Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2014, 11:54:25 AM
530121 Posts in 40009 Topics by 4998 Members
Latest Member: Kato44
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Press Releases and Film News  |  Bush's Toothless Climate Plan « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan  (Read 12697 times)
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 22, 2008, 09:57:31 AM »

There is no debate among scientists.  The actual global warming debates are on the issues I mentioned previously. Dismissing it with a wave of the hand and the classic Global Cooling chestnut will not change anything. 

What are the crowds of hyperbole doing, but dismissing factual counterpoints with a wave of the hand. As Ulthar has pointed out and provided link to, there is plenty of debate amongst scientist and in the public.

You believe in Global Warming, great go 100% green no one is stopping you, BUT do not inflict your (as GW group) your beliefs on me. (i.e. banning incandescent light bulbs, regulating my thermostat, forcing me to bring canvas bags to the grocery, etc etc and so on) And that is at the heart of the argument, the global warming crowd wants to enforce and inflict their beliefs of all that is right and holy on the masses and that my friend is not America. If I want to leave every light in my house on and set my thermostat at 65 in the heat of summer and if I want to drive a gas guzzling 10 mpg Ram 3500 and I can afford it than I should be allowed to do it. (I don't do 2 out of 3 of those, but that's not the point.)
No one is stopping anyone from believing in Global Warming or that the world is flat for that matter, what many of those that don't agree with it are doing is protecting their right to choose and the Global Warming crowd wants to regulate those right so it's not the fate of our planet that is stake it's our freedom of choice. And when you give up a freedom, you rarely ever get it back and that is the underlying battle. 
Logged

AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #31 on: April 22, 2008, 12:29:51 PM »

The title of this thread reminded me of the criticism our prime minister, Stephen Harper, has taken for taking a cautious and sensible approach to climate change, rather than jumping in recklessly. One of his critics actually called him a "climate-change denier." I'm surprised that the Jewish community wasn't immediately demanding an apology for that.

The all-around suppression of free speech on this issue is remarkable. Climate change is being presented as a universally accepted fact, with those who question it being, in the example I just mentioned, lumped in with the likes of Ernst Zundel.

From my own point of view, it does seem interesting that regardless of what the current crisis is, the solution is usually the same. We must all give up or cut back on some use of technology. Driving usually tops the list. And the warning is always that we must make this change by some arbitrary deadline or it will be the end of the world as we know it.

Two things usually bother me. One is the lack of concern for the effect of drastic government policies on business and the economy. This is usually dismissed as irrelevant. But it is only because of our society's relative wealth that we can afford to worry about climate change. People struggling to earn a living have more immediate worries.

The other thing that bothers me is that we are looking at our technology as the problem. I'm not convinced that we have that much effect on global climate, but if we do, the problem is not our technology but its side effects.

The problem is not the car, but rather its emissions. We don't use too much energy, we just don't produce it cleanly or efficiently enough. But the idea of finding ways to continue our current lifestyle more cleanly is not exactly a popular one in environmentalist circles. Generally speaking, the environmentalist philosophy, for lack of a better word, does not believe in the win-win situation. As with many a religious order, it is only through self-denial that we may find salvation.

I just don't agree with that.
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
Captain Tars Tarkas
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 76
Posts: 411



WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2008, 12:37:18 PM »

I don't have time to trash all of these as thouroughly as I did the so-called 20,000 signed petition, but many of these are just as incorrect.



(3) How about the big list of articles outlined on the Junk Science web site?  Are all of those researchers frauds as well?  Be sure to check out this page for contemporary data and discussion.


Citing Steven Milloy's Junk science website is about as accurate as citing Santa Claus.  Here is one of many, many, many, many, many sites debunking this non-scientist junk peddler:  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy



Needless to say I can pick and choose quotes about how there is a debate about landing on the moon, but that doesn't mean there is a debate about faked moon landings.  The same with "intelligent" design.  The same with Saddam having weapons of mass destruction.  The same with Hillary actually having a chance of winning.  Except all of those are also false and only around due to people having monetary interests in pushing them.  The same is true with people who deny global warming.  Look at who funds them.  Follow the money, and see how it is funny.  Look at Cheezflix theorizing that I'm on a mission to force him to use cloth bags under threat of jailtime.  Where did I say that?  I guess because on wacko says something that must be true for everyone who believes in global warming.

Scientists claiming that they spoke against global warming and are suddenly ostracized are laughable.  It is about as accurate as the scientists in Ben Stein's film who claim to have been fired over not believing in evolution but when you bother to look them up find out they were fired for not doing any research or the jobs they were hired for.   And even the retired Gray keeps changing his predictions: "In 2006, Gray predicted a cooling trend by 2009-2010. In 2008, Gray changed the prediction to "within ten years.""  He's now attempting to make bets on the effects of climate change.


Scafetta & West's paper, if correct, only explains 25-35% of warming.  That's hardly saying there is no man-made global warming, and again reinforces the point I continue to make that the debate is not if there is man-made warming, but how much damage we are causing.  More on S&W: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/

As for the hockey stick graph (which was "disproven" by a mining industry worker and an economist) there are many places showing that they disproved practically zilch.  here is one:  http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php
note the corrected graph and how it is still a hockey stick. 

But, yeah, all of you need to recycle or I'm calling the green gestapo.  Happy Earth Day!

Logged

nshumate
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 79
Posts: 760



« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2008, 12:43:31 PM »



But, yeah, all of you need to recycle or I'm calling the green gestapo.  Happy Earth Day!



Could you please resist the urge to throw in your sarcastic "zingers" at the end of each post?  They undermine whatever respect your reasoning garners up until that point, and makes you seem like the kind of guy who likes to taunt and belittle those who disagree with him -- certainly not the kind of assumption of good will one would like to see in any debate.
Logged

Nathan Shumate
Cold Fusion Video Reviews
Sci-fi, Horror, and General Whoopass
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 320
Posts: 3794


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 22, 2008, 01:20:21 PM »

I don't have time to trash all of these as thouroughly as I did the so-called 20,000 signed petition, but many of these are just as incorrect.



Let me be as clear as I can on one key point:  I am not debating with you which side is right or wrong.  I am debating with you your assertion of "consensus."

You did not trash anything.  20,000 scientists signed that petition in good faith, no matter what it's origins. Or at least one did.  My name is on it.  I believed then and I believe now that more OBJECTIVE science needs to be done before far reaching, possibly disastrous federal and international policies are implemented.

And one dissent is all I need to disprove consensus.  Of course, it's easy to label one dissent as a crackpot or a fraud.

So, I presented other dissenting scientists - REAL RESEARCHERS.  I find it more than just a little troubling that for each dissenter I produce, they are labeled crackpot or fraud, and you continue with the statement "there is consensus - there is NO debate."  The debate is there -  you are choosing to ignore it.

I learned yesterday that you are a Biology graduate student.  So I ask you, as a scientist, do you not find the facts outlined in my last paragraph illogical?

Let's change the base fact a little bit and say the issue is plate tectonics rather than global climate change.  At one time, the theory of tectonics was considered pseudoscience and the proponents of the theory were held up as crackpots and frauds.  That exact paragraph above could have been written then.  The point is NOT that they were ultimately vindicated.

But now you know (or I should say I THINK you know) that plate tectonics is not only a valid theory, but is THE accepted theory of geologic change.  It is very, very important to note that the IPCC itself has issued a report in November 2007, that I linked to earlier, in which it was clearly stated that the foundational underpinning of all that is supposedly "known" about the anthropogenic causes of global warming have been shown FALSE.  I don't know...that sounds like some pretty good credibility for McIntyre, McKittrick and Wegman, to name only a few key players that have been involved in debunking the Hockey Stick Graph.

There is no hockey stick.  Even a review by MIT Researchers has concluded Mann's analysis was flawed.  Are the boys at MIT now frauds and crackpots, too?   What about work done at the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks?  Crackpot, fraud or valid research?  What about Edward Wegman, Chair of the National Science Foundation's Statistical Sciences Committee?  Is he likewise a fraud, along with the whole team of statisticians that the US Congress tasked to study the Mann data?

If you continue to assert that the Hockey Stick data is real, I can only conclude that your mind is closed to even the possibility that what you believe about the anthropogenic causes of climate change might be incorrect.

(Note I did not say ARE incorrect - if you want to get to anthropogenic causes without the Hockey Stick, more power to you, but it is generally assumed in the science community that the Mann data is the underpinning for all claims of causality in the anthropogenic debate).

Debate, discussion, is ALWAYS good in science.  NOTHING is settled or completely known.  I would be very surprised if you complete your graduate training withing figuring that out.  It is very fundamental.

I've read that history will show 2007 as the year the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Hoax officially died.  Given the near 180 turn done by the IPCC in November, I think that's a fair call.  It will take years for the "issue" to completely go away, as some hold cherished beliefs rather strongly.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 22, 2008, 05:55:31 PM »

I did what I could do today, on earth day to HALT GLOBAL WARMING ... you read that right Cheeze got on board to stave off warming. I turned my A/C down as low as it would go and I opened all the windows and doors ... I sure hope it helped.
Logged

Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1527
Posts: 10682


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2008, 12:10:13 AM »

I did what I could do today, on earth day to HALT GLOBAL WARMING ... you read that right Cheeze got on board to stave off warming. I turned my A/C down as low as it would go and I opened all the windows and doors ... I sure hope it helped.
You're a smart-ass. 
 
But, yeah, all of you need to recycle or I'm calling the green gestapo.  Happy Earth Day!
Could you please resist the urge to throw in your sarcastic "zingers" at the end of each post?  They undermine whatever respect your reasoning garners up until that point, and makes you seem like the kind of guy who likes to taunt and belittle those who disagree with him -- certainly not the kind of assumption of good will one would like to see in any debate.
That seems impatient with a bit of humor.  Man, there is a reason they have that old saying about religion and politics. 

What a debate I started here, unintentionally, you believe me don't you??!! 
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2008, 12:29:25 AM »

I did what I could do today, on earth day to HALT GLOBAL WARMING ... you read that right Cheeze got on board to stave off warming. I turned my A/C down as low as it would go and I opened all the windows and doors ... I sure hope it helped.
You're a smart-ass. 

As opposed to being what? (Come on you can figure it out.)
Logged

Captain Tars Tarkas
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 76
Posts: 411



WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2008, 02:10:50 AM »

I don't have time to trash all of these as thouroughly as I did the so-called 20,000 signed petition, but many of these are just as incorrect.



Let me be as clear as I can on one key point:  I am not debating with you which side is right or wrong.  I am debating with you your assertion of "consensus."

You did not trash anything.  20,000 scientists signed that petition in good faith, no matter what it's origins. Or at least one did.  My name is on it.  I believed then and I believe now that more OBJECTIVE science needs to be done before far reaching, possibly disastrous federal and international policies are implemented.


The petition was sent out under false pretenses and outright deception, and is filled with false names and researchers who have little if anything to do with weather patterns in their areas of study.  But if you want to continue to accept it as proof of massive disagreement on climate change then feel free, and I will continue to point out it proves only that many people don't read their email carefully.

Quote
And one dissent is all I need to disprove consensus.  Of course, it's easy to label one dissent as a crackpot or a fraud.

So, I presented other dissenting scientists - REAL RESEARCHERS.  I find it more than just a little troubling that for each dissenter I produce, they are labeled crackpot or fraud, and you continue with the statement "there is consensus - there is NO debate."  The debate is there -  you are choosing to ignore it.


Milroy and his ilk that are funded by oil companies to be their mouthpieces are not REAL RESEARCHERS.  Even for the others that are REAL RESEARCHERS, there are always crackpots within the ranks as well.  The man who invented PCR believed he was abducted by aliens and that HIV does not cause AIDS.  I guess we should label those as two things that also need to be seriously discussed without evidence as well.  If you are as familiar with science as you claim to be you would be aware there are plenty of strong personalities and just plain weird people who see any dissenting opinion from their own as a grand conspiracy.  My objections to them are that they overstate their data and make false claims. 

Most of the important data produced recently challenging global warming only show adjustments to the levels of human-caused change, none eliminate it entirely, and many of the dissenting studies are filled with errors themselves.  All of this continue to show my argument that the debate is on the level of human caused climate change, not if it is happening at all, is true.

Quote
Let's change the base fact a little bit and say the issue is plate tectonics rather than global climate change.  At one time, the theory of tectonics was considered pseudoscience and the proponents of the theory were held up as crackpots and frauds.  That exact paragraph above could have been written then.  The point is NOT that they were ultimately vindicated.

Yes, and people once believed in ether filling space, sperm were little tiny fully-formed people, the world was flat, dinosaurs died in the flood, prions were really viruses, and the moon was made of green cheese.  And then they were thrown aside when real evidence was brought forward.  Even though the wheels of change in science can move slowly and there will always be resistance by people who've made their careers saying things one way.  Although they do not stand in the way forever, the way to move them aside is to bring evidence to the table that shows them wrong.  They hockey stick graph evidence showed some of the shape was off, but did not disprove the graph (now in modified form and still saying the same thing.)  The other report only explained 30% or whatever of the temperature increase if it was even correct, which, again, does not disprove the human-caused global warming hypothesis. 


Quote
It is very, very important to note that the IPCC itself has issued a report in November 2007, that I linked to earlier, in which it was clearly stated that the foundational underpinning of all that is supposedly "known" about the anthropogenic causes of global warming have been shown FALSE.  I don't know...that sounds like some pretty good credibility for McIntyre, McKittrick and Wegman, to name only a few key players that have been involved in debunking the Hockey Stick Graph.


What's funny about that website saying the IPCC claims it's false is the policy summary itself says: "There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming."  and "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations."
It also contains the modified hockey stick graph!

Site - http://www.ipcc.ch/
official report - http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
Summary for policy makers: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
The hockey stick graph is figure 1.1! (SPM1 on the policy maker pdf)

I think the validity of the site you linked to is now in question. 

More than likely they took the components of the report discussing the difficulties of knowing the full impact of human-caused climate change and translated it into meaning that it's all bunk.  So basically they lied.


Quote
If you continue to assert that the Hockey Stick data is real, I can only conclude that your mind is closed to even the possibility that what you believe about the anthropogenic causes of climate change might be incorrect.

And since the hockey stick graph is in the IPCC report, where does this leave us now?

Quote

Debate, discussion, is ALWAYS good in science.  NOTHING is settled or completely known.  I would be very surprised if you complete your graduate training withing figuring that out.  It is very fundamental.

Well, of course.  But they need the skillz to pay the billz.  Ecology was recently rocked to the core by the Neutral Theory of Ecology.  It shook many assumptions people had made for decades.  It was challenged immediately.  But they were unable to dismiss it completely, and it is still here 20 years later.  The neutral theory of ecology is probably false (the current version defiantly is, but they are working on a Nearly Neutral Model which will be much better) but there was no censoring, no secret mafia suppressing reports.  The debate happened in the open, because both sides have evidence and didn't try to claim their data that said one thing was the final nail in the coffin.

Reports attacking the hockey stick graph were right that there was data problems.  They were wrong in asserting they've disproved it, when all they did was just make it a goalie's hockey stick.

Quote
I've read that history will show 2007 as the year the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Hoax officially died.  Given the near 180 turn done by the IPCC in November, I think that's a fair call.  It will take years for the "issue" to completely go away, as some hold cherished beliefs rather strongly.
I find reports of the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Hoax's death greatly exaggerated, and the IPCC's path as unwavering as it was in the previous Feb 2007 report and before.


Could you please resist the urge to throw in your sarcastic "zingers" at the end of each post?  They undermine whatever respect your reasoning garners up until that point, and makes you seem like the kind of guy who likes to taunt and belittle those who disagree with him -- certainly not the kind of assumption of good will one would like to see in any debate.

I see no objections to the sarcastic "zingers" thrown by Cheezeflixz or you in this thread.
Logged

AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2008, 06:28:20 AM »

Nope, no bias there  Lookingup
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 320
Posts: 3794


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2008, 08:49:00 AM »



I think the validity of the site you linked to is now in question. 

 

Then you've still missed the point of what I wrote.  I'll not rehash it again.

« Last Edit: April 24, 2008, 09:17:43 AM by ulthar » Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2008, 09:48:22 AM »

If there is in fact no debate about global warming, climate change or what ever the catch phrase of the day. Then I have a question.

What is the idea temperature for the earth? Is it higher, lower or right where it's at? And if it's higher or lower than current, then how much? 2 degree, 5 degrees, 10? If it can be shown with empirical data to that effect that is not bias, then I'll consider the evidence. Otherwise it's speculation and hyperbole.

But there is irony in the greater debate (and there is a debate), those that feel the earth is getting warmer wants the government to get on board and regulate consumer and personal use, they've already begun the demise of the incandescent light bulb and they cheer, they've regulated future fuel mileage and they cheer, they want the government to regulate, banned and enforce so much more so they can cheer,  ... BUT the very second the government want to listen to suspected terrorist communications they cry foul and protest, they open a recruiting station in they community (Berkley), they protest. They protest nearly everything that the government does they DON'T agree with, well you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The optimum level of government intrusion on you personal freedoms is ZERO. While government is a necessary evil, it is unwise to afford them more power than absolutely required. Hyperbole often leads the wholesale clearing house of your personal rights, and once those rights are sold at bargain basement prices the long term expense and maintenance is high.

For those that are passionate about AGW, I respect your beliefs. However, a word of warning never enforce your beliefs through laws and regulation; you are ultimately undermining the very philosophy in which you live by and circumventing the foundation in which this country was founded. You are in fact selling your sole for a pocket full of candy if you do.

And that IMHO is the greater debate, personal choice and freedom.

edit: clarity
« Last Edit: April 24, 2008, 10:48:40 AM by CheezeFlixz » Logged

nshumate
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 79
Posts: 760



« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2008, 09:56:48 AM »


I see no objections to the sarcastic "zingers" thrown by Cheezeflixz or you in this thread.

Probably because whatever little we've thrown doesn't come close to intimating that anyone who debates with you must a deluded Commie-hunter.

Know why the world's problems will never be solved?  Because people insist that anyone who thinks differently than they do is either stupid or evil.

I think I'm done with this thread. Heck, I may be done with the whole board.  There are forums (fora?) out there where people can disagree without being disagreeable, but that doesn't seem to have trickled down to many of the most active members here.
Logged

Nathan Shumate
Cold Fusion Video Reviews
Sci-fi, Horror, and General Whoopass
trekgeezer
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 4969


We're all just victims of circumstance


« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2008, 10:59:51 AM »

Well, Nathan join the club.  I sent Andrew a PM the other night telling him I was going to take a break from the forum because of these constant political debates.  I come here to have some fun,  but certain people here insist on trying to turn this into political forum.

I have to admit I'm still lurking around here, but damn it there are a lot of people I like here and I don't like the idea of few jackasses messing it up for everyone else.




Logged




And you thought Trek isn't cool.
Andrew
Administrator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 8396


I know where my towel is.


WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2008, 11:08:29 AM »

Actually, the question is if we just need to say "no political discussion" because they have become a problem - sinking into arguments.

The goal of the site is to enjoy, discuss, and share information about b-movies and cult films.

Quite honestly, political discussion sites require a lot of careful moderation, and I do not have the time to be micromanaging adults conversations.  I doubt anyone here does.
Logged

Andrew Borntreger
Badmovies.org
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Press Releases and Film News  |  Bush's Toothless Climate Plan « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.