO, although it only gives the deniers 10% to live in on one end, the alarmists are stuck with the 10% on the other end.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Tom S. Fox on February 16, 2009, 05:17:12 PM
Thank you for the info. A guy on another internet show said that it isn’t clear yet whether humans are responsible for the climate change or not.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on February 16, 2009, 06:59:15 PM
We're responsible; it's just a matter of what degree of responsibility we hold relative to the various natural causes.
Title: Climate Change/Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on June 04, 2009, 02:02:07 PM
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Real Captain Olimar on June 05, 2009, 08:34:48 AM
Thank you. I appreciate this.

HEY!!!
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on June 05, 2009, 04:46:11 PM
Shoot.
I didn't even see this topic.
Sorry Shane. ^^;
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on June 08, 2009, 08:07:04 AM
Good source for graphs etc.:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 09, 2009, 11:33:37 PM
Well, here's another source.. seems to be biased to the deniers side:

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

Any way you slice it, the official party line as far as the government is concerned still buys into the Al Gore version of things, and introduces rediculous bills to 'combat' global warming, based on this assertion.

An article:

By KEN CALVERT

The "cap and trade" bill pending in the House of Representatives would revolutionize how Americans use and consume energy to combat climate change. U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, and Ed Markey D-Mass., sponsors of the bill, claim that it will create green jobs, increase energy efficiency, and combat global warming. The inconvenient truth is that the legislation will hinder economic recovery, result in a net loss of jobs and do very little to change short- and long-term global temperatures.

What people should know first about cap and trade is that it is a tax, despite the effort (1,200 pages' worth) to hide that fact. The cap and tax would increase the price of fossil fuels, with the cost passed on to consumers.

Here is how cap and tax would work: The bill would cap greenhouse gas emissions -- a byproduct of burning coal, oil and natural gas. These fuels constitute 85 percent of U.S. energy production. From 2005 emission levels, the Waxman-Markey bill would require a 3 percent reduction by 2012, a 17 percent reduction by 2020 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. The major providers of electricity would be given "allowances" of carbon dioxide, which would be tradable (hence the "trade" portion of the name). The allowances would be reduced each year.

The bill makes energy production more expensive and thus, costlier for us to consume. The point of the bill is to force Americans to use less energy and force energy providers to create new, alternative sources.

The questions on everyone's mind are how much the plan will cost and whether it will work. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020, Waxman-Markey compliance will cost about $110 billion a year.

The businesses that are forced to pony up this staggering sum will be left with three options: pass the cost on to consumers; move their operations overseas; or close their doors.

Some estimates show that the bill may cost a family of four $1,870 a year in 2020 and $6,800 a year by 2035. Any way you slice it, the economy will suffer.

So after hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs and families are paying excessive costs for energy, what do we get in return? Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger of New Hope Environmental Services has calculated that the bill would reduce the Earth's temperature by a rather anticlimactic 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.

American families simply cannot afford the Waxman-Markey bill. It would put the United States at a severe disadvantage against countries such as China and India, which have said they will not sacrifice prosperity for energy reform.

However, I strongly agree that America must wean itself off of foreign energy sources. That is why I introduced the MORE Act, H.R. 797, which prevents energy exploration and production within 25 miles of a state's coastline, unless the state enacts a law approving such exploration.

The MORE Act also provides coastal states with an increased share of royalty revenue, which would help with our state budget deficit. To help end dependence on fossil fuels, the bill also dedicates a portion of the royalty revenue to renewable energy and energy efficiency research.

I also signed onto the American Energy Act, which would create more supply and less carbon dioxide through increased use of nuclear energy. This "all of the above" strategy takes advantage of domestic energy resources and creates incentives for clean, renewable energy -- the carrot approach. In addition to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, this approach would create all kinds of jobs -- green, high tech and construction.

When a government wants to legislate change in societal behavior, it has the option to use a stick or a carrot. Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress have opted to use the stick to bring about change in the way we use energy. Like many American families, I wish they had chosen the carrot.

Ken Calvert, R-Corona, represents the 44th U.S. Congressional District.


http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/localviews/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_S_op_26_calvert_loc.3aa6ebb.html
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Real Captain Olimar on July 10, 2009, 02:13:55 PM
irregardless
is not a word
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Tom S. Fox on July 11, 2009, 01:14:45 PM
Actually, it is a perfectly cromulent word.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on September 03, 2009, 02:07:17 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM

Four parter.  John Coleman's take.

Personally, I just can't get worked up about it.  It just can't seem to stand out as anything more than another flavor-of-the-month "We're all gonna die!" hysteria and when the day of doom gets here, we all look around and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Kind of "boy who cried wolf" thing for me.  When the rains of fire start falling and the rivers turn to blood, then I'll start worrying.

Besides, even if everything the doomsayers say is true, they've still failed in every possible way to address it properly and come up with real solutions.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on September 12, 2009, 01:37:36 PM
Me:  I've been blasted for pointing this out.
And I thought Carbon had a lower heat capacity, allowing it to more quickly absorb heat from the sun. O.o
Please include this in your Bogosity episode video about Climate change.
This will be awesome. :D

Sources:  http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/oxygen-d_978.html http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/nitrogen-d_977.html
Also learned this in my chemistry class; I thank you.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 24, 2009, 08:40:36 PM
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 24, 2009, 09:38:51 PM
http://mises.org/daily/3829 ("The Ethics of Freedom and Climate Change")
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on November 25, 2009, 09:12:31 AM
This is interesting: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 25, 2009, 10:57:59 AM
So what is your take on the e-mails of them supposedly falsifying data?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on November 25, 2009, 12:02:33 PM
Obviously, I have no idea yet if it's true or not. If it is, I see it more like the Ida controversy earlier this year: A scientist spoke out of turn to get some more popularity, got busted for it, but that doesn't give credence to the creationists. My feeling is this is the same kind of thing.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 26, 2009, 12:24:17 PM
OK, technically not relevant in that it isn't a scholarly information source of any sort, but I simply HAD to post it:
Feel free to delete this post if you think it's really unwarranted.

PS:  Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! :)
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Virgil0211 on November 26, 2009, 02:33:37 PM
You know what? It's official. The LoR is incapable of reasoned debate. I decided to give their science forum a chance and look into this issue. And guess what? No reasoned debate on it whatsoever. It just descended into Republican-bashing (not that I like Republicans in the first place, but whatever).

I think AndromedasWake should at the very least be ashamed at his creation. It's descended into madness.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 26, 2009, 09:14:25 PM
You know what? It's official. The LoR is incapable of reasoned debate. I decided to give their science forum a chance and look into this issue. And guess what? No reasoned debate on it whatsoever. It just descended into Republican-bashing (not that I like Republicans in the first place, but whatever).

I think AndromedasWake should at the very least be ashamed at his creation. It's descended into madness.
Descended?
LoR was ALWAYS madness from what I can tell.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on November 26, 2009, 09:19:43 PM
Yeah, and they were trying to tell me that stuff happens on the Politics board and not the Science board.

And yes, it's pretty much been that way since Day One.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 28, 2009, 01:36:20 PM
Back on topic:
I'm posting these not because I think that global warming is a conspiracy, but because I'm very certain that when you do the bogosity episode on it, you're going to get it from the people who see these.
That being said:

Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 28, 2009, 02:10:38 PM
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 04, 2009, 04:12:45 AM

Glad to have a person who knows what he's talking about give his ideas on this. :)
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 04, 2009, 12:28:47 PM
And when I posted the above video as a comment on this video: 

I got this response from 73elephants:  "I've watched it. It is a straw man argument. He talks about two emails, and says "the skeptics harp on about those two emails; is that the best they've got?" He also goes on about the word "trick" -- pure straw man. The word "trick" by itself is not the problem, but the context, kind and *purpose* of the trick hinted at. There are actually DOZENS of emails clearly suggestive of serious misconduct, and the source code (which Potholer doesn't mention) is even more incriminating than the emails."
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 04, 2009, 12:30:20 PM
Whoo boy...So what do you think of both Potholer54's video and this response by HowTheWorldWorks?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on December 04, 2009, 01:18:03 PM
This is looking more and more like a Shotgun Fallacy. They claim to have thousands of emails, so no matter which ones you debunk, they'll have more to go on for a long time.

This isn't the way it should be done. The burden of proof is on the side of those who are claiming that there is fraud going on. THEY are the ones who need to establish that there is, and that these emails should be taken at face value. They haven't done that.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 04, 2009, 01:24:13 PM
Stupid question, but what's a shotgun fallacy?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on December 04, 2009, 04:58:39 PM
It's when you throw out so many things there's no way anyone can debunk them all. Like the moon hoaxers: you debunk one thing, they say, "Yeah, but what about <another of their thousands of points>?"
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 08, 2009, 11:34:18 AM
It's when you throw out so many things there's no way anyone can debunk them all. Like the moon hoaxers: you debunk one thing, they say, "Yeah, but what about <another of their thousands of points>?"
OK, thanks, Shane.

My professor talked about ClimateGate today.
He said to research to see that man made global warming is a hoax.
He also made a claim about how nearly all of the stuff is done through some European (English?) Institution where if you say that man is causing GW you are counted, if you disagree you aren't.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on December 08, 2009, 03:03:14 PM
I'm placing my money on it being a hoax.  They've cried wolf dozens of times already, why should we believe this one?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 08, 2009, 04:15:52 PM
I'm placing my money on it being a hoax.  They've cried wolf dozens of times already, why should we believe this one?
Global warming or ClimateGate?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Virgil0211 on December 08, 2009, 05:16:39 PM
Global warming or ClimateGate?

Is there a way I can bet on both? =P
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 11, 2009, 06:43:49 PM
Is there a way I can bet on both? =P
Maybe. :P




Well, about 5 days ago, I posted this comment:

Me: "Potholer, I must admit, I do feel responsible for HTWW's video about this one. I put the url to this video in a comment on one of his videos, and well.... yeah.
I don't know if he actually found out about this video from me. You seem a very reasonable and qualified guy. I just wanted for people to know what you thought about it."

And guess who of all people replied back?
Thaaaaattt's right!

HowTheWorldWorks:  "@Surhotchaperchlorome

Actually, that's exactly how I found it."

Now why do I feel guilty about HTWW's video going off on Potholer? :(
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on December 11, 2009, 08:51:42 PM
Man...Stossel's premier episode on Fox Business is probably the first genuinely rational look at Global Warming I've seen in the news media to date.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on December 12, 2009, 07:24:03 PM
Which one was that?  Just the one where he asked "is the debate really over?"
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on December 12, 2009, 07:42:08 PM
The one that premiered on Fox Business this week, where he spoke with that climate scientist as well as one of the Freakonomics guys.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 12, 2009, 07:56:11 PM
If anyone finds it on youtube, PLEASE post it here.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Virgil0211 on December 13, 2009, 10:58:58 AM
The one that premiered on Fox Business this week, where he spoke with that climate scientist as well as one of the Freakonomics guys.

Is this it?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on December 13, 2009, 01:17:09 PM
I still find it hilarious how politicians will bleat about capping carbons and all that nonsense but still won't you make more nuclear power stations.  Hypocrites...
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on December 13, 2009, 03:28:24 PM
Is this it?

Yeah, that's it, a part of it, anyway. His show's an hour long, and the whole thing was on Global Warming.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Gumba Masta on December 13, 2009, 04:41:24 PM
So, how safe are Nucular Plants? How often do you have to water them? Do they need special soil? What about nutruents?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Virgil0211 on December 13, 2009, 05:05:32 PM
So, how safe are Nucular Plants? How often do you have to water them? Do they need special soil? What about nutruents?

I wouldn't know. This Texas soil's no good for growing nuclear plants. I stick to sewage treatment plants. Just let the dogs out regularly enough, and they take care of themselves. =P
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on December 13, 2009, 07:36:12 PM
I can't even get rid of all the government plants around here...
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Gumba Masta on December 13, 2009, 07:44:46 PM
Well, you know what they say about the persistence of weeds.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 13, 2009, 08:38:35 PM
Well, you know what they say about the persistence of weeds.
The Solution, straight from Yahweh above. (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Kill_it_with_Fire)
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Virgil0211 on December 13, 2009, 09:35:43 PM
I can't even get rid of all the government plants around here...

Just grab a few seeds of dissent, water them with tyranny, fertilize them with a good mix of wisdom and the desire for freedom, and they should grow into a healthy tree of liberty. That should take care of those government plants. Just remember to water it with the blood of tyrants and patriots after it sprouts from the ground.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Gumba Masta on December 13, 2009, 09:39:07 PM
The Solution, straight from Yahweh above. (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Kill_it_with_Fire)

So, you are a fellow EDiot?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 13, 2009, 09:54:08 PM
I like this video, however I disagree that cap and trade is a "much needed bill"...
Man made global warming is real, therefore the government should destroy the economy?
That's quite a syllogism he's working on there!
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 15, 2009, 02:55:03 PM
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Gumba Masta on December 16, 2009, 12:28:17 AM
One hundred and twenty percent... Fox is'nt even trying anymore, are they?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 16, 2009, 10:07:08 PM
Glad to hear once again from the real expert.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: valvatica on December 16, 2009, 11:12:50 PM
He acknowledges in the video that it's quite possible there's been fudging. He's not being an apologist for anyone who's been insincere, he's just trying to review this objectively. I read what Shane had to say regarding the Shotgun Fallacy. This is an issue with shades of gray, and regardless of what is uncovered that doesn't mean the climate issue as a whole is wrong or right; a few bad apples in the scientific community don't invalidate all the genuine research done to date. Sadly, there are those looking for easy targets/enemies who will be glad to make videos in areas they have no expertise in.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: 11mc22 on December 17, 2009, 01:09:08 AM
Here the website with all 7 parts of John Stossel's show.
Found it with a google search.

http://economycollapse.blogspot.com/2009/12/john-stossel-show-fox-news-climate.html
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 17, 2009, 09:28:06 AM
Sadly, there are those looking for easy targets/enemies who will be glad to make videos in areas they have no expertise in.
i.e. HowTheWorldWorks.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Gumba Masta on December 17, 2009, 09:56:22 AM
More like Mr McCreepypants the Subscriber whore.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on March 27, 2010, 12:49:29 AM
Against:
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on March 27, 2010, 07:04:24 AM
2:30: Okay, so why hasn't the sun warmed Mercury, Venus, and Uranus?

The warming of these planets is due to the Milankovich cycle. Pluto is warming because it's closer than usual to the sun. Let's think about this: Pluto has warmed a tenth of a degree. At its closest, it's 30AUs from the sun (i.e., 30 times Earth's average orbit). Solar energy reduces by an inverse square with distance, so if the sun's warming Pluto by a certain amount, then the sun will be warming Earth by 30^2, or 900, times that amount. That should correspond to a 90-degree warming of our planet--which would boil away the oceans!
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Gumba Masta on March 28, 2010, 12:50:15 AM
I thought it was getting a bit... toasty.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on March 29, 2010, 12:02:20 AM
Quote
2:30: Okay, so why hasn't the sun warmed Mercury, Venus, and Uranus?

Well, I noticed he never said it didn't so it's possible we just don't have data to confirm yet.

I'm not an expert but you may be oversimplifying that calculation a bit.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on March 29, 2010, 07:42:43 AM
Really? If the sun is warming freakin' PLUTO, then how would it NOT be the case that our oceans would boil away? Do you have ANY idea how much closer we are to the sun than Pluto?

Imagine you're sitting at a table at a candlelight dinner. You're 2 feet away from the candle. You hardly feel any heat from it at all. If you're Pluto AT ITS CLOSEST, then Earth is about 3/4ths of an inch from the flame. If you're at Pluto's average orbit, then it's more like half an inch. Just TRY holding your hand at that distance for long!
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Gumba Masta on March 30, 2010, 04:12:19 PM
By what degree does the sun warm Pluto again? I mean, how high above absolute zero is it?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on March 30, 2010, 04:32:37 PM
The temperature above absolute zero doesn't matter. The total warming on Pluto is 3.5 degrees. I assumed with my calculation that only .1 degrees was due to the sun, and I STILL got Earth's oceans boiling.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Gumba Masta on April 01, 2010, 05:01:34 AM
I'm uncertain what exactly it is what you are trying to tell us here.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on April 01, 2010, 06:32:37 AM
If you have two objects, A and B, and A is twice as far a way from the sun as B, and the sun increases in intensity, it will warm B four times as much as it will A. Inverse square.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Gumba Masta on April 01, 2010, 10:38:43 AM
And this is proof that the earth is 6000 years old?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on April 01, 2010, 11:03:36 AM
Huh? This has nothing to do with YECism.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Gumba Masta on April 01, 2010, 02:18:54 PM
Oh sorry, that was episode 2 was'nt?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on June 14, 2010, 02:26:38 PM
Speaking of Stefan Molyneux, ever since I read his book, "Everyday Anarchy"'s  section on academia (page 51 onward), I've really been wondering about Climate Change.
When I first met Shane, me and him argued over whether Keynesian Economics was bogus.  I said it wasn't because it was taught in colleges and was pretty the consensus (or something like that).  After seeing a video of Ron Paul and others predict the current crisis via Austrian Economics, I knew that they were right, and Keynesianism was bogus, despite being the norm in terms of economics.
With Shane noting because it lets the politicians hear what they want to hear.

So how do we know that Climate Change isn't the Keynesianism of natural sciences then?
What predictive style tests can someone like me do (e.g. seeing a video of someone predicting something that shows the theory true) that would verify or falsify Climate Change?
I don't know what to think...
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on June 14, 2010, 03:48:37 PM
Because the actual evidence backs up climate change. Did you watch the Muller lecture? I think I linked to it early in the thread. He goes into it.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on June 14, 2010, 04:05:30 PM
I looked through the whole thread, and didn't find it. :(
Please post it! :)

If I could get what I got for Austrian economics though, e.g. independent, non post facto prediction that verifies it (esp, not from the state), I would be far more confident about it.

Man, as if I needed another reason to want science out of the hands of the state...
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MrBogosity on June 14, 2010, 05:18:30 PM
Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyuKOtIryis&feature=PlayList&p=0422F758E32C1F54&playnext_from=PL&index=1&playnext=1

You can skip to Part 3 if you're familiar with the basics.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on June 16, 2010, 12:32:24 AM
Thanks. :)

Neither for nor against, but still very good: 

Nothing like a free market perspective on Climate Change. :)
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on June 16, 2010, 09:31:05 PM
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on July 05, 2010, 08:32:08 PM
Another good one from potholer54:

Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on July 06, 2010, 12:31:16 AM
This seemed pretty interesting:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18563_6-global-warming-side-effects-that-are-sort-awesome.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_18390_the-6-most-bizarre-global-warming-side-effects.html
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on July 06, 2010, 06:47:08 PM
I would imagine an ice age being worse than global warming, however.
Case in point: 
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Gumba Masta on July 09, 2010, 11:39:23 PM
I'd prefer global warming though, even if it's just for the added benefit of young pretty women tempted to wear bikinis all around the year.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on November 30, 2010, 07:56:35 PM
isn't this just a re-wording of Pascal's Wager?
That wouldn't surprise me.
You realize that one of his videos, this one:


Has so many views that the Mises Institute actually took a crack at it?
Case in point:  Must We Do Something, Anything, about Global Warming? by Robert Blumen (http://mises.org/daily/4673)

And yes, like the one posted earlier, it's basically just a rewording of Pascal's Wager.
Also, note how comments are disabled on the video.
How very religious like of him...
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Virgil0211 on December 01, 2010, 01:41:31 AM
I'd prefer global warming though, even if it's just for the added benefit of young pretty women tempted to wear bikinis all around the year.

To steal a quote from a famous sitcom:

"...... We make fun of him, but every now and then, he has a fantastic idea."
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Travis Retriever on February 26, 2011, 09:06:23 PM
An argument I've seen against global warming:
Because they've changed the name a lot (global warming, climate change, and others), it's just like Creationism/Intelligent Design.
Not the most convincing of arguments, really.  Kinda comes off as desperate.

But something that has always bothered me about the conspiracy side of global warming denialism is regarding the fudging/destruction of data by governments.
If this is true, why haven't governments done this very same thing to things like:  the vast increase in standard of living during the 20 year period after the Civil War?
Or the 1920 Great Depression?  They've had much more opportunity and far greater reason to do so, so why haven't they?
And since they haven't done it for things like that, why would they do it on something like Global Warming?