Badmovies.org Forum

This guy has compiled over 600 links to sites ascribing every kind of misfortune you can think of to global warming. This includes everything from "caterpillar biomass shift" to a drop in the circumcision rate.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html

What was funny was the back to back 'polar' opposites.
Fish yields up ... fish yields down. Bumper crops ... poor crops. etc.

I heard about the list today on El Rushbo.

I'd like to add my increasing hair loss on that list.  DARN GLOBAL WARMING! MY HAIR!

But I shave my head with a razor anyway so I guess no one notices anyway.   :lookingup:

About the only thing I don't see listed there is the heartbreak of psoriasis.  I'm sure it is just an oversight.

Hey, me too. Of course I was doing it years before I actually started losing hair. Grew it a couple of weeks last year and determined that I do indeed have a fairly significant bald spot on my crown. The trickiest part to shave has become the easiest  :smile:

I would like to attribute a sharp rise in annoying political statements and inane news reports to global warming, and perhaps also an apparent decline in objective science. But those things rise and fall with whatever issue people happen to be worried about at any given time.

No, no, no! It's "climate change" now. Your unrevised Newspeak is double-plus ungood, comrade.

Ahh... Newspeak, Oldthinkers unbellyfeel climchang!

Several years ago after weeks of recurrent illness and pain, chronic appendicitis was diagnosed.  Acute appendicitis is usually easily diagnosed by tenderness on the patients right side (when the appendix is about to burst, or has). Chronic appendicitis comes and goes, so getting poked in the side, it wasn't always tender... this illustrates my view of mankind's "science" (it's akin to shamanism).  Sometimes right, sometimes wrong.  But if I hadn't trusted these scientists with my body, I might have died (or continued to suffer).  My first thought was, "...It's appendicitis!"  But more tests were necessary!  What do I know?  I'm no doctor...

One of the links is entitled: "Global warming 'helps coral reefs grow'"

The end of that story includes this statement:

"...But the finding, reported in New Scientist magazine, is rejected by other scientists, who argue that the Australian team did not consider bleaching, which occurs when warmer waters cause corals to expel the algae that live within them and on which they depend for survival." 

I sure don't want to look at all those links, but it seems to me Dr. John Brignell has got lots of elbow room defining: "scares, scams, junk, panics and flummery cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats and so-called scientists and others that try to confuse the public with wrong numbers." 

I'm not overly impressed by 600 links, certainly many must be silly "junk" or "scams".  It's easy to find links about controversial topics like global warming where there's much dialogue on both sides of the topic. 

Whether one agrees with commentary or not should not color one's scrutiny of the source.  I'm not certain American Thinker is an unbiased website, certainly the writer isn't:
"This exercise is not merely a lark to show the abject absurdity of this global warming nonsense."

Michael Crichton wrote a book last year called STATE OF FEAR which points out many of the weaknesses in the Al Gore-type position, and argues that the case for human caused climate change is actually far weaker than is generally realized.  Crichton is one of the more brilliant guys out there, and his novel contained over 40 pages of references to various scholarly journals, government climate record, etc.  It is definitely worth a read.


I guess my biggest concern is this - what if we gut 200 years of industrial and scientific progress to lower carbon emissions and discover none of it makes a bit of difference?  That the globe just does whatever it wants to do anyway?  We'd come off looking pretty dumb, and those that ignored all the politically correct crapola would come out on top.

In April 28, 1975 NEWSWEEK published a store on the coming ICE AGE due to GLOBAL COOLING then in the 1980's we had the hole in the ozone scare, facts are the expects don't know squat.

Here is a page from the 1975 story ...
(http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/newsweek-global-cooling.jpg)

I find it particularly interesting that the old ten-year deadline is rearing its ugly head again. Apparently, we have ten years to get a handle on climate change (formerly global warming, which was itself formerly the greenhouse effect) before it's too late and the process becomes unstoppable.

Remember the last time environmentalism was particularly trendy? I mean, it's always a hot topic, but every few years people really start jumping on the bandwagon. Think back about 15 years, to the days of Captain Planet, when PC was experiencing a surge. Back then, we had ten years to do something about pollution before it was too late.

So, either we've already licked the problem, or we're all doomed anyway. Either way, we have nothing to worry about  :twirl:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a healthy environment. I just object to alarmist claptrap.

The world will ALWAYS be here...just because WE are not....that's just the way it is. So what? The dinosaurs are gone...so to will we be gone someday. Personally...I don't worry about it. It's about time cockroaches ruled the Earth anyway! BRING ON DAMNATION ALLEY WORLD!!!   :cheers:

I generally supported "the environmentalists" before this whole Climate Change nonsense. I mean who can argue with stopping illegal dumping, pollution, acid rain (remember when we were all going to die because of acid rain), but they've really gone off the deep end here. In the past there were freaking ICE AGES! one was as recent as the middle-ages. The damn climate changes on it's own accord. North Africa was a bloody paradise before the deserts expanded. The left-wing nutjobs just want us running around in loin-cloths tilling rice paddies. But people are generally ignorant and can't be bothered to pick up a book and read these things. So they go along like sheeple. The climate is going to change, Da Earf isn't static. It is not going to remain constant.

Interesting... that's kind of like what I thought when I saw Idiocracy: if natural selection favors the morons, maybe they do deserve to inherit the world.

Incidentally, did anyone notice the reference to "Climactic Change" in that magazine page CheezeFlix posted? Ah, how little things do change!

That's where this is really beginning to bug me. Aside from the bullying that goes on in scientific circles if someone tries to offer a scientific opinion contrary to climate change doctrine. And aside from politicians using it for their own gain. Oh, and aside from trained journalists parroting these hypotheses as though they were accepted fact, and aside from biased terminology creeping into the lingo, like "greenhouse gasses." That and just plain annoying buzzwords like "carbon footprint"..... Where was I?

Oh yes, aside from all that.... Come to think of it, this always bugged me.

But what I find most disturbing of all is that the goal is, as others have suggested, to make us give up things for our own good.

Should we do our best to avoid waste? Yes. Should we try not to pollute our environment? Absolutely. Should governments subsidize homeowners who install solar or wind power? Yes. Should we hang clothes on a line in the summer instead of using the dryer? I think so. These are sensible things.

What bugs me is that people are actually advocating against travel, or eating imported fruits. There are people who want to ban barbecues. I saw a guy on TV last week who was arguing that we should all give up meat in general on the basis that it is an inefficient use of land, grain, fuel, water, etc. And any use of energy in the household is now being expressed as tons of carbon in the atmosphere, regardless of how it was generated.

This has turned into a direct attack on our pleasures and conveniences, and the technology behind them. People are advocating going backward, giving things up. We should be looking for ways to do these things in a cleaner, more efficient way. Solve the problem instead of running from it. That's progress. Assuming climate change is caused by human activities, and this is far from proven, the problem is not the activities. The problem is the undesirable effect they're having, and that is where efforts should be directed.

THAT'S GREAT! Less demand mean lower prices and more for me. Excellent.

That's right!  MORE for YOU !!!    :teddyr: 

I don't think the theory of "global warming" or "climate change" is anywhere near "doctrine".  President George W. Bush only this year moved towards center on this topic.  And that was not because of pushy leftists, but data his administration could not deny.  My point is that scientific theory on the topic of global warming is not regimented such as on a topic like evolution. 

Boiled down to bare essentials, I wouldn't argue.  But what about our children and their children?  Don't we owe it to them to be concerned?  Since when has life been about our own lives and not what we leave?  Isn't the next generation the whole point?  I have friends I see shove bottles into garbage and I inquire, "Aren't we supposed to recycle?" and the reply has been "I can't be bothered."  I work for the shipping industry, so I have a clue about "recycling" which in case any of you aren't aware, is largely a scam.  You might be stunned to learn how many children grow up in what we've called "third world" countries playing on mountains of our shredded plastic... 

If global warming is a reality, no scenario is good.  The planet gets warmer, sea levels rise and London, Manhattan, and Miami become aquariums.  I'm not personally worried.  I expect to be dead before that could happen.  Why should I worry?  So, maybe sea levels don't rise, but we trigger an ice age, even a "little ice age" because of effects on ocean currents, and things get colder.  Colder means colder or drier.  During the "little ice age" populations starved because of a few degrees fluctuation.

Historians please advise about the few hundred years of actual weather data recorded, prior to the early 19th century.  Is it true that the Earth went through a "little ice age" the final gasp of which was the "year without a summer" in 1816?  That was due to natural fluctation, and in relation to the rest of the planets of our solar system, insignificant.  Perhaps its true, even probably, that we have no control.  But who is to say we have no influence?  Perhaps it is that sublte.  There are long periods in those last few hundred years of what climatologists call the "little ice age" when populations starved because of resource shortage.  That's resource shortage.  How many Amercians get their food from the supermarket?  

The brief history of mankind on this planet is a crapshoot; how would modern society deal with fewer and more costly resources?  It's not about Arab princes frittering away mere billions of dollars on desert oasis playgrounds.  That horror is anecdotal and irrelevant! 
Yet, who can deny the facts of glaciers receding at alarming rates, including ice shelves the size of small states tumbling into the Antarctic Sea?  Perhaps it's natural and we have llittle or nothing to do with it.  Should we sit idly by at this unique juncture in human history, (yes, I know all historical junctures are unique) and continue to selfishly pollute our planet?  Why was TEDDY ROOSEVELT concerned with preservation 100 years ago?  How can we even chance that the forseeable future of our kind should become bleaker and bleaker?  Any crude oil afficionado knows that we have only a few decades supply left, and what then?  Perhaps the bone-headed flower-offering Left may seem glad at the prospect, but they all drive to work, too.  And let's not forget China and India following the old American model and polluting now more than Americans were ever capable of. 

Though we have at least a few hundred years of coal, which in the next century we may need to turn back to, without adaptations and adjustments in technology, we will see more pollution, less efficiency, and well founded industries fighting for their survival.

40,000 years ago there was the Bering Land bridge between Alaska and Russia. It is now 100's of feet below water, why? Did the early man travel from Asia to North and South America via the land bridge in SUV's causing prehistoric global warming? No, the climate ebbs and floes over 1000's of years, man simply does not have enough data to make prediction of were things are going, it's basic SPC and that is your inconvenient truth.  

(http://whyfiles.org/shorties/202mass_extinct/images/land_bridge.gif)

Mankind has been eating it's own tail  for a long time. The planet is sick and ill. That changes going on are the result of many things....Earth has swallowed to much of our crap....it's about to vomit us up and flush us away.


 ( After re-reading what I just wrote....it sounds like a line from an Ed Wood film. Come to think of it...most of my posts sound like Woodsian nonsense. I believe I've seen waaaay to many bad movies....my mind is in some kinda bizzare loop!  :buggedout:  Dam global warming has cooked my brain....!)

This is where I disagree. Humanity isn't going anywhere. We're not going to be flushed away. In the 40 or years of valid environmental concerns we now have good environmental policies in place that have cleaned things up. Any company that violates these policies is in violation of law. It wasn't like that in the past so things got out of hand. Unfortunately today many people have this opinion that man is evil, we've destroyed everything, we're hopeless. It's very easy for environmentalists to capitalize on this to push their increasingly crazy policies. I wonder how long it will be until Fourth of July celebrations or 21-gun salutes are banned because of their carbon footprint? You wait, they're nationalistic and polluting that's a double no no.

I am much the same mind as AndyC.  Let's continue to find ways to do things better and cleaner.  The thing about nature is that it is a self-sustaining system that is also constantly undergoing subtle changes.  Renewable energy sources are good, ditto for using the minimum amount of energy and resources to do something.

We do what we can here.  We keep the thermostat at 70 or below during the winter.  We use CFL bulbs.  We turn off lights we are not using and use rechargeable batteries wherever it makes sense.  When the military moves us, we try to find a home close to my base/unit so that the gas is kept down.  We don't take long showers.  I have a tumbling composter in the back yard and we recycle anything we can.  We have reusable cloth bags for groceries.  When we do buy a house, I definitely want to look into solar power and also building down (basement) rather than up (larger upstairs) for the room needed.

The climate is a huge system and we really do not understand all of the factors that affect it.

So... you are advising it isn't possible that our carbon emissions could have a negative impact on our environment?  Well, that sounds real good, but not inconvenient. 

I agree with everything you've written.   :thumbup:

And a timely article on Slashdot about untapped geothermal energy:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/02/2337243

I think the big hurdle will be taking the power from where it can be produced to where it is needed.