Who would be interested in participating in a group dedicated to the advocacy of global warming? This is obviously an attempt at satire, but with a valid point: there are many benefits to a warmer climate. I think such a group could get good media attention. Your participation would consist of research and contributions to a mini-site and public awareness activism.
Can we think of some funny acronyms for the name?
Please respond if you’re interested.
Who would be interested in participating in a group dedicated to the advocacy of global warming? This is obviously an attempt at satire, but with a valid point: there are many benefits to a warmer climate. I think such a group could get good media attention. Your participation would consist of research and contributions to a mini-site and public awareness activism.
Can we think of some funny acronyms for the name?
Please respond if you’re interested.
I am interested in this as it is an issue I have been giving some thought to recently, and intend to research furtherin into in any case. I think I would like to contribute to a mini-site like this as a nice little bonus.
Who would be interested in participating in a group dedicated to the advocacy of global warming? This is obviously an attempt at satire, but with a valid point: there are many benefits to a warmer climate. I think such a group could get good media attention. Your participation would consist of research and contributions to a mini-site and public awareness activism.
Can we think of some funny acronyms for the name?
Please respond if you’re interested.
I’m all for it! It will give us more coral, bring more coastline to the poorer inland states (HA!) and help all those subsidised farmers grow crops if they ever feel like getting off the dole and doing something! Bring on the global warming, cuz we sure as hell aren’t causing it and we may as well revel in its greatness!
You might consider not using satire at all.
I’m all for it! It will give us more coral, bring more coastline to the poorer inland states (HA!) and help all those subsidised farmers grow crops if they ever feel like getting off the dole and doing something! Bring on the global warming, cuz we sure as hell aren’t causing it and we may as well revel in its greatness!
No, we are not, but apparently here in New Zealand, the cows burping methane a significiant source of greenhouse gases :dough:
International Pleasant Climate Committee
(IPCC)
No, we are not, but apparently here in New Zealand, the cows burping methane a significiant source of greenhouse gases :dough:
Farting not burbing. That is why the now dumped proposal to tax farmers was called “the fart tax” by its ctirics.
I would be interested in such a site.
Oh, and I like Nate’s name suggestion.
Farting not burbing. That is why the now dumped proposal to tax farmers was called “the fart tax” by its ctirics.
I would be interested in such a site.
Oh, and I like Nate’s name suggestion.
No, they originally said it was farting, then it was pointed out their burping releases more methane apparently…and at some later stage the whole thing was dropped.
NAKED
Nudists Advocating the Conservation of Earth’s Deserts
any thoughts?
NAKED
Ha! That’s a good reason for wanting it warmer. :dough:
NAKED
Nudists Advocating the Conservation of Earth’s Deserts
any thoughts?
Oh I like that one, in fact its better than the other one. I just hope the members all get handed out some SPF 50+ during the meetings :dough: .
Actually, for all your benefit-- The Great Global Warming Swindle is now available on Google Video.
And it is actually cow burps that push out the most methane.
International Pleasant Climate Committee
(IPCC)
Sorta like People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.
I have an article about AGW here on my blog. The posts links here and to a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle. It also links to another blog post about it. I suggest people read both posts and watch the documentary.
I have an article about AGW here on my blog. The posts links here and to a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle. It also links to another blog post about it. I suggest people read both posts and watch the documentary.
One interesting thing that really caught me was toward the end when the founder of Greenpeace pointed out that the environmentalists are truly, simply, anti-man and anti-industrial, which is something Ayn Rand pointed out quite a while back in her tirades against hippies.
One interesting thing that really caught me was toward the end when the founder of Greenpeace pointed out that the environmentalists are truly, simply, anti-man and anti-industrial, which is something Ayn Rand pointed out quite a while back in her tirades against hippies.
Yes, that is true. He was also on Penn and Teller’s BS once saying similar things. He said in that episode of BS that he left Greenpeace because they were taking their envirometalism to the point of anti-man, which was against his reasons for founding the orginisation.
Oh, and if you go to the post please leave comments.
Make that here. I moved my blog to Word Press because it is superior to Blogger.
I think this is an important cause–we on land have an overabundance of carbon-dioxide producing materials, any number of which are harmful to our own lives. Oil, smoke, aerosol, all these things in large quantities pose an immanent danger to all human life! Scientists (my neighbor Bob) says that these materials, if left unchecked, will kill you within a week! We must re-organize these materials, quickly re-locating carbon-dioxide by means of burning off the oil–preferably by industry but, if necessary, by simply igniting oil resources–clear-cutting forests and processing the wood, and a litany of other measures that would pump CO2 into the atmosphere, to then be quickly absorbed by the oceans where it damn well belongs! Moreover, we need to begin rating politicians on their CO2 hostility and looking into measures to provoke sun-spots in order to increase the earth’s temperature, thus causing the oceans to more readily accommodate the added supply of CO2.
the Hot Air Healthy Alternative (HAHA)?
I’ve never understood the hostility of Objectivists (and free marketers in general) to the theory of global warming. I’ve read science both supporting and attacking the theory, and honestly I just don’t have the scientific expertise to adjudicate between these conflicting claims. I’ve also read science both for and against evolution, and likewise I don’t have the expertise to conclude one way or the other purely based on my understanding of science. In fact, I doubt I have the expertise to even prove that the earth goes around the sun. While there are scientists on this board, most of us are probably in the position of having to believe what science tells us. I don’t think this is “faith,” since we have a rational basis for believing scientists: (Occham’s razor would militate against thinking science is just a global conspiracy and my computer is powered by invisible goblins).
While there may not be a “consensus,” most climate scientists tend to think there is warming and it is at least somewhat anthropogenic. Why is there such hostility to this theory? Are there others on this forum equally puzzled? At the risk of “psychologizing,” perhaps people are reasoning
A. Many advocates the theory favor government regulation of the environment (and some are even “environmentalists”)
B. Such regulation and “environmentalism” is evil
Therefore
C. The theory is wrong and propagated for evil reasons.
One could also propose the following, more valid reasoning
A. Government regulation of the environment is wrong
B. Global warming is an “environmental” problem that will probably negatively effect humans
C. Premise B is irrelevant to political debates because government regulation of the environment is wrong.
D. Premise A is irrelevant to scientific debates about the existence of warming.
In conclusion, I have two questions:
Is there credible evidence that climatologists, on the whole, distort their science because of their political beliefs? If anything, I would think that many are brought to their political convictions because of their science. I’m sure there are isolated examples of such distortion, but I’m asking for evidence of such distortion across the field.
Are there any climatologists on this forum who disagree with the theory of anthropogenic climate change? Or are we all just adopting second-hand the theories of those who reinforce our political beliefs.