By GI Korea on July 9th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

The Skeptics Handbook is Released

• Teadrinker
  4:56 pm on July 9th, 2009 1

  A skeptic, eh? What are your thoughts on religion?

• Hamilton
  7:00 pm on July 9th, 2009 2

  There are only two religions in the world you are not allowed to be a skeptic on, one is Global Warming, the other starts with an I.

• Teadrinker
  10:32 pm on July 9th, 2009 3

  Just pointing out that denial is not the same as skepticism.

• GI Korea
  11:46 pm on July 9th, 2009 4

  Doesn't matter what my thoughts are on religion are because the public shouldn't be used to fund any religious movement and the AGW eco-faith is nothing more than another religion.

• Global Warming Skeptics – A Fillet of Seoul
  12:49 am on July 10th, 2009 5

  [...] to ROK Drop for this bit of [...]

• mj4life
  6:02 am on July 10th, 2009 6

  Global Warming is for real. It wouldn't' be so bad except for GLOBAL DIMMING – trust me, nobody want's to know about this..it really is a world beater!

  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/about.html

• Show Me
  1:22 pm on July 10th, 2009 7

  GI, if you can believe that Christ died on the cross for your sins and believing He did so will open the gates of heaven, why do you feel so strongly about Anti-Global Warming? It makes no sense to me that someone who believes in what is essentially a compilation of "stories" that have been told and re-told throughout time in all sorts of different religions fails to take care of God's creation. I'm no biblical scholar, but I know there is something in there that says "man is the steward of God's creations".

  Many people who write about the increase in temperatures around the globe have first hand experience that can not be explained except by scientist that say "something" is going on. I have no idea how old you are, but I can tell you the pollution in the metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Charlotte, New York, and LA in the 1970's was unbelievable. I know that because I saw it first hand. That pollution was blamed on automobiles. Congress passed laws that got rid of leaded gasoline and put catalytic converters on cars. Apparently, someone got something right because the pollution in the aforementioned cities is nothing like it was in the 70's.

  The same dudes who blamed the cars said industrial plants burning coal with a high sulfur content caused "acid rain." Again I saw the effects of something downwind of power production facilities that burned coal with a high sulfur content. The effective pattern of destruction of vegetation was exactly as the US Army teaches down wind prediction of CBRN fallout. (I hope your smart enough to understand barometric pressure at altitude.)

  Here are two questions for you-

  Congressional Legislature forced the reduction of SO2, NOx, and Mercury emissions under the Clean Air Act of 1970.

  #1. At what level can a human safely inhale SO2, NOx, and Mercury?

  #2. What effect did the Clear Skies act of 2002 have on the emissions of SO2, NOx, and Mercury?

  Bonus Question: Who introduced the Clear Skies act?

• ChickenHead
  4:52 pm on July 10th, 2009 8

  Show Me,

  Your examples are good… but…

  They aren't exactly the same thing, are they…

  …meaning, in those cases, there was a clear problem, the history was well understood, causation was easily demonstrated, science led politics in the creation of a solution and the problem was solved with a real benefit to everyone.

  None of those are the case with the emotion-based anti-global warming sales pitch.

  Your statement that those who investigate man-made pollution and those who are pushing the global warming agenda are the "same dudes" is not really correct.

  For one thing, Gore was busy inventing the Internets back then.

  Also, there is a BIG difference between reducing pollution and pushing the global warming agenda.

  The artificial linking of the two together is just another reminder that we are being sold something…

  …something that we don't want, don't need and that might actually be bad for us.

• Teadrinker
  8:11 pm on July 10th, 2009 9

  All Gore didn't invent the internet. He was its strongest supporter in the American government, but he most certainly didn't invent it, nor did he ever claim he did.

• GI Korea
  11:32 pm on July 10th, 2009 10

  All of this is irrelevant to the question at hand. CO2 does not cause global warming, thus banning CO2 does no good.

• myty
  1:02 am on July 11th, 2009 11

  Human activities cause Global Warming. CO2, Methane, particulates in the air, all contribute to our rapidly changing climate.

  The "Global Dimming" mentioned above is real. If humans actually clean up the air then Global Warming will get worse. In other words, we're screwed and the Sky is not Falling, it's burning!

• Show Me
  9:04 am on July 11th, 2009 12

  Ha Ha Ha, just as I thought. You post the handbook for others to read, but you don't adhere to the handbook.

  #4 Deal with the Bully Boy

  Only an idiot would pin the cause of Global Warming on CO2.

  GI – your not making any sense, maybe your drunk or high, if so I understand

  ———————–SUPERDUPERTIPTOPSECRET//NOTTOBERELEASEDTOSTUPIDPEOPLE—————————-

  the by-product of pollution in burning fossil fuels causes a layer of crap to float "magically" above the surface of the earth. This traps and reflects thermal radiation generated by the earth.

  Classified by: smart people

  Declassify on: M25-X1,3,4,5

  Date of Source: pick a date

  ———————–SUPERDUPERTIPTOPSECRET//NOTTOBERELEASEDTOSTUPIDPEOPLE—————————-

• Show Me
  9:13 am on July 11th, 2009 13

  Global Warming is synonymous with pollution. It is unfortunate that people believe them to be separate. The 70's drove the term pollution into the ground to the point that people started getting pissed off. Now we have the modern terms "Global Warming" and "Going Green" doing the same. Its the old – If you put lipstick on a pig, you still have a pig.

  Chickenhead, for your information – Al Gore did not invent the internet, he simply instructed the US Government to build what the Aliens told him.

  However, Al Gore did invent the colonic.

• Show Me
  9:01 am on July 12th, 2009 14

  Chickenhead-

  What led to the passing of the Clean Air Act back in the day is exactly what is going on today. The visible effects of increasing temperature are not clear to us because of where we are. If you listen to the nabobs in northern Greenland and those liars the Inuit in the Polar Regions, they will sob and sob. The Russians are already staking claims to the Northern polar region so they can explore for gas and oil.

  I'm from Florida and couldn't care less if the temperature were 95 or 97 there isn't a big difference. If I were a from an area that has a temperature that hovers around 31, there is a huge difference if the temp goes to 33.

  Some of the smartest people in the world are saying something needs to be done. These people do nothing else than study the data. They get paid a lot of money to do it too. I find it ludicrous to listen to someone who maintains a blog and will soon teach English in Korea who is trying to tell me how and what to think.

• ChickenHead
  1:30 pm on July 12th, 2009 15

  Show Me,

  You have (unintentionally) spoken the most truthful statement yet.

  "These people do nothing else than study the data. They get paid a lot of money to do it too."

  The whole "global warming" industry has become one giant self-licking ice cream cone.

  In any situation where people make money if there is one result, and don't make money if there is another, the choice becomes obvious. Give big research grants to find global cooling and the numbers will be massaged the other way.

  Scientists, universities and government agencies stay employed, politicians can blame every unpopular decision on "global warming" (or terrorism), various groups can advance their agendas (mostly redistribution of wealth and Down With America scenarios), governments gain a new layer of control over industry and population, newspapers are sold… the list goes on.

  Like most conspiracies, it is a Conspiracy of Shared Values… meaning that everyone who can generate hype benefits from the hype.

  Most (all?) of the proposed solutions to global warming have much larger social, economic and political effects than actual environmental effects.

  Sadly, most of the people worried about global warming do it from an emotional rather than a logical standpoint… which, even if there is a problem, makes a solution less obtainable.

  If the same amount of "lot of money" was invested into any number of other areas, from battery technology to renewable and micro power production to efficient transportation systems, rather than supporting mountains of suspect research, shady cap and trade-style financial skimming schemes and layers of non-productive government bureaucracy, the world would become an ecologically better place in years rather than decades…

  …and, if there really is a global warming problem, it would take care of itself.

  Show Me, you aren't being told "how and what to think". You are just being asked to think…

  …rather than taking the words of politicians and "scientists" who clearly benefit if the public fears global warming.

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI