CTV.CA has a wonderful article concerning global warming. (They are against it)
I say wonderful because it reinforces my belief that the entire global warming issue is based on two things. Ego and money.
Authoritative report to confirm global warming
Scientists and government officials are finishing a much-awaited report expected to say that climate change is real, serious and that human influence on it is undeniable.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release the report on Friday at a news conference in Paris, although a simultaneous one will be held in Ottawa.
“The climate’s changing and it’s going to change some more no matter what we do — particularly if we keep consuming so many fossil fuels,” Michael McCracken, the Climate Institute’s chief scientist, said Monday in Washington.
“They say ‘think globally, act locally’, so we’re hoping that it will convince people … that climate change is real and that we have a responsibility for much of it, and that we really do have to make changes in how we live,” Kenneth Denman told reporters in Paris.
He’s co-author of the report and a senior scientist at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis.
Both of these scientists would have to get real jobs if the report said ‘global warming’ is something that happens in spite of man not because of man. There is money involved here. BIG BUCKS! Taxpayer money.
Through the entire existence of planet earth there has been climate changes. The pittance of time man has been on the scene we really have not seen any climate changes. (Have you seen an ice age recently?) Now a group of money hungry fanatics tell us that the mean temperature of planet earth must remain stable for all eternity or devastation will occur sometime in the future. (Chicken Little comes to mind)
The egos and self centeredness that’s involved here is mind numbing to me. “We will control the weather” is what these fraudsters are saying. And it is on the working man’s dime.
The article has this bit in it:
Some scientists say that within a century, rising sea levels could swallow most of Prince Edward Island and threaten cities like Halifax and Vancouver. However, others say that’s an unlikely scenario.
Early drafts of the document forecast that by 2100 the sea level will rise between 12.7 and nearly 58.5 centimetres.
Many top scientists reject those figures. A study published in the peer-review journal Science this month predicted an increase of nearly 51 to 140 centimetres by 2100
~~~ and ~~~
The debate matters to policy makers because without accurate estimates, they won’t know how to plan coastal development.
Well prying1 has the real plan. We are talking 60 inches here max by their worst estimates. Less than two yards.
You ready?
Drum Roll Please!!!
Put buildings, wharfs, piers and such a bit higher…
Sort of anticlimactic huh?
Now should I demand taxpayer money for that? Why not? Our politicians and scientists are!
I’ve got another idea that involves a giant cork to stop volcanic activity.
HEY! one more thing. These people ever get on Cristo for the stuff he does that affects wind paterns?
~~~~~
Technorati Tags – Global Warming – Fraud – Science – Volcanos – Cristo –
5 users commented in " The Ego of Global Warming "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThis might be one of the most ridiculous posts I have read in a while. Where is the actual discussion of the evidence for global warming, something scientists are at least talking about? And where is the evidence for the dubious assumption that “the entire global warming issue is based on two things…Ego and money”? It would seem that the opposition to taking action to combat global warming could be said more plausibly to be based on “ego and money”…there is certainly more money there, with the energy companies, probably the wealthiest corporations on earth. You might as well talk about how hard it is for rich people to be treated fairly under the law…it totally misses the point and turns a blind eye to where real unfairness lies.
It is strange to accuse scientists of being all about the money; if one is as intelligent and ambitious as many scientists are, then science is one of the worst places to go to make money…any one of them could go into investing or the energy business and make a lot more money. I mean, my dad is an electrician with no college education making six figures for a major oil company, more money than the vast majority of Ph.Ds in science or any other field will ever make.
Finally, you write:
“Through the entire existence of planet earth there has been climate changes. The pittance of time man has been on the scene we really have not seen any climate changes. (Have you seen an ice age recently?) Now a group of money hungry fanatics tell us that the mean temperature of planet earth must remain stable for all eternity or devastation will occur sometime in the future. (Chicken Little comes to mind)”
Look at the data. That’s all I can really say. Just look at the evidence, at the real cycles of climate change and that we are seeing right now. If you want, I’ll send you plenty of links and resources that examine the evidence. I have a copy of Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers on my desk, I could send it to you if you want to learn about the evidence. Seriously.
Sorry Mr. Broady – The discussion of evidence can be found all over the internet. There is no need for me to reitterate it here. You and I have already made up our minds about this and are on opposite poles of the magnet. – I tried to interject a touch of humor into the discussion. Sorry if it offends or disgusts you.
Besides ego and money a friend noted I should have added hype.
Y2K is a good example of people making money selling books saying the sky is falling AND the sky is falling books sell more than those refuting them.
Perhaps it is your opinion that there have been no cycles of climate changes out of the ordinary. Could data be manipulated in such a way that the ‘results’ are predetermined??? Are ALL scientists are so ethical that they would NEVER manipulate data to get funding for their projects?
~~~~~
It comes down to faith. You can side with the Mother Jones crowd.
– http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/10/2712_global_warming_4.html –
I run with the 17,000 scientists who “declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever.”
– http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm – & – http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm –
~~~~~
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?p=736593
What offends me, if anything does, is not your use of humor but your complete lack of evidence and missing the point. It’s simply not a matter of faith; if it were there would be no reason for people to study it. I would guess, since you simplisticly assume that the ‘biases’ of scientists prevent them from doing any research that has sorts of objective, non-ideological conclusions, you have had no inclination to look at the evidence, but just to cite petitions (not studies) that support your pre-determined conclusions. There is no reason why this would be a political issue, I mean one that liberals would like and conservatives and libertarians would oppose, or whatever. Global warming, if indeed the science supports it (and here you have to look at the science), is a universal human problem that will effect technologists as much as it will anyone.
I have been conducting some personal research on the topic of global warming, and may be posting some results here. In the mean time, you may want to take a look at some the evidence that the global warming petition you cite can and has been signed by anyone, regardless of credentials (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2748308&date=19980501&query=jokers+petition) or relevant scientific expertise (http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21). The wikipedia page is pretty good too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition), revealing that of the signatories, supposedly:
“The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail. But older signatures submitted via the web were not removed.”
“Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree; 86% did list a degree; petitioners claimed that approximately two thirds held higher degrees, but never provided evidence confirming this claim.”
“Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline; the petition sponsors claimed that 13% were trained in physical or environmental sciences (physics, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, or environmental science) while 25% were trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or other life sciences, but never provided evidence to support this claim.”
“The Petition Project claimed that it avoided any funding or association with the energy industries, but many of the scientists who signed the petition are closely affiliated with organizations funded by Exxon and others to discredit legitimate climate science, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell and the Cooler Heads Coalition’s Patrick Michaels.”
“The term “scientists” is often used in describing signatories, but the petition did not require signatories to have a degree, or a degree in a scientific field, or to be working in the field in which the signatory had received a degree. The signatory was not asked to provide the name of his/her current or last employer or job. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said “send more petition cards for me to distribute.”
Let the back-pedaling begin!
– http://billscomments.blogspot.com/2007/02/like-i-said-back-pedaling-is-beginning.html –
– http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece –
Your belief is ridiculous.
Leave A Reply