EPTclimatologist mann cleared of misconduct charges - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ChinaRestaurant
Austria324 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
There is much much much more money to be saved in the short term, by preventing action on global warming, than there is on selling carbon credits and solar panels, etc. | ||
|
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
On July 06 2010 02:43 Gregsen wrote: What about the immense commercial interests being served by saying global warming/cc is an undisputeable fact without having any empiric studies to prove this? Just think about all the companies in the world manufactioring solar and wind energy solutions, electric cars, biofuel, or green lobbyists who try to gain more power.. look at the immense amounts of money invested to reduce CO2, while we don't even know how it affects cc yet. All this money would've been way better invested strengthening animal rights, saving the rainforest, etc. I mean, now that there is so much money involved in this, we can't even use it to do something really helpful, and rather try to tell people they are criminals because they are driving a car that put out 10 mg too much CO2... No empirical evidence? What? That is what 99% of science is based around, the systematic gathering of empirical evidence, of which an IMMENSE, IMMENSE amount has been compiled. We're talking 50 years of research and experiments all recorded in journals and then peer reviewed (though I don't think you really understand that concept.) Yes there is money to be made in solving this issue and in all the areas you identified, wind energy, eletric cars, biofuels etcs. But how is that a bad thing? Its good for two reasons. 1. All those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, which is real and has been substantiated by the work of thousands of scienticts. Additionally, humanity needs to learn to live sustainably and technology is the key to doing that. So these technologies are an investment in the survivability and well being of the whole race not just a ploy to make money. That type of thinking is dangerous and counterproductive. 2. I hope you understand on a basic level how and economy works. Producing such technologies requires huge industrial investment, that includes money, materials, and people. Producing these technologies gives jobs and increases wealth to many people (not just some fictional tyrant who is 'king of wind power' People need to get the idea of corporate tyranny out of their minds, its silly. | ||
|
Ineluctable
Canada68 Posts
On July 06 2010 02:43 Gregsen wrote: What about the immense commercial interests being served by saying global warming/cc is an undisputeable fact without having any empiric studies to prove this? Just think about all the companies in the world manufactioring solar and wind energy solutions, electric cars, biofuel, or green lobbyists who try to gain more power.. look at the immense amounts of money invested to reduce CO2, while we don't even know how it affects cc yet. All this money would've been way better invested strengthening animal rights, saving the rainforest, etc. I mean, now that there is so much money involved in this, we can't even use it to do something really helpful, and rather try to tell people they are criminals because they are driving a car that put out 10 mg too much CO2... Do you seriously think the green lobby/industry has close to as much power as the non-renewable etc energy lobby? You have got to be kidding me. There have been plenty of studies proving the effect of CO2 etc on the climate but those are absolutely irrelevent because no matter what, like conspiracy theorists, you can claim that ''THEY'RE IN LEAGUE WITH THE X'', etc. Good post, Kerotan. However, the way media reports on science depends greatly on which media is reporting. Not all lump all scientists together like in your example. | ||
|
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
On July 06 2010 05:35 MadVillain wrote: No empirical evidence? What? That is what 99% of science is based around, the systematic gathering of empirical evidence, of which an IMMENSE, IMMENSE amount has been compiled. We're talking 50 years of research and experiments all recorded in journals and then peer reviewed (though I don't think you really understand that concept.) Yes there is money to be made in solving this issue and in all the areas you identified, wind energy, eletric cars, biofuels etcs. But how is that a bad thing? Its good for two reasons. 1. All those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, which is real and has been substantiated by the work of thousands of scienticts. Additionally, humanity needs to learn to live sustainably and technology is the key to doing that. So these technologies are an investment in the survivability and well being of the whole race not just a ploy to make money. That type of thinking is dangerous and counterproductive. 2. I hope you understand on a basic level how and economy works. Producing such technologies requires huge industrial investment, that includes money, materials, and people. Producing these technologies gives jobs and increases wealth to many people (not just some fictional tyrant who is 'king of wind power' People need to get the idea of corporate tyranny out of their minds, its silly. There is NO evidence that those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, because we don't even know how CO2 affects it! We are just ASSUMING that mankind has huge impact on climate change, but we don't even know if that's true, the sun could also have an enormous effect on climate change. There is no explanation for the decline of global warmth since the last 10 years either. This is just like claiming that there is a God with no evidence to prove it. ^^ Nobody cares about how fucked up the food is that we eat, or how we can save animal races from extinction. All we can think of is that the world is gonna end within 60 years if we don't build up some solar energy solutions RIGHT NOW - what a ridiculous claim. Just think of Copenhagen - "OMFG ITS THE END OF THE WORLD IF COPENHAGEN IS GONNA FAIL"...and nobody talks about it anymore. Discrediting every single scientist that does not agree with manmade global warming reminds me of what the catholic church has done some time ago...the inquisition. If the claims are right is another story. This. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On July 06 2010 07:29 Gregsen wrote: There is NO evidence that those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, because we don't even know how CO2 affects it! We are just ASSUMING that mankind has huge impact on climate change, but we don't even know if that's true, the sun could also have an enormous effect on climate change. There is no explanation for the decline of global warmth since the last 10 years either. This is just like claiming that there is a God with no evidence to prove it. ^^ Nobody cares about how fucked up the food is that we eat, or how we can save animal races from extinction. All we can think of is that the world is gonna end within 60 years if we don't build up some solar energy solutions RIGHT NOW - what a ridiculous claim. Just think of Copenhagen - "OMFG ITS THE END OF THE WORLD IF COPENHAGEN IS GONNA FAIL"...and nobody talks about it anymore. This. Damn, I thought the pro-nonrenewable anti-science lobby only had influence in the USA. Guess not. I'm still surprised people who know so little can be the most vocal about their... uneducated opinions? At least I know well enough not to comment on the programming threads when I know nothing about programming. | ||
|
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
On July 06 2010 07:40 Romantic wrote: Damn, I thought the pro-nonrenewable anti-science lobby only had influence in the USA. Guess not. I'm still surprised people who know so little can be the most vocal about their... uneducated opinions? At least I know well enough not to comment on the programming threads when I know nothing about programming. At least I am the only one debating without insults so far  As I said many times, I am not "anti-science" or anything lol (that obviously proves that you didn't even read what I wrote), I just demand that science lives up to its own claim - "no truth without evidence, it's easy to lie". I'm doing research on this topic for quite a long time now and there is no prove for CO2 to be responsible for the rapid global warming in the last 60 years. That is a fact. Hell, do you even know what your air consists of, and how much CO2 you can fit into it? :D | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On July 06 2010 04:25 tree.hugger wrote: No, you're thinking of Manfred Albrecht 'Freiherr' von Richthofen. Michael Mann is the South African keyboardist who, along with his Earth Band, was blinded by the light, and subsequently revved up like a deuce. No, you're thinking of Manfred Mann. Micheal Mann is a character featured in the Masters of the Universe franchise, who is also the twin brother of She-Ra, as well as defending Eternia and the secrets of Castle Grayskull from the evil forces of Skeletor. | ||
|
.zch
37 Posts
On July 06 2010 07:55 Gregsen wrote: I'm doing research on this topic for quite a long time now and there is no prove for CO2 to be responsible for the rapid global warming in the last 60 years. That is a fact. Hell, do you even know what your air consists of, and how much CO2 you can fit into it? :D Gregsen, it's certainly good that you're doing your own studying on the topic, but if your research didn't cover the basic climatological definition of greenhouse gases, then I question how extensive it was. If your research did cover greenhouse gases, which it should have, and why carbon dioxide--like many other molecules--is labeled a greenhouse gas, and you are still making this argument, then I question your ability to comprehend the material. I am not being sarcastic when I ask: do you understand how greenhouse gases work? And do you understand why carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Assuming the answer to both of these is "yes," then I don't understand your argument when you state that there is no proof for carbon dioxide to be responsible for climate change. Yes, we all know that you can "fit" plenty of CO2 into the air. However, most of us are also cognizant that we should be considering rate of release of CO2, not total carrying capacity of the atmosphere. | ||
|
Helios.Star
United States548 Posts
On July 06 2010 08:14 Roe wrote: No, you're thinking of Manfred Mann. Micheal Mann is a character featured in the Masters of the Universe franchise, who is also the twin brother of She-Ra, as well as defending Eternia and the secrets of Castle Grayskull from the evil forces of Skeletor. No, you're thinking of He-Man. Michael Mann is an actor. He cut that guys ear off in Reservoir Dogs and got bit by the black mamba in Kill Bill Vol. 2. | ||
|
zeppelin
United States565 Posts
On July 06 2010 07:29 Gregsen wrote: There is no explanation for the decline of global warmth since the last 10 years either. there's actually a really awesome explanation for it and it's called "selective bias" you've already decided you don't want global warming to be real so you traced the trendline back to the hottest year on record there's a reason you said "the last 10 years" and not "the last 30 years" or "the last 150 years" and that's it here have a picture ![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/2d1pmi1.jpg) (apologies for any slight deviations in the trendlines, i used mspaint and a trackpad and eyeballed it) your argument amounts to "april 1st was colder than march 1st this year so therefore summer must not be coming" and lol at the idea that there is some cohesive Big Science lobby that exerts more power and influence than any single supermajor oil firm tony hayward is a lot richer than al gore guys | ||
|
zeppelin
United States565 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i46.tinypic.com/2pob3g3.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i46.tinypic.com/jz9nxl.png) ![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/208k9x5.png) ![[image loading]](http://i49.tinypic.com/hug37t.png) ![[image loading]](http://i48.tinypic.com/f36rls.gif) ![[image loading]](http://i46.tinypic.com/2usy2vl.png) | ||
|
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
I see I need to explain myself a little bit more here. Somebody asked me if I even understand the basics of greenhouse effect and greenhouse gas. I'd like to ask if this person knows that the amount of CO2 and methane gases in the atmosphere has been CONSTANT since the last 8000 years (this has been PROVEN by the Max-Planck-Institute in Hamburg, Germany, look it up). The thing that hasn't been constant is the weather, and that's why the global temperature hasn't been constant as well. Jesus, sience is not a democratic thing! If 1000 scientists have a different oppinion towards the constant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it doesn't count one bit, evidence is what science is made of, and nothing else. And that is the good thing about it. Do you even know that climate is a statistical construction diverted from weather? | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4838 Posts
On July 06 2010 07:40 Romantic wrote: Damn, I thought the pro-nonrenewable anti-science lobby only had influence in the USA. Guess not. I'm still surprised people who know so little can be the most vocal about their... uneducated opinions? At least I know well enough not to comment on the programming threads when I know nothing about programming. That's because you're one of the sheeple who won't speak out against the Java conspiracy. Object-oriented programming is such crock. No one can fit a fucking object inside a microchip. | ||
|
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On July 06 2010 09:32 Severedevil wrote: That's because you're one of the sheeple who won't speak out against the Java conspiracy. Object-oriented programming is such crock. No one can fit a fucking object inside a microchip. Even worse, structured programming is a paradigm based on functions and data, so what's the point in functional programming? Haskell is a lie! | ||
|
.zch
37 Posts
Because, again, I am glad you do your homework, as it were, I respected that you had a claim that CO2 and CH4 have been constant in the last 8000 years, as PROVEN by the Max Planck Institute. So, always on the search for new information, I took your advice and looked it up. Here's a direct quote: Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry CO2 is the single most important human-emitted greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, contributing 63.5 % (*) to the overall global radiative forcing. However, it is responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing over the past decade and 86% over the last five years. For about 10,000 years before the industrial revolution, the atmospheric abundance of CO2 was nearly constant at ~ 280ppm (ppm = number of molecules of the gas per million molecules of dry air). ... Since 1750, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 38%, primarily because of emissions from combustion of fossil fuels (8.62 Gt carbon in 2007) and deforestation and land use change (0.5-2.5 Gt carbon per year over the 2000-2005 time period). High-precision measurements of atmospheric CO2 beginning in 1958 show that the average increase of CO2 in the atmosphere corresponds to ~ 55% of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel combustion. So, thanks for the heads-up on the research. I appreciate your honesty, but, as I suspected, your reading comprehension wasn't quite on point. Anyone can find this document and read it from http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/IAEA-WMO2009/index.shtml , which is again a Max-Planck-Institute webpage; about halfway down the page it directs you to this document from which I took the quote: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/ghg5-online.html . The second link is the report from the World Meteorological Organization who sponsored a meeting at the MPI as a collection of greenhouse gas experts. They might have the evidence you are looking for... Also, please don't use "OH ITS A THEORY LOL" argument. Unless you don't believe in evolution or gravity, you don't have to put that smug little winky-face after emphasizing the word "theory." | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
| ||
|
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
Are you aware that there has been a medieval warming period between 800 and 1450, warmer than the one we are facing today, followed by a "mini iceage" with temperatures below average between 1450 and 1850? This is where all the graphs are starting, and as you can see, there's a good reason for it. you really need to keep on searching for new information.  | ||
|
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
On July 06 2010 10:06 .zch wrote: Gregsen-- Because, again, I am glad you do your homework, as it were, I respected that you had a claim that CO2 and CH4 have been constant in the last 8000 years, as PROVEN by the Max Planck Institute. So, always on the search for new information, I took your advice and looked it up. Here's a direct quote: So, thanks for the heads-up on the research. I appreciate your honesty, but, as I suspected, your reading comprehension wasn't quite on point. Anyone can find this document and read it from http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/IAEA-WMO2009/index.shtml , which is again a Max-Planck-Institute webpage; about halfway down the page it directs you to this document from which I took the quote: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/ghg5-online.html . The second link is the report from the World Meteorological Organization who sponsored a meeting at the MPI as a collection of greenhouse gas experts. They might have the evidence you are looking for... Also, please don't use "OH ITS A THEORY LOL" argument. Unless you don't believe in evolution or gravity, you don't have to put that smug little winky-face after emphasizing the word "theory." Bhaha get owned Gregsen. It is obvious from your posts that you don't understand basic scientific principals. Humans release of billions upon billions of tons of CO2 (as well as other greenhouse gases, CO2 is luckily less potent then methan or nitrous oxide for example) has had an obvious measurable effect on global temperatures. This HAS been 'proven' (i don't use the word proven without quotes because in science you can't really prove something 100% only disprove of it) through 1000s of peer reviewed papers. I don't know what else I can tell you but that the research has been done and it all points unequivocally towards human made global warming. Now you claim we should spend more time on 'saving animals from extinction', but do you realize that global warming is going to cause more animals to go extinct than anything humans have done before? With the cause for global warming well established, its obvious that renewable energy technologies are the answer to the problem. If you're so uneducated about a subject don't try to talk about it. | ||
| ||
