• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Global warming alarmist no longer alarmed

How will global warming crowd spin this?

  • He's old and senile.

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • Exxon agreed to buy 100,000 copies of his book if it said the right things.

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • His academic credentials are sketchy and he knows nothing about science.

    Votes: 4 23.5%

  • The Pentaverate got to him. The queen. The Gettys. AND colonel sanders.

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • Total voters
    17
This was one of his former opinions

“before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

I would think that most of the scientific community that supports AGW theory would consider that a pretty extreme alarmist statement.
 
Agreed. I will therefore extrapolate his reduction in alarm from 10 to 4, and assume that all others who were alarmed more moderately at 7-8 are now at 2-3.
 
He hasn't become a denier of man's role in climate change.
 
Agreed. He has begun to doubt whether anyone really needs to give a damn about it though.
 
There's nothing in the article saying he has changed his determination that nuclear plants should be built due to the impact of coal and oil plants have on the environment.

Plus he still believes that there are man made influences on the environment. It's not a hoax or a scam like so many Republicans say it is. It's not junk science like so many in the party of no science say it is.
 
RJKarl said:
There's nothing in the article saying he has changed his determination that nuclear plants should be built due to the impact of coal and oil plants have on the environment.

Plus he still believes that there are man made influences on the environment. It's not a hoax or a scam like so many Republicans say it is. It's not junk science like so many in the party of no science say it is.
Click to expand...

The thing I've always wondered about is this - if the science so clearly backs the claims of the GW crowd, as they claim it does, why have they lied, obfuscated, and over-stated things to the extent that they have? Doesn't make sense.
 
Who has lied?

It's irrational to believe that pollution and the cutting of rainforests have no impact. Putting poisonous chemicals into the atmosphere (a chemical petrie dish) is likely to have impact.

Thinking man doesn't impact climate is illogical.
 
Don't get too carried away Rj. It is a lot of junk science. That's why people like this can't defend their former predictions - because the predictions were junk.
 
It's not junk science.

They have done peer reviewed experiments.

It's only junk to those who don't believe in science.
 
Peer reviewed publications or actual real time experience? Which is more reliable: the peer reviewed "science" in which the authors and peers agreed that we were all doomed, OR the actual proof of those predictions being inaccurate?

I understand that you still believe that the former predictions will come true. However, nature is weighing in on the debate and she ha spent the last ten years crapping on the "science."
 
You have ONE guy here. There are still thousands who haven't changed.

Plus the difference between us is, even if they are off by 50%, there is still a problem. You don't believe there's a problem.
 
Admitting that you were wrong about a position that you staked your professional reputation on is a pretty serious decision. Especially when your position was used to justify trillions of potentially wasted dollars. I wouldn't be surprised if the only people who recant are about to retire.
 
No you want that to happen.

He hasn't recanted his basic position that man made climate change is real and a problem. He's simply saying it may not be as big or immediate.

Trillions of dollars have not been spent or wasted.
 
Not because you and the alarmists didn't want to spend it though!

I agree that all he's doing is backing off, but that is a huge deal. He's saying that his former predictions have so far been inaccurate, and he's not able to explain why. You don't think he has been consulting with others on trying to figure this out? None of them have publicly announced their skepticism yet, but apparently no one was able to satisfy his concerns. That is a huge concession to make. Like I said: he close to dying, so he can afford to admit he was wrong. But what about his colleagues who can't take the chance on getting fired?
 
But he is diametrically different from you. He has not said there isn't a problem versus you thinking anything that doesn't say there's no problem is junk science.

There you go lumping me in with anything you don't like.

My position has been stated many times. There is climate change. The US lost the second half of the 20th century in the energy wars.

The rest of the world is going green in huge ways. China, Germany, France, Brazil,m India and other countries are investing heavily in creating green technologies and green energy products. We are falling dramatically behind them.

The deniers, like you, are dooming the US to second class status in the mid-late 21st century. We will not own the patents and technologies. Our competitors will.

Acting like you, Inhofe and other "conservatives" want us to act will harm our economy, defense and environment.
 
My position all along has been that there are too many reasons to doubt the idea of man caused global warming and no evidence that we can do anything about global warming, whatever caused it, if it exists. I think we would be better advised to be using our resources to solve the problems we did cause, such as pollution and garbage, which we did cause and can solve, whatever the temperature of the earth may be today and in the near future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top