|
On November 22 2009 10:19 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Now, if we do things to prevent global warming from happening and it turns out to be false, we still just cleaned up our messy lifestyles and made the world nicer place to live in.
Either that, or we become slaves, who have to pay the government for every shit we take.
If you really want to reduce waste, change the fractional reserve banking system which relies on ever-increasing consumption to operate. Create a sustainable system instead of turning humanity into debt-slaves.
|
On November 22 2009 11:34 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 10:19 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Now, if we do things to prevent global warming from happening and it turns out to be false, we still just cleaned up our messy lifestyles and made the world nicer place to live in. Either that, or we become slaves, who have to pay the government for every shit we take.
You already have to pay for shit disposal.
On November 22 2009 11:31 Cloud wrote:
Oh what a wonderful idea 'peer reviewed articles', as they are as free as oxygen and corruption is inexistent in the scientific community.
Every field has bad apples, but an entire field of bad apples is unheard of.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 22 2009 11:36 WhiteNights wrote:
Every field has bad apples, but an entire field of bad apples is unheard of.
Really? what about the comedy of errors in the financial markets? How do all financial institutions in the world make the same stupid mistake at the same exact time?
|
It's always discouraging when you hear about this stuff happening. I'd like one time there to be news "____ was hacked, but everything found completely legit... Politicians baffled"
|
On November 22 2009 09:13 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:CBS reports on the internet attackDoubtless, the competing camps in the global warming "debate" will both spin this incident as best they can. But, in the same way that the earth's climate (and the human impact on it) is what it is despite what we think about it (read: a fact) -- the emails are what they are. Has anyone done any research on the emails? Is there any serious attempt by the climate scientists to hide information? If so (which, from the vague reports mentioned, doesn't seem likely) we could all get behind THAT as being wrong, right? Or would lying, or distorting the truth about the climate be ok? --This may be impossible, but I hope this can be a flame free discussion. If you want to scream about the truth or falsity of man-made global warming, please, do so elsewhere.
how can the pro camp spin it?
all data supplied by these taxpayer funded organisations should be public domain , not just the parts they decide to cherry pick
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 22 2009 11:39 meeple wrote:
It's always discouraging when you hear about this stuff happening. I'd like one time there to be news "____ was hacked, but everything found completely legit... Politicians baffled"
Not news! Yawn. No one makes a fuss and you never catch wind of it.
|
On November 22 2009 11:36 WhiteNights wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 11:31 Cloud wrote:
Oh what a wonderful idea 'peer reviewed articles', as they are as free as oxygen and corruption is inexistent in the scientific community. Every field has bad apples, but an entire field of bad apples is unheard of.
Possibly, but in this case the field is highly manipulated. If you dig into the link I provided, you will realize that the entire field is being given false data, so naturally they will arrive at false conclusions.
Much of the recent evidence was based off of data that wasn't public. Why would they not release the data for so long? When the data was finally released, we learn that it was all based off of 12 tree cores, even though much more data was available.
|
'Green' is a billion dollar industry.
And most of it is based on "if the curve that always goes up and down keeps its current track (up!) we're in a heap of shit".
Aswell as an inability to understand the fundamentals behind the scientific method (ie, not realizing that correlation does not imply casusality),
|
On November 22 2009 10:19 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Before the global warming fact or fiction debate thing gets rolling lets just pass this thought through our heads:
If global warming happens and we have done things against it we win.
If we do the contrary/do nothing we get fucked.
Now, if we do things to prevent global warming from happening and it turns out to be false, we still just cleaned up our messy lifestyles and made the world nicer place to live in.
Or, instead of taking preemptive action against every potential absurd possibility ever, we remove all doubt and scientifically prove the problem? This is a modern day version of witch hunting.
What if this is a result of the sun, and things will get much worse? Now, instead of working on the problem, we all die to something that could have possibly been prevented. Oh, but at least we had a "green" planet to burn.
|
It is always interesting to see that nearly everybody disagreeing with global warming comes from the US... Damn, Americans must be so far less ignorant than the whole world!
[/sarcasm]
|
On November 22 2009 11:55 ggrrg wrote:
It is always interesting to see that nearly everybody disagreeing with global warming comes from the US... Damn, Americans must be so far less ignorant than the whole world!
[/sarcasm]
It's actually impressive that you managed to link this to USA-bashing somehow. Fantastic job.
As for all the e-scientists here, who are you guys? Particularly those with the insights into the peer-review processes; could you go ahead and elucidate the process for me so I can compare your versions with how it's worked in my experience?
|
Occams razor applies here. A government conspiracy to fake global warming so they can impose taxes and regulations is ridiculous. It seems there was just a simple misunderstanding on the wording of the e-mail.
|
United States889 Posts
On November 22 2009 11:55 ggrrg wrote:
It is always interesting to see that nearly everybody disagreeing with global warming comes from the US... Damn, Americans must be so far less ignorant than the whole world!
[/sarcasm]
Honestly, this is what bothers me on the issue. Global warming is a hoax through and through, and yet the rest of the world acts like it's our moral superiors because they've completely drunk the koolaid on this issue.
If people bother to look at the facts, the actual temperature data, and make some searches on Lexus Nexus, it's pretty easy to find the dissent (the factual, substantive dissent) rather than the noise created by ratings-driven media (no, it's not a conspiracy, it's a fact: scare stories draw bigger ratings than the opposite). There is a serious scientific debate going on about the origin of the warming, and the origin is most likely not anthropogenic.
|
On November 22 2009 11:31 Cloud wrote:
Oh what a wonderful idea 'peer reviewed articles', as they are as free as oxygen and corruption is inexistent in the scientific community.
was about to post something like that.
|
On November 22 2009 11:20 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 11:17 Biochemist wrote:
You guys and your hokey conspiracy theories. Run a search in the literature (think peer reviewed journals, if you even know what that means) looking for articles which take a stance on the global warming issue. There's almost a thousand of them. Guess what they say? 100% of them agree that global warming is not a "joke." the earth is warming. the issue is whether or not we are the cause and also if a tax on one of the most abundant elements, carbon, is the solution to anything.
Sorry, I guess my post was a little vague. 100% of those peer reviewed articles I mentioned were in agreement that we were the cause.
Edit: Oh my God you guys. More than 600 groups of scientists publish papers in peer reviewed journals arguing that we are the cause of global warming and zero publish papers in peer reviewed journals arguing that we aren't.
The obvious counter is that the guys who do the "peer reviewing" are all corrupted and have a political agenda, but many of those journals are known for being relatively open minded and publishing controversial ideas as long as the studies were done in a reasonably scientific manner. If you do a scientific study in your field and want to publish a conclusion that doesn't agree with the majority of the literature, you'll be able to find journals that will publish it, believe me. The only thing you have to worry about is the backlash to your career.
If you really want to look into the issue, write a several page research paper for yourself using arguments from both sides. Use those critical thinking skills you learned in college to weigh the pros and cons of each side and decide who's really full of shit (it isn't the scientists).
|
On November 22 2009 12:00 Maero wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 11:55 ggrrg wrote:
It is always interesting to see that nearly everybody disagreeing with global warming comes from the US... Damn, Americans must be so far less ignorant than the whole world!
[/sarcasm] It's actually impressive that you managed to link this to USA-bashing somehow. Fantastic job. As for all the e-scientists here, who are you guys? Particularly those with the insights into the peer-review processes; could you go ahead and elucidate the process for me so I can compare your versions with how it's worked in my experience?
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the US. Been there, lived there for an year and I met many nice people there.
However, the US has the worst, most biased and often enough intentionally misinforming media coverage in the world (probably beaten only by the media in North Korea and Somalia...). In the US, corporation interests are omnipresent and business influence is so extremely strong that it heavily affects media, politics and eventually people's way of thinking. Nowhere in the world I have seen anything like this, and I've come around quite a bit...
|
On November 22 2009 12:12 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 12:00 Maero wrote:On November 22 2009 11:55 ggrrg wrote:
It is always interesting to see that nearly everybody disagreeing with global warming comes from the US... Damn, Americans must be so far less ignorant than the whole world!
[/sarcasm] It's actually impressive that you managed to link this to USA-bashing somehow. Fantastic job. As for all the e-scientists here, who are you guys? Particularly those with the insights into the peer-review processes; could you go ahead and elucidate the process for me so I can compare your versions with how it's worked in my experience? Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the US. Been there, lived there for an year and I met many nice people there. However, the US has the worst, most biased and often enough intentionally misinforming media coverage in the world (probably beaten only by the media in North Korea and Somalia...). In the US, corporation interests are omnipresent and business influence is so extremely strong that it heavily affects media, politics and eventually people's way of thinking. Nowhere in the world I have seen anything like this, and I've come around quite a bit...
That's fair enough. I just saw it as another "screw you USA" post, I apologize for taking it the wrong way.
|
global warming is used as an excuse to tax one of the most abundant elements on earth. Carbon.
When you breathe you produce carbon. Every animal produces carbon. You do any work you produce carbon.
What they are doing is putting tax on life. Your life. To live you will pay to those who sell carbon offsets. They make up the price for it as they see fit.
At the same time the same small group of people will regulate development of developing nations. Not letting them using the same ways developed world used ie burning fossil fuels. And what enabled those nations become developed.
This way the power can be still contained in the same places as it is now.
I'm all up for using cleaner energy and being environmentally sustainable. But the way the government is spinning it in their favour is disgusting.
|
On November 22 2009 11:32 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 10:19 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Before the global warming fact or fiction debate thing gets rolling lets just pass this thought through our heads:
If global warming happens and we have done things against it we win.
If we do the contrary/do nothing we get fucked.
Now, if we do things to prevent global warming from happening and it turns out to be false, we still just cleaned up our messy lifestyles and made the world nicer place to live in. Or just screw the entire economy up. But we can hand wave our way through that.
No world = no economy... I think some things are more important than others?
On November 22 2009 11:34 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 10:19 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Now, if we do things to prevent global warming from happening and it turns out to be false, we still just cleaned up our messy lifestyles and made the world nicer place to live in. Either that, or we become slaves, who have to pay the government for every shit we take. If you really want to reduce waste, change the fractional reserve banking system which relies on ever-increasing consumption to operate. Create a sustainable system instead of turning humanity into debt-slaves.
I have no idea what the fuck your saying.
On November 22 2009 11:48 Vedic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 10:19 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Before the global warming fact or fiction debate thing gets rolling lets just pass this thought through our heads:
If global warming happens and we have done things against it we win.
If we do the contrary/do nothing we get fucked.
Now, if we do things to prevent global warming from happening and it turns out to be false, we still just cleaned up our messy lifestyles and made the world nicer place to live in. Or, instead of taking preemptive action against every potential absurd possibility ever, we remove all doubt and scientifically prove the problem? This is a modern day version of witch hunting. What if this is a result of the sun, and things will get much worse? Now, instead of working on the problem, we all die to something that could have possibly been prevented. Oh, but at least we had a "green" planet to burn.
Well science is usually performed by the scientific method, lets take a a gander of what we currently have:
1. Define the question
... why is Earth heading up in unprecedented rate? *check!*
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
... done, by multiple means and fairly congruent by the majority of the scientific community. *check!*
3. Form hypothesis
... we are screwing up our planet. *check!*
4. Perform experiment and collect data
... lets be wiser and in our use of natural resources and see what happens.
... ... but, that takes money and we people have to do work... no more air condition!? How sure are we that global warming is real!?
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
This is pretty much how I interpret every argument against global.
[[EDIT]] Also my original post was not to prove or disprove global warming, but to state the fairly obvious that our actions are damaging the planet and this will affect us.
|
On November 22 2009 10:10 WhiteNights wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 10:07 Vedic wrote:On November 22 2009 09:52 WhiteNights wrote:On November 22 2009 09:51 gchan wrote:
In the years since then, with more scientists raising doubts about the accuracy of the data, whether there really is global warming, etc., the media hardly gave it any coverage. That's because it's not fear or sensationalism. It took something this drastic to stir the media enough to actually cover the topic. The number of climate scientists who believe there isn't global warming is in the single digits out of thousands. It's not newsworthy because there aren't any. 31,000+ scientists have signed a petition against man-made global warming theories. Did you not even watch the senate debate? Can you give me the name of some climate scientists (defined as having at least a few papers in the field of atmospheric or climate science) who support the statement of the petition? You would not ask a biologist for judgment on theoretical physics, or a chemist for judgment on neurology. Even the scientists who are considered skeptics do not say that there isn't global warming. [[EDIT]] Their criterion for "scientist" is "has a BS, MD, or PhD."
Oh, nice, I'm a scientist then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
