Galt's Gulch

The Global Warming Movement - Just look, and they'll show you what it's about!

Posted by WBD 10 years, 9 months ago to Pics
60 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

My first post and first picture.

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • 10
    Posted by WBD 10 years, 9 months ago
    This is my favorite "political" photo. It gives a complete overview of the AGW movement.

    1. She is holding the cover story. She believes in the cause. She has faith in the movement. She knows that the science is settled.

    2. The person behind the scenes is holding the true motive of the movement. The end of Capitalism. The rise of World Socialism. The UN in control.

    3. The guy on the right is wondering why he's freezing his butt off at a Global Warming protest. He just goes along with the crowd. Maybe his name is Peter Keating.

    I've had a few people dismiss the idea but when I show them this photo you can see the gears engage in their brains. It's a wonderful thing to see the light go on.

    So during Earth Hour I always turn on all the lights and I celebrate "Human Achievement Hour"!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ Snezzy 10 years, 9 months ago
    For a tremendous amount of solid science and also some excellent political analysis of the Goebbels Warming crowd, see this website:
    wattsupwiththat.com

    The "97% of scientists" of scientists who agree with the warmists are all people on the same gravy train. They are funded by what we might call the State Science Institute.

    As far as I can see the political issue is to marginalize and eliminate the "opposition" by calling us "anti-science". That's what happened in Soviet biology, where it took them decades to recover from Trofim Lysenko.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by WBD 10 years, 9 months ago
      Watts Up With That is the world's best truly scientific site on the subject. And the most visited. Thanks for posting the link. I've been reading it for years.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 9 months ago
    What I'm reminded of is Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear". The author behind "Jurassic Park", "Congo", and "Sphere" - to name only a few - spent months doing research on how global warming was going to destroy the world. Only one problem. As the main character in the book finds out, the evidence suggests nothing of the kind! Crichton was a believer in global warming, but after doing the research decried it for the hoax it is. He was even very public about it - suggesting that the money some wanted to use to "fight" global warming would be much better used trying to help the peoples of Africa and other starving nations to build self-sufficient farming programs.

    Oh, and then he died shortly afterward. He was one of my favorite authors.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago
      As a scientist, you can't be a believer or denier. You just accept the evidence as it is and stay open to new evidence.

      As for ways to fight global warming, I haven't seen any that I understand. I'm sure we can do it. No experts have explained to me how though.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 9 months ago
        I would think that first you would need to understand what you are fighting (Sun Tzu). If you can't define your "enemy", how are you going to develop tactics? How are you even going to know what your end goal is?

        That's the part of that whole debate that is such a farce. We have evidence in the geological record that millions of years ago the entire earth was several degrees warmer than it is now and that as a result plants covered even the continent of Antartica (though it probably wasn't at the south pole). Only 10,000-15,000 years ago there was a severe Ice Age in Northern America that affected the entire world's climate and which we are still climbing out of. To use the 60-80 years of suspect climate data we have to try to model millions of years of complex interactions seems to me to be an exercise in hubris more than in science.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago
          Fight global warming is probably the wrong word. My understanding is climatologist do have good models that are not just based on 80 years of data. That's part of how we know the stuff you mention about last glacial maximum. My understanding is we also know human activities are affecting the earth. I agree completely with you, that in all that there's no clear "enemy". There's no clear "war objective", such as locking in the current climate. So my "fight" metaphor was off.

          I maintain geo-engineering will become necessary, mainly b/c we have huge cities in costal regions. This is happening sooner than it would otherwise b/c of human activities. I'm for reducing CO2, but it really seems like pissing in the wind to my scientific but non-expert-in-climatology mind.

          Deniers say the science is biased by millions of dollars of research money but not the tens of trillions of dollars of economic activity that involve burning stuff and emitting CO2. But the trillions of dollars of activity is the rub. I want as much economic activity as possible, so even if we produce more output per CO2, it's hard to reduce CO2. I'm confident there's a solution, but it's one tough problem.

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 9 months ago
            Let's see, there was a "little ice age" about a thousand years ago, and then a warming period that has extended to current times. Warming did not dramatically increase in the 19th century, when the most dirty power was being used (coal with no cleaning).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 9 months ago
            Well, NASA's chief climate scientist pointed out that 95% of the existing climate models aren't just a little off, but a LOT off, so I definitely disagree with the assertion that scientists have developed a good model.

            The other thing I would point out is that labeling CO2 a pollutant is just nonsense as well. It's plant food at its most basic and the result of nearly every form of combustion known to take place!

            No. The whole argument is about control - it has nothing to do with "science".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 9 months ago
      Not everyone accepted his alarmist stories and the alleged "science" as fact.

      Check out the comments from when he died.

      http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/11...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by WBD 10 years, 9 months ago
        And you would expect everyone to accept them?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 9 months ago
          I would expect folks to see Crichton's perspective and understand that he was out to sell books and make a bunch of money.

          Alarmist fiction sells well.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 9 months ago
            ... seems to have worked very well for the Warmites, too! :)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 9 months ago
              But real science is on the side of global warming.

              Do you deny cigarettes cause cancer?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by WBD 10 years, 9 months ago
                Actually the real science is not on the side of AGW but I won't bother trying to convince you because you have decided the science is settled. The people who are open to opposing data are increasingly sceptical. This is shown in surveys where global warming is ranked near the bottom of the top 20 concerns the general public has.

                As for cigarettes, I believe they can cause cancer and a great deal more which is why I quit smoking over a decade ago.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 9 months ago
                  Ah... Maybe there is hope you will quit denying the impact of global warming.

                  It's said here better than I can say it...

                  From last October: "Once again it has reprised its tired — and false — arguments to debunk the premier scientific assessment of global warming, produced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. On Sept. 27, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization declared with near certainty that human activity is causing the climate to change. The panel's previous assessment, issued in 2007, was only slightly less certain — 90% versus the 95% in the new report. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists endorsed it.,,,"

                  From: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ Stormi 10 years, 9 months ago
    We are becoming a nation of sheep, who do not read and can only repeat talking points or slogans handed to them by their leaders. They never do the science, they don't even know who the leaders are, just what they have been told to say. None of them ever know Earth Day is Lenin's birthday. None can tell you where their temperature gauges were placed, such as in the sun in hot brick courtyards, or where heat from jet exhaust hit them. None could tell you about UN Agenda 21, or how the environmental movement was used in Nazi Germany. These are the people the one world socialists, the anti capitalist love. They will not like the world their slogans will create.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by WBD 10 years, 9 months ago
      I have a copy of Agenda 21 on my PC. I also know what ICLEI is and even though they deny being part of the UN they seem to be carrying out the UN agenda on a local level. Soon you won't be able to trim your hedge without municipal permission. Welcome to the world of ICLEI..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Stormi 10 years, 9 months ago
        I also have that on my PC, along with the Earth Charter. These NGOs took training at the UN, you bet they are linked. Obama promised to implement Agenda 21, and law enforcement in some states are training to enforce it (or force it on us). What is scarey is how easily the local agencies fall for it. Health Dept. permits based on Agenda 21 ideas, want a water heater, comply with population density, want to refinance a mortgage, forget local well inspections, you need the EPA themselves doing it - happened here in Ohio., Worst are the regional planning commissions, which seem to fall for sustainable development hook line and sinker. And, sunk we are all going to be. Since there is no global warming, will they then take credit for it not being there ultimately?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rex_Little 10 years, 9 months ago
    I'll have to check Pharyngula. It wouldn't surprise me if that blog has this same picture posted with approving commentary, followed by a comment thread that's a circle jerk about how awful libertarians are.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago
    This is just a case of people bringing other causes to a protest. I've gone to peace demonstrations many times, and "free Palestine" comes up half the time, even if the discussion doesn't directly relate to that issue. They do the same thing with bringing up President Bush. It just needlessly alienates people. Most people don't to end capitalism and don't want pollution. I always have mixed feelings about those people because people take these pictures and think people who demonstrating against pollution are actually against capitalism-- so I'm going to make some needless pollution, I guess, b/c I'm for capitalism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jpellone 10 years, 9 months ago
    All I am going to say is that I am over 50 years old and I remember as a kid that when we traveled, I could always tell when we were getting close to a big city by the big black cloud over it. Traveling now I cannot see any of that. This country is cleaner now than it has been in the last 50 years.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Retired24-navy 10 years, 9 months ago
    If these people were truly against global warming, they would be in short sleves to protest the warming. This earth has had several ice ages, but I don't ever remember having a global warming age.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by newtlove 10 years, 9 months ago
      And the Ice Ages last for 10 times (or more) longer than the warm(er) Interglacials. BTW, aren't we due for the end of the current InterGlacial episode, and have the 100,000 year (or more) Ice Age to look forward to. How long was the last Ice Age? 250,000 years? I forget! (2.6 million years according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age )
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago
        We're in an Ice Age. The glacial maxima and minima occur within an Ice Age. The Ice Ages last for a long time, but the maxima and minima are on the 20,000 year range.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo