|
On August 30 2011 06:34 justinpal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 06:28 macil222 wrote:On August 30 2011 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 06:11 Gunther wrote:It really pains me to see Huntsman so low. He is the only Republican I can really see myself possibly voting for. Here's the thing with Huntsman: if he's the Republican that you like, then you're probably a democrat, and the only reason why you'd consider Huntsman is because you're tired of Obama. Huntsman is your run-of-the-mill, Washington-establishment politician. He's basically the anti-Ron Paul. Pretty much this. and I hear a lot of democrats saying Huntsman is the most reasonable, or the only one they would vote for etc etc But if he was ever to win the nomination they would immediately brand him as an extremist tea bagging right wing nut. It wouldn't matter to them. Look what they did to Scott Brown in MA and that guy is more liberal than some democrats. What they really want is to give faux support to the guy (just like they did to McShame in '08) so that 1) if their candidate loses they get the person who is the most liberal alternative and 2) the person will be less desirable to republicans which will lead to less turnout and less word of mouth support for the republican. The idea that republicans need to field a so called moderate candidate to win is foolish. Most "moderates" are just people who are absolutely uninformed about the issues and generally have little to no understanding about who is who in politics. In this case it is actually better to have someone who appeals to the party base. Think again to '08. Someone who is not politically involved is at work in their office and what do they hear at the water cooler...liberals saying how great Obama will be and conservatives saying "meh, McCain will be better than the other guy..I guess". If only we didn't align to one of two parties.
Two party systems have established coalitions. Parliamentary systems have to form ad hoc coalitions; I am not exactly seeing a huge benefit of it.
We could break down the existing coalitions but... it isn't something I see as important or even desirable.
|
On August 30 2011 06:39 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 04:57 macil222 wrote:
We are certainly in a warming trend but I am not ready to accept man caused global warming. It might turn out to be the case that humans are causing global warming but even then what should we do about it? We need to continue our productivity in order to advance to the next level of technology which will almost certainly be cleaner and more efficient.
The problem that I have with the "global warming/climate change" alarmists is that they don't limit the scope of their work to just researching and understanding the problem. Instead, they advocate economic and environmental policies that undebatably will cause tangible economic harm to everyone -- and I'm not even talking about the corrupt ones like Al Gore who are merely looking to profit from all of this. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but before we start implementing these types of policies, we better damn well make sure that we know these policies are 1) addressing a real problem, and 2) will make enough of a difference to where the pain that they cause is worthwhile. The bottom line is that "man-made global warming/climate change" is still a theory and the scientific community has a rather abysmal record of predicting climate change over the past fifty years. These are the same idiots who, during the 1970s, were raising the alarm that we were all going to die from global cooling. It doesn't help that some of the most prominent of these scientists have been caught falsifying data recently. When these idiots start predicting tomorrow's weather accurately, I'll start paying more attention to them. Bunching the whole scientific community together and calling them idiots is stupid and just makes you seem like a uneducated fool. There's a broad concensus among scientists of many different fields that we have a global warming problem. The rest of the world (especially europe) are trying to make a change but if americans are still going to use these old tired stupid arguments it won't matter in the end. Predicting weather isn't 100% accurate but it's better than most people think. And short term (1-5 days) local weather prediction has very little to do with the science behind CO2 levels and how they effect the climate.
The only people who are "idiots" are the one that advocate dramatic overhauls to our economies to curb greenhouse emissions, such as setting targets to reduce overall emissions by 50% or whatever. They casually throw these "solutions" out there with little to no regard to the very real consequences of such actions.
I'm perfectly well aware that "weather" and "climate" are two different concepts, but my statement still carries with it a very real truth: no one knows what the fuck is going on. The Earth's temperature has been in a constant state of flux since it came into existence. It has been hotter than it is now and it has also been cooler -- and there were no SUV's during those times. We've only been able to accurately monitor the Earth's temperature for about 100 years or so (it might actually be less, but I'll be generous), which is a geologically insignificant amount of time to draw any conclusions about the effect of man upon the global climate. No one yet really understands how the global climate works or all of the forces that influence it. We don't even know the extent, if any, to which we can influence the climate by curbing emissions.
Therefore, excuse me if I'm opposed to the idea of economically damaging myself in the hope of protecting myself against some boogeyman that may not even exist. I'm well aware that Europeans generally disagree with me on this point, but it's their business if they want to be a bunch of suckers. China and India sure as hell don't give a damn.
|
On August 30 2011 06:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 06:39 karpo wrote:On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 04:57 macil222 wrote:
We are certainly in a warming trend but I am not ready to accept man caused global warming. It might turn out to be the case that humans are causing global warming but even then what should we do about it? We need to continue our productivity in order to advance to the next level of technology which will almost certainly be cleaner and more efficient.
The problem that I have with the "global warming/climate change" alarmists is that they don't limit the scope of their work to just researching and understanding the problem. Instead, they advocate economic and environmental policies that undebatably will cause tangible economic harm to everyone -- and I'm not even talking about the corrupt ones like Al Gore who are merely looking to profit from all of this. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but before we start implementing these types of policies, we better damn well make sure that we know these policies are 1) addressing a real problem, and 2) will make enough of a difference to where the pain that they cause is worthwhile. The bottom line is that "man-made global warming/climate change" is still a theory and the scientific community has a rather abysmal record of predicting climate change over the past fifty years. These are the same idiots who, during the 1970s, were raising the alarm that we were all going to die from global cooling. It doesn't help that some of the most prominent of these scientists have been caught falsifying data recently. When these idiots start predicting tomorrow's weather accurately, I'll start paying more attention to them. Bunching the whole scientific community together and calling them idiots is stupid and just makes you seem like a uneducated fool. There's a broad concensus among scientists of many different fields that we have a global warming problem. The rest of the world (especially europe) are trying to make a change but if americans are still going to use these old tired stupid arguments it won't matter in the end. Predicting weather isn't 100% accurate but it's better than most people think. And short term (1-5 days) local weather prediction has very little to do with the science behind CO2 levels and how they effect the climate. The only people who are "idiots" are the one that advocate dramatic overhauls to our economies to curb greenhouse emissions, such as setting targets to reduce overall emissions by 50% or whatever. They casually throw these "solutions" out there with little to no regard to the very real consequences of such actions. I'm perfectly well aware that "weather" and "climate" are two different concepts, but my statement still carries with it a very real truth: no one knows what the fuck is going on. The Earth's temperature has been in a constant state of flux since it came into existence. It has been hotter than it is now and it has also been cooler -- and there were no SUV's during those times. We've only been able to accurately monitor the Earth's temperature for about 100 years or so (it might actually be less, but I'll be generous), which is a geologically insignificant amount of time to draw any conclusions about the effect of man upon the global climate. No one yet really understands how the global climate works or all of the forces that influence it. We don't even know the extent, if any, to which we can influence the climate by curbing emissions. Therefore, excuse me if I'm opposed to the idea of economically damaging myself in the hope of protecting myself against some boogeyman that may not even exist. I'm well aware that Europeans generally disagree with me on this point, but it's their business if they want to be a bunch of suckers. China and India sure as hell don't give a damn.
Americans who actually understand science disagree with you too. The earth's temperature has changed a lot, yes, but we have ways to figure out the temperature for a lot more than the most recent 100 years. Yes, it's complicated. Yes, we don't understand absolutely every detail of every aspect of the climate. But unless you've spent a decade or two of your life studying the topic, your understanding of it is massively, massively worse than the people who *have* spent that much time on it. And something like 98% of them agree on this. They know perfectly well that cutting carbon output that much is very costly. But it's not as costly as the global disaster that could happen otherwise. Is it possible they're wrong? Sure. It's also possible that doctors are wrong and lead paint is perfectly safe. But it's pretty damn unlikely. So until there's some actual *reason* to believe they're wrong, their views are by far the most reliable thing we have to work with, so we act according to those views.
|
On August 30 2011 06:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 06:39 karpo wrote:On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 04:57 macil222 wrote:
We are certainly in a warming trend but I am not ready to accept man caused global warming. It might turn out to be the case that humans are causing global warming but even then what should we do about it? We need to continue our productivity in order to advance to the next level of technology which will almost certainly be cleaner and more efficient.
The problem that I have with the "global warming/climate change" alarmists is that they don't limit the scope of their work to just researching and understanding the problem. Instead, they advocate economic and environmental policies that undebatably will cause tangible economic harm to everyone -- and I'm not even talking about the corrupt ones like Al Gore who are merely looking to profit from all of this. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but before we start implementing these types of policies, we better damn well make sure that we know these policies are 1) addressing a real problem, and 2) will make enough of a difference to where the pain that they cause is worthwhile. The bottom line is that "man-made global warming/climate change" is still a theory and the scientific community has a rather abysmal record of predicting climate change over the past fifty years. These are the same idiots who, during the 1970s, were raising the alarm that we were all going to die from global cooling. It doesn't help that some of the most prominent of these scientists have been caught falsifying data recently. When these idiots start predicting tomorrow's weather accurately, I'll start paying more attention to them. Bunching the whole scientific community together and calling them idiots is stupid and just makes you seem like a uneducated fool. There's a broad concensus among scientists of many different fields that we have a global warming problem. The rest of the world (especially europe) are trying to make a change but if americans are still going to use these old tired stupid arguments it won't matter in the end. Predicting weather isn't 100% accurate but it's better than most people think. And short term (1-5 days) local weather prediction has very little to do with the science behind CO2 levels and how they effect the climate. The only people who are "idiots" are the one that advocate dramatic overhauls to our economies to curb greenhouse emissions, such as setting targets to reduce overall emissions by 50% or whatever. They casually throw these "solutions" out there with little to no regard to the very real consequences of such actions. I'm perfectly well aware that "weather" and "climate" are two different concepts, but my statement still carries with it a very real truth: no one knows what the fuck is going on. The Earth's temperature has been in a constant state of flux since it came into existence. It has been hotter than it is now and it has also been cooler -- and there were no SUV's during those times. We've only been able to accurately monitor the Earth's temperature for about 100 years or so (it might actually be less, but I'll be generous), which is a geologically insignificant amount of time to draw any conclusions about the effect of man upon the global climate. No one yet really understands how the global climate works or all of the forces that influence it. We don't even know the extent, if any, to which we can influence the climate by curbing emissions. Therefore, excuse me if I'm opposed to the idea of economically damaging myself in the hope of protecting myself against some boogeyman that may not even exist. I'm well aware that Europeans generally disagree with me on this point, but it's their business if they want to be a bunch of suckers. China and India sure as hell don't give a damn.
Shows what I think is wrong the most with the whole 'completely free market' thinking. Because China and India don't curb their emissions, you'll fall behind as an economy if you do - competitiveness doesn't necessarily lead to the best results
Not going to debate the Greenhouse effect thing since this isn't the place for it but regardless I think that you would rather err on the safe side of caution and compensate (at least partially!) for the gasses humanity releases.
Now, regarding the republican nominations, I do hope a reasonable candidate wins. I'd be a democrat if I was a US citizen but really, I don't want to consider Bachmann or Palin as President :x There's plenty candidates that actually make decent points without being extremists.
|
On August 30 2011 06:41 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 06:34 justinpal wrote:On August 30 2011 06:28 macil222 wrote:On August 30 2011 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 06:11 Gunther wrote:It really pains me to see Huntsman so low. He is the only Republican I can really see myself possibly voting for. Here's the thing with Huntsman: if he's the Republican that you like, then you're probably a democrat, and the only reason why you'd consider Huntsman is because you're tired of Obama. Huntsman is your run-of-the-mill, Washington-establishment politician. He's basically the anti-Ron Paul. Pretty much this. and I hear a lot of democrats saying Huntsman is the most reasonable, or the only one they would vote for etc etc But if he was ever to win the nomination they would immediately brand him as an extremist tea bagging right wing nut. It wouldn't matter to them. Look what they did to Scott Brown in MA and that guy is more liberal than some democrats. What they really want is to give faux support to the guy (just like they did to McShame in '08) so that 1) if their candidate loses they get the person who is the most liberal alternative and 2) the person will be less desirable to republicans which will lead to less turnout and less word of mouth support for the republican. The idea that republicans need to field a so called moderate candidate to win is foolish. Most "moderates" are just people who are absolutely uninformed about the issues and generally have little to no understanding about who is who in politics. In this case it is actually better to have someone who appeals to the party base. Think again to '08. Someone who is not politically involved is at work in their office and what do they hear at the water cooler...liberals saying how great Obama will be and conservatives saying "meh, McCain will be better than the other guy..I guess". If only we didn't align to one of two parties. Two party systems have established coalitions. Parliamentary systems have to form ad hoc coalitions; I am not exactly seeing a huge benefit of it. We could break down the existing coalitions but... it isn't something I see as important or even desirable.
I wish the elections weren't based on nominations of just two individuals.
|
On August 30 2011 07:02 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 06:39 karpo wrote:On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 04:57 macil222 wrote:
We are certainly in a warming trend but I am not ready to accept man caused global warming. It might turn out to be the case that humans are causing global warming but even then what should we do about it? We need to continue our productivity in order to advance to the next level of technology which will almost certainly be cleaner and more efficient.
The problem that I have with the "global warming/climate change" alarmists is that they don't limit the scope of their work to just researching and understanding the problem. Instead, they advocate economic and environmental policies that undebatably will cause tangible economic harm to everyone -- and I'm not even talking about the corrupt ones like Al Gore who are merely looking to profit from all of this. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but before we start implementing these types of policies, we better damn well make sure that we know these policies are 1) addressing a real problem, and 2) will make enough of a difference to where the pain that they cause is worthwhile. The bottom line is that "man-made global warming/climate change" is still a theory and the scientific community has a rather abysmal record of predicting climate change over the past fifty years. These are the same idiots who, during the 1970s, were raising the alarm that we were all going to die from global cooling. It doesn't help that some of the most prominent of these scientists have been caught falsifying data recently. When these idiots start predicting tomorrow's weather accurately, I'll start paying more attention to them. Bunching the whole scientific community together and calling them idiots is stupid and just makes you seem like a uneducated fool. There's a broad concensus among scientists of many different fields that we have a global warming problem. The rest of the world (especially europe) are trying to make a change but if americans are still going to use these old tired stupid arguments it won't matter in the end. Predicting weather isn't 100% accurate but it's better than most people think. And short term (1-5 days) local weather prediction has very little to do with the science behind CO2 levels and how they effect the climate. The only people who are "idiots" are the one that advocate dramatic overhauls to our economies to curb greenhouse emissions, such as setting targets to reduce overall emissions by 50% or whatever. They casually throw these "solutions" out there with little to no regard to the very real consequences of such actions. I'm perfectly well aware that "weather" and "climate" are two different concepts, but my statement still carries with it a very real truth: no one knows what the fuck is going on. The Earth's temperature has been in a constant state of flux since it came into existence. It has been hotter than it is now and it has also been cooler -- and there were no SUV's during those times. We've only been able to accurately monitor the Earth's temperature for about 100 years or so (it might actually be less, but I'll be generous), which is a geologically insignificant amount of time to draw any conclusions about the effect of man upon the global climate. No one yet really understands how the global climate works or all of the forces that influence it. We don't even know the extent, if any, to which we can influence the climate by curbing emissions. Therefore, excuse me if I'm opposed to the idea of economically damaging myself in the hope of protecting myself against some boogeyman that may not even exist. I'm well aware that Europeans generally disagree with me on this point, but it's their business if they want to be a bunch of suckers. China and India sure as hell don't give a damn. Americans who actually understand science disagree with you too. The earth's temperature has changed a lot, yes, but we have ways to figure out the temperature for a lot more than the most recent 100 years. Yes, it's complicated. Yes, we don't understand absolutely every detail of every aspect of the climate. But unless you've spent a decade or two of your life studying the topic, your understanding of it is massively, massively worse than the people who *have* spent that much time on it. And something like 98% of them agree on this. They know perfectly well that cutting carbon output that much is very costly. But it's not as costly as the global disaster that could happen otherwise. Is it possible they're wrong? Sure. It's also possible that doctors are wrong and lead paint is perfectly safe. But it's pretty damn unlikely. So until there's some actual *reason* to believe they're wrong, their views are by far the most reliable thing we have to work with, so we act according to those views.
The whole point that I'm making is that their views are not reliable enough to take the actions that they're recommending. I've been actively following the arguments for the better part of two decades. These scientists have been crying wolf the entire time, stating that if we do not do something then the earth will overheat to temperature that will wipe us out. Tell me, which of these supposed geniuses predicted the current global cooldown that we're now experiencing? Every single article that I have seen on the subject shows that these alarmists were caught off-guard by the global decline. Hell, this was even admitted in the Climategate emails. Why would any sane person take what these people say with anything more than the grain of salt of academic curiosity given how demonstrably wrong they have been time and again?
EDIT: Hell, the current global cooldown is so embarassing for these alarmists that they changed their terminology, replacing "global warming" with "climate change." Does this alone not raise any eyebrows?
|
On August 30 2011 06:39 Doppelganger wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 06:28 macil222 wrote:On August 30 2011 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 06:11 Gunther wrote:It really pains me to see Huntsman so low. He is the only Republican I can really see myself possibly voting for. Here's the thing with Huntsman: if he's the Republican that you like, then you're probably a democrat, and the only reason why you'd consider Huntsman is because you're tired of Obama. Huntsman is your run-of-the-mill, Washington-establishment politician. He's basically the anti-Ron Paul. Pretty much this. and I hear a lot of democrats saying Huntsman is the most reasonable, or the only one they would vote for etc etc But if he was ever to win the nomination they would immediately brand him as an extremist tea bagging right wing nut. It wouldn't matter to them. Look what they did to Scott Brown in MA and that guy is more liberal than some democrats. What they really want is to give faux support to the guy (just like they did to McShame in '08) so that 1) if their candidate loses they get the person who is the most liberal alternative and 2) the person will be less desirable to republicans which will lead to less turnout and less word of mouth support for the republican. The idea that republicans need to field a so called moderate candidate to win is foolish. Most "moderates" are just people who are absolutely uninformed about the issues and generally have little to no understanding about who is who in politics. In this case it is actually better to have someone who appeals to the party base. Think again to '08. Someone who is not politically involved is at work in their office and what do they hear at the water cooler...liberals saying how great Obama will be and conservatives saying "meh, McCain will be better than the other guy..I guess". On the other hand the more you go into the right extreme the more people will be alienated from the party as a whole.
That is certainly true when you define "right" as wanting to enforce social values via the federal government or if being a neocon makes you "far right". The crazy social cons to crap all over the constitution and the neocons are actually progressive liberals and always have been. They just realized most people self identify as conservative but vote based on that affiliation without really caring to learn about the issues. So they call themselves neo-conservative and people vote when they hear the word conservative. The thing is if someone is a conservative then there is no need for it to be a "neo", a conservative is a conservative and a neo-conservative is automatically something other than a conservative. And of course for political purposes they appealed to the evangelicals but what victories did the social conservatives score during the Bush years? The answer is zero, nada, nothing.
I think most people say they want the parties to compromise but they don't really understand what kind of compromise they are talking about. When both parties compromise it is usually for the worse. It usually results in increased spending, pet projects and issues from each party, things such as the patriot act etc. They compromise their ideals and values in exchange for political expediency. I think that is bad...that is Washington as usual. I like guys like Ron Paul who will never compromise their principles but will find common ground and things that we can all agree upon and compromise by working to get solutions there.
It is amazing because he gets called a far right extremist in one sense but then a liberal in others because he doesn't fit the typical republican bill these days, that goes for the social cons and the war mongers. We are told he is an extremist and is uncompromising and yet he is always working with liberals such as Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich, even Alan Grayson and an outright socialist such as Bernie Sanders.
On the other hand you have people such as Palin and Bachmann who are "extreme" is some of the same ways Paul is yet they don't actually have the the understanding and experience that Paul has to maintain his principles while working with others. I doubt either of them would ever make a deal with Kucinich, Frank or Sanders for fear of appearing to be liberal.
|
If Bachmann wins, i'm leaving the country, and burning my passport.
I don't mind electing a republican if they have good ideas. But when all that comes from their mouth is crazy, that bugs the hell out of me.
|
On August 30 2011 07:43 BBWsuperstar wrote:
If Bachmann wins, i'm leaving the country, and burning my passport.
I don't mind electing a republican if they have good ideas. But when all that comes from their mouth is crazy, that bugs the hell out of me.
Let's not be so hasty. If Bachmann wins, she'll discover how being a President isn't as easy as saying "gas prices will go below $2" without drastic consequences. At worst, she will be known as the first woman President.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On August 30 2011 07:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 07:02 aristarchus wrote:On August 30 2011 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 06:39 karpo wrote:On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 04:57 macil222 wrote:
We are certainly in a warming trend but I am not ready to accept man caused global warming. It might turn out to be the case that humans are causing global warming but even then what should we do about it? We need to continue our productivity in order to advance to the next level of technology which will almost certainly be cleaner and more efficient.
The problem that I have with the "global warming/climate change" alarmists is that they don't limit the scope of their work to just researching and understanding the problem. Instead, they advocate economic and environmental policies that undebatably will cause tangible economic harm to everyone -- and I'm not even talking about the corrupt ones like Al Gore who are merely looking to profit from all of this. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but before we start implementing these types of policies, we better damn well make sure that we know these policies are 1) addressing a real problem, and 2) will make enough of a difference to where the pain that they cause is worthwhile. The bottom line is that "man-made global warming/climate change" is still a theory and the scientific community has a rather abysmal record of predicting climate change over the past fifty years. These are the same idiots who, during the 1970s, were raising the alarm that we were all going to die from global cooling. It doesn't help that some of the most prominent of these scientists have been caught falsifying data recently. When these idiots start predicting tomorrow's weather accurately, I'll start paying more attention to them. Bunching the whole scientific community together and calling them idiots is stupid and just makes you seem like a uneducated fool. There's a broad concensus among scientists of many different fields that we have a global warming problem. The rest of the world (especially europe) are trying to make a change but if americans are still going to use these old tired stupid arguments it won't matter in the end. Predicting weather isn't 100% accurate but it's better than most people think. And short term (1-5 days) local weather prediction has very little to do with the science behind CO2 levels and how they effect the climate. The only people who are "idiots" are the one that advocate dramatic overhauls to our economies to curb greenhouse emissions, such as setting targets to reduce overall emissions by 50% or whatever. They casually throw these "solutions" out there with little to no regard to the very real consequences of such actions. I'm perfectly well aware that "weather" and "climate" are two different concepts, but my statement still carries with it a very real truth: no one knows what the fuck is going on. The Earth's temperature has been in a constant state of flux since it came into existence. It has been hotter than it is now and it has also been cooler -- and there were no SUV's during those times. We've only been able to accurately monitor the Earth's temperature for about 100 years or so (it might actually be less, but I'll be generous), which is a geologically insignificant amount of time to draw any conclusions about the effect of man upon the global climate. No one yet really understands how the global climate works or all of the forces that influence it. We don't even know the extent, if any, to which we can influence the climate by curbing emissions. Therefore, excuse me if I'm opposed to the idea of economically damaging myself in the hope of protecting myself against some boogeyman that may not even exist. I'm well aware that Europeans generally disagree with me on this point, but it's their business if they want to be a bunch of suckers. China and India sure as hell don't give a damn. Americans who actually understand science disagree with you too. The earth's temperature has changed a lot, yes, but we have ways to figure out the temperature for a lot more than the most recent 100 years. Yes, it's complicated. Yes, we don't understand absolutely every detail of every aspect of the climate. But unless you've spent a decade or two of your life studying the topic, your understanding of it is massively, massively worse than the people who *have* spent that much time on it. And something like 98% of them agree on this. They know perfectly well that cutting carbon output that much is very costly. But it's not as costly as the global disaster that could happen otherwise. Is it possible they're wrong? Sure. It's also possible that doctors are wrong and lead paint is perfectly safe. But it's pretty damn unlikely. So until there's some actual *reason* to believe they're wrong, their views are by far the most reliable thing we have to work with, so we act according to those views. The whole point that I'm making is that their views are not reliable enough to take the actions that they're recommending. I've been actively following the arguments for the better part of two decades. These scientists have been crying wolf the entire time, stating that if we do not do something then the earth will overheat to temperature that will wipe us out. Tell me, which of these supposed geniuses predicted the current global cooldown that we're now experiencing? Every single article that I have seen on the subject shows that these alarmists were caught off-guard by the global decline. Hell, this was even admitted in the Climategate emails. Why would any sane person take what these people say with anything more than the grain of salt of academic curiosity given how demonstrably wrong they have been time and again? EDIT: Hell, the current global cooldown is so embarassing for these alarmists that they changed their terminology, replacing "global warming" with "climate change." Does this alone not raise any eyebrows?
Okay, I hope I don't sound too condescending, but it sounds like from how you speak of the "scientific community" and scientists that you probably do not have much actual scientific research experience yourself. That's okay, I can't claim to be an expert on climate change either. And this is not just directed at you, but generally I would advise people to listen to the general consensus of the scientific community when it comes to complicated issues such as this. None of us really understand it enough to refute even one of these PhDs who have dedicated their lives to study it, so the best we can do is try to follow the counsel of the majority view of these educated people. And as far as I know, that view is overwhelmingly for climate change.
Sure you can find some really smart people on the other side of the argument, but you nor I are qualified enough to determine the merit of either argument. The best and wisest decision in cases like this where the wrong choice could cause unprecedented harm to our way of life would be to follow the view point that the majority of these super-smart individuals are advocating. To say you or I know better than them is not only arrogant and insulting, but it reflects poorly on our own judgement, which is why many people call the right-wingers who refuse to believe it "stupid.'
Now, none of the actual scientists who are against climate change fall under this "stupid" category because they actually know what they are talking enough to warrant an educated opinion on the matter, but honestly, I am going to venture and say I, you, nor any of the politicians have any right to belittle the other sides' argument. The best we can do is follow the scientific consensus. And if we did that and we still end up being wrong, it does not mean we made the wrong choice. Like anything in life, you make the best decisions you can given what the data tells you to do. To do otherwise would be foolish. And the only data that you and I can actually gauge without sounding uneducated to people who actually know what they are talking about is the "consensus" of these scientists. And these scientists say climate change is real. So let's go with that for now.
|
|
|
On August 30 2011 08:05 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 07:12 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 07:02 aristarchus wrote:On August 30 2011 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 06:39 karpo wrote:On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 04:57 macil222 wrote:
We are certainly in a warming trend but I am not ready to accept man caused global warming. It might turn out to be the case that humans are causing global warming but even then what should we do about it? We need to continue our productivity in order to advance to the next level of technology which will almost certainly be cleaner and more efficient.
The problem that I have with the "global warming/climate change" alarmists is that they don't limit the scope of their work to just researching and understanding the problem. Instead, they advocate economic and environmental policies that undebatably will cause tangible economic harm to everyone -- and I'm not even talking about the corrupt ones like Al Gore who are merely looking to profit from all of this. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but before we start implementing these types of policies, we better damn well make sure that we know these policies are 1) addressing a real problem, and 2) will make enough of a difference to where the pain that they cause is worthwhile. The bottom line is that "man-made global warming/climate change" is still a theory and the scientific community has a rather abysmal record of predicting climate change over the past fifty years. These are the same idiots who, during the 1970s, were raising the alarm that we were all going to die from global cooling. It doesn't help that some of the most prominent of these scientists have been caught falsifying data recently. When these idiots start predicting tomorrow's weather accurately, I'll start paying more attention to them. Bunching the whole scientific community together and calling them idiots is stupid and just makes you seem like a uneducated fool. There's a broad concensus among scientists of many different fields that we have a global warming problem. The rest of the world (especially europe) are trying to make a change but if americans are still going to use these old tired stupid arguments it won't matter in the end. Predicting weather isn't 100% accurate but it's better than most people think. And short term (1-5 days) local weather prediction has very little to do with the science behind CO2 levels and how they effect the climate. The only people who are "idiots" are the one that advocate dramatic overhauls to our economies to curb greenhouse emissions, such as setting targets to reduce overall emissions by 50% or whatever. They casually throw these "solutions" out there with little to no regard to the very real consequences of such actions. I'm perfectly well aware that "weather" and "climate" are two different concepts, but my statement still carries with it a very real truth: no one knows what the fuck is going on. The Earth's temperature has been in a constant state of flux since it came into existence. It has been hotter than it is now and it has also been cooler -- and there were no SUV's during those times. We've only been able to accurately monitor the Earth's temperature for about 100 years or so (it might actually be less, but I'll be generous), which is a geologically insignificant amount of time to draw any conclusions about the effect of man upon the global climate. No one yet really understands how the global climate works or all of the forces that influence it. We don't even know the extent, if any, to which we can influence the climate by curbing emissions. Therefore, excuse me if I'm opposed to the idea of economically damaging myself in the hope of protecting myself against some boogeyman that may not even exist. I'm well aware that Europeans generally disagree with me on this point, but it's their business if they want to be a bunch of suckers. China and India sure as hell don't give a damn. Americans who actually understand science disagree with you too. The earth's temperature has changed a lot, yes, but we have ways to figure out the temperature for a lot more than the most recent 100 years. Yes, it's complicated. Yes, we don't understand absolutely every detail of every aspect of the climate. But unless you've spent a decade or two of your life studying the topic, your understanding of it is massively, massively worse than the people who *have* spent that much time on it. And something like 98% of them agree on this. They know perfectly well that cutting carbon output that much is very costly. But it's not as costly as the global disaster that could happen otherwise. Is it possible they're wrong? Sure. It's also possible that doctors are wrong and lead paint is perfectly safe. But it's pretty damn unlikely. So until there's some actual *reason* to believe they're wrong, their views are by far the most reliable thing we have to work with, so we act according to those views. The whole point that I'm making is that their views are not reliable enough to take the actions that they're recommending. I've been actively following the arguments for the better part of two decades. These scientists have been crying wolf the entire time, stating that if we do not do something then the earth will overheat to temperature that will wipe us out. Tell me, which of these supposed geniuses predicted the current global cooldown that we're now experiencing? Every single article that I have seen on the subject shows that these alarmists were caught off-guard by the global decline. Hell, this was even admitted in the Climategate emails. Why would any sane person take what these people say with anything more than the grain of salt of academic curiosity given how demonstrably wrong they have been time and again? EDIT: Hell, the current global cooldown is so embarassing for these alarmists that they changed their terminology, replacing "global warming" with "climate change." Does this alone not raise any eyebrows? Okay, I hope I don't sound too condescending, but it sounds like from how you speak of the "scientific community" and scientists that you probably do not have much actual scientific research experience yourself. That's okay, I can't claim to be an expert on climate change either. And this is not just directed at you, but generally I would advise people to listen to the general consensus of the scientific community when it comes to complicated issues such as this. None of us really understand it enough to refute even one of these PhDs who have dedicated their lives to study it, so the best we can do is try to follow the counsel of the majority view of these educated people. And as far as I know, that view is overwhelmingly for climate change. Sure you can find some really smart people on the other side of the argument, but you nor I are qualified enough to determine the merit of either argument. The best and wisest decision in cases like this where the wrong choice could cause unprecedented harm to our way of life would be to follow the view point that the majority of these super-smart individuals are advocating. To say you or I know better than them is not only arrogant and insulting, but it reflects poorly on our own judgement, which is why many people call the right-wingers who refuse to believe it "stupid.' Now, none of the actual scientists who are against climate change fall under this "stupid" category because they actually know what they are talking enough to warrant an educated opinion on the matter, but honestly, I am going to venture and say I, you, nor any of the politicians have any right to belittle the other sides' argument. The best we can do is follow the scientific consensus. And if we did that and we still end up being wrong, it does not mean we made the wrong choice. Like anything in life, you make the best decisions you can given what the data tells you to do. To do otherwise would be foolish. And the only data that you and I can actually gauge without sounding uneducated to people who actually know what they are talking about is the "consensus" of these scientists. And these scientists say climate change is real. So let's go with that for now.
You're right, I'm not a scientist. However, I am an attorney -- one who specializes in civil litigation and is accustomed to analyzing, questioning, and, if need be, tearing apart the opinions of doctors, scientists, engineers, and other "experts" who are at the forefront of their respective fields. Simply put, I know a thing or two about the scientific method and research.
I agree with you that the climate scientists on both sides of debate know more about the earth's climate and global warming mechanics that you or I could ever hope to know. However, where I disagree with you is in your assertions that "none of us really understand it enough to refute even one of these PhDs who have dedicated their lives to study it, so the best we can do is try to follow the counsel of the majority view of these educated people" and "the best we can do is follow scientific concensus." Neither point is accurate nor wise.
No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years. It all there laid bare for everyone to see if they just take the time to pay attention. When the scientists predict that X will happen, but they're wrong and Y, the exact opposite result occurs, there's obviously a problem. Moreover, this problem is easy for anyone to understand.
Which leads me to your second point, that "the best we can do is follow scientific concensus." Seriously, this should be rejected outright, and this is the kind of statement that makes me worry about the direction our country is headed. We should never, ever accept something that is told to us without any sort of critical review. As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it: "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." This is especially true in the case of these global warming arguments because the scientists are urging us to adopt policies that will dramatically and adversely affect the way that we live. Should we really just take them at their word without a second thought about it?
Part of me thinks that people really don't understand the consequences of what these scientists are advocating. If they knew, they'd be a little more skeptical too. Think about it this way, we ask juries in murder trials to find defendants guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to convict the defendats. We require this extreme burden of proof because we understand the consequences wrongfully convicting someone. If we're going to enact policies to combat global warming that will dramatically reduce the quality of life of every person on the face of the planet, let's make damn well sure that we know that it's something we have to do. This is not the type of issue that we should be simply entrusting to "scientific concensus" without a second thought, especially when "scientific concensuses" sometimes are wrong.
|
On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 08:05 Klogon wrote:On August 30 2011 07:12 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 07:02 aristarchus wrote:On August 30 2011 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 06:39 karpo wrote:On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 04:57 macil222 wrote:
We are certainly in a warming trend but I am not ready to accept man caused global warming. It might turn out to be the case that humans are causing global warming but even then what should we do about it? We need to continue our productivity in order to advance to the next level of technology which will almost certainly be cleaner and more efficient.
The problem that I have with the "global warming/climate change" alarmists is that they don't limit the scope of their work to just researching and understanding the problem. Instead, they advocate economic and environmental policies that undebatably will cause tangible economic harm to everyone -- and I'm not even talking about the corrupt ones like Al Gore who are merely looking to profit from all of this. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but before we start implementing these types of policies, we better damn well make sure that we know these policies are 1) addressing a real problem, and 2) will make enough of a difference to where the pain that they cause is worthwhile. The bottom line is that "man-made global warming/climate change" is still a theory and the scientific community has a rather abysmal record of predicting climate change over the past fifty years. These are the same idiots who, during the 1970s, were raising the alarm that we were all going to die from global cooling. It doesn't help that some of the most prominent of these scientists have been caught falsifying data recently. When these idiots start predicting tomorrow's weather accurately, I'll start paying more attention to them. Bunching the whole scientific community together and calling them idiots is stupid and just makes you seem like a uneducated fool. There's a broad concensus among scientists of many different fields that we have a global warming problem. The rest of the world (especially europe) are trying to make a change but if americans are still going to use these old tired stupid arguments it won't matter in the end. Predicting weather isn't 100% accurate but it's better than most people think. And short term (1-5 days) local weather prediction has very little to do with the science behind CO2 levels and how they effect the climate. The only people who are "idiots" are the one that advocate dramatic overhauls to our economies to curb greenhouse emissions, such as setting targets to reduce overall emissions by 50% or whatever. They casually throw these "solutions" out there with little to no regard to the very real consequences of such actions. I'm perfectly well aware that "weather" and "climate" are two different concepts, but my statement still carries with it a very real truth: no one knows what the fuck is going on. The Earth's temperature has been in a constant state of flux since it came into existence. It has been hotter than it is now and it has also been cooler -- and there were no SUV's during those times. We've only been able to accurately monitor the Earth's temperature for about 100 years or so (it might actually be less, but I'll be generous), which is a geologically insignificant amount of time to draw any conclusions about the effect of man upon the global climate. No one yet really understands how the global climate works or all of the forces that influence it. We don't even know the extent, if any, to which we can influence the climate by curbing emissions. Therefore, excuse me if I'm opposed to the idea of economically damaging myself in the hope of protecting myself against some boogeyman that may not even exist. I'm well aware that Europeans generally disagree with me on this point, but it's their business if they want to be a bunch of suckers. China and India sure as hell don't give a damn. Americans who actually understand science disagree with you too. The earth's temperature has changed a lot, yes, but we have ways to figure out the temperature for a lot more than the most recent 100 years. Yes, it's complicated. Yes, we don't understand absolutely every detail of every aspect of the climate. But unless you've spent a decade or two of your life studying the topic, your understanding of it is massively, massively worse than the people who *have* spent that much time on it. And something like 98% of them agree on this. They know perfectly well that cutting carbon output that much is very costly. But it's not as costly as the global disaster that could happen otherwise. Is it possible they're wrong? Sure. It's also possible that doctors are wrong and lead paint is perfectly safe. But it's pretty damn unlikely. So until there's some actual *reason* to believe they're wrong, their views are by far the most reliable thing we have to work with, so we act according to those views. The whole point that I'm making is that their views are not reliable enough to take the actions that they're recommending. I've been actively following the arguments for the better part of two decades. These scientists have been crying wolf the entire time, stating that if we do not do something then the earth will overheat to temperature that will wipe us out. Tell me, which of these supposed geniuses predicted the current global cooldown that we're now experiencing? Every single article that I have seen on the subject shows that these alarmists were caught off-guard by the global decline. Hell, this was even admitted in the Climategate emails. Why would any sane person take what these people say with anything more than the grain of salt of academic curiosity given how demonstrably wrong they have been time and again? EDIT: Hell, the current global cooldown is so embarassing for these alarmists that they changed their terminology, replacing "global warming" with "climate change." Does this alone not raise any eyebrows? Okay, I hope I don't sound too condescending, but it sounds like from how you speak of the "scientific community" and scientists that you probably do not have much actual scientific research experience yourself. That's okay, I can't claim to be an expert on climate change either. And this is not just directed at you, but generally I would advise people to listen to the general consensus of the scientific community when it comes to complicated issues such as this. None of us really understand it enough to refute even one of these PhDs who have dedicated their lives to study it, so the best we can do is try to follow the counsel of the majority view of these educated people. And as far as I know, that view is overwhelmingly for climate change. Sure you can find some really smart people on the other side of the argument, but you nor I are qualified enough to determine the merit of either argument. The best and wisest decision in cases like this where the wrong choice could cause unprecedented harm to our way of life would be to follow the view point that the majority of these super-smart individuals are advocating. To say you or I know better than them is not only arrogant and insulting, but it reflects poorly on our own judgement, which is why many people call the right-wingers who refuse to believe it "stupid.' Now, none of the actual scientists who are against climate change fall under this "stupid" category because they actually know what they are talking enough to warrant an educated opinion on the matter, but honestly, I am going to venture and say I, you, nor any of the politicians have any right to belittle the other sides' argument. The best we can do is follow the scientific consensus. And if we did that and we still end up being wrong, it does not mean we made the wrong choice. Like anything in life, you make the best decisions you can given what the data tells you to do. To do otherwise would be foolish. And the only data that you and I can actually gauge without sounding uneducated to people who actually know what they are talking about is the "consensus" of these scientists. And these scientists say climate change is real. So let's go with that for now. Which leads me to your second point, that "the best we can do is follow scientific concensus." Seriously, this should be rejected outright, and this is the kind of statement that makes me worry about the direction our country is headed. We should never, ever accept something that is told to us without any sort of critical review. .
I'm not going to argue the main thrust of your argument as I don't see either of us convincing the other that they are wrong, but this part shows that you are ignorant of how the scientific and research communities work. As someone who has coauthored scientific journal and conference papers, and been before thesis defence panels as part of my job, I can tell you that there absolutely is a critical review of the research that you do if it is ever to be taken seriously. It's the same for all fields of science and engineering.
|
On August 30 2011 10:08 DrunkenTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 08:05 Klogon wrote:On August 30 2011 07:12 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 07:02 aristarchus wrote:On August 30 2011 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 06:39 karpo wrote:On August 30 2011 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2011 04:57 macil222 wrote:
We are certainly in a warming trend but I am not ready to accept man caused global warming. It might turn out to be the case that humans are causing global warming but even then what should we do about it? We need to continue our productivity in order to advance to the next level of technology which will almost certainly be cleaner and more efficient.
The problem that I have with the "global warming/climate change" alarmists is that they don't limit the scope of their work to just researching and understanding the problem. Instead, they advocate economic and environmental policies that undebatably will cause tangible economic harm to everyone -- and I'm not even talking about the corrupt ones like Al Gore who are merely looking to profit from all of this. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but before we start implementing these types of policies, we better damn well make sure that we know these policies are 1) addressing a real problem, and 2) will make enough of a difference to where the pain that they cause is worthwhile. The bottom line is that "man-made global warming/climate change" is still a theory and the scientific community has a rather abysmal record of predicting climate change over the past fifty years. These are the same idiots who, during the 1970s, were raising the alarm that we were all going to die from global cooling. It doesn't help that some of the most prominent of these scientists have been caught falsifying data recently. When these idiots start predicting tomorrow's weather accurately, I'll start paying more attention to them. Bunching the whole scientific community together and calling them idiots is stupid and just makes you seem like a uneducated fool. There's a broad concensus among scientists of many different fields that we have a global warming problem. The rest of the world (especially europe) are trying to make a change but if americans are still going to use these old tired stupid arguments it won't matter in the end. Predicting weather isn't 100% accurate but it's better than most people think. And short term (1-5 days) local weather prediction has very little to do with the science behind CO2 levels and how they effect the climate. The only people who are "idiots" are the one that advocate dramatic overhauls to our economies to curb greenhouse emissions, such as setting targets to reduce overall emissions by 50% or whatever. They casually throw these "solutions" out there with little to no regard to the very real consequences of such actions. I'm perfectly well aware that "weather" and "climate" are two different concepts, but my statement still carries with it a very real truth: no one knows what the fuck is going on. The Earth's temperature has been in a constant state of flux since it came into existence. It has been hotter than it is now and it has also been cooler -- and there were no SUV's during those times. We've only been able to accurately monitor the Earth's temperature for about 100 years or so (it might actually be less, but I'll be generous), which is a geologically insignificant amount of time to draw any conclusions about the effect of man upon the global climate. No one yet really understands how the global climate works or all of the forces that influence it. We don't even know the extent, if any, to which we can influence the climate by curbing emissions. Therefore, excuse me if I'm opposed to the idea of economically damaging myself in the hope of protecting myself against some boogeyman that may not even exist. I'm well aware that Europeans generally disagree with me on this point, but it's their business if they want to be a bunch of suckers. China and India sure as hell don't give a damn. Americans who actually understand science disagree with you too. The earth's temperature has changed a lot, yes, but we have ways to figure out the temperature for a lot more than the most recent 100 years. Yes, it's complicated. Yes, we don't understand absolutely every detail of every aspect of the climate. But unless you've spent a decade or two of your life studying the topic, your understanding of it is massively, massively worse than the people who *have* spent that much time on it. And something like 98% of them agree on this. They know perfectly well that cutting carbon output that much is very costly. But it's not as costly as the global disaster that could happen otherwise. Is it possible they're wrong? Sure. It's also possible that doctors are wrong and lead paint is perfectly safe. But it's pretty damn unlikely. So until there's some actual *reason* to believe they're wrong, their views are by far the most reliable thing we have to work with, so we act according to those views. The whole point that I'm making is that their views are not reliable enough to take the actions that they're recommending. I've been actively following the arguments for the better part of two decades. These scientists have been crying wolf the entire time, stating that if we do not do something then the earth will overheat to temperature that will wipe us out. Tell me, which of these supposed geniuses predicted the current global cooldown that we're now experiencing? Every single article that I have seen on the subject shows that these alarmists were caught off-guard by the global decline. Hell, this was even admitted in the Climategate emails. Why would any sane person take what these people say with anything more than the grain of salt of academic curiosity given how demonstrably wrong they have been time and again? EDIT: Hell, the current global cooldown is so embarassing for these alarmists that they changed their terminology, replacing "global warming" with "climate change." Does this alone not raise any eyebrows? Okay, I hope I don't sound too condescending, but it sounds like from how you speak of the "scientific community" and scientists that you probably do not have much actual scientific research experience yourself. That's okay, I can't claim to be an expert on climate change either. And this is not just directed at you, but generally I would advise people to listen to the general consensus of the scientific community when it comes to complicated issues such as this. None of us really understand it enough to refute even one of these PhDs who have dedicated their lives to study it, so the best we can do is try to follow the counsel of the majority view of these educated people. And as far as I know, that view is overwhelmingly for climate change. Sure you can find some really smart people on the other side of the argument, but you nor I are qualified enough to determine the merit of either argument. The best and wisest decision in cases like this where the wrong choice could cause unprecedented harm to our way of life would be to follow the view point that the majority of these super-smart individuals are advocating. To say you or I know better than them is not only arrogant and insulting, but it reflects poorly on our own judgement, which is why many people call the right-wingers who refuse to believe it "stupid.' Now, none of the actual scientists who are against climate change fall under this "stupid" category because they actually know what they are talking enough to warrant an educated opinion on the matter, but honestly, I am going to venture and say I, you, nor any of the politicians have any right to belittle the other sides' argument. The best we can do is follow the scientific consensus. And if we did that and we still end up being wrong, it does not mean we made the wrong choice. Like anything in life, you make the best decisions you can given what the data tells you to do. To do otherwise would be foolish. And the only data that you and I can actually gauge without sounding uneducated to people who actually know what they are talking about is the "consensus" of these scientists. And these scientists say climate change is real. So let's go with that for now. Which leads me to your second point, that "the best we can do is follow scientific concensus." Seriously, this should be rejected outright, and this is the kind of statement that makes me worry about the direction our country is headed. We should never, ever accept something that is told to us without any sort of critical review. . I'm not going to argue the main thrust of your argument as I don't see either of us convincing the other that they are wrong, but this part shows that you are ignorant of how the scientific and research communities work. As someone who has coauthored scientific journal and conference papers, and been before thesis defence panels as part of my job, I can tell you that there absolutely is a critical review of the research that you do if it is ever to be taken seriously. It's the same for all fields of science and engineering.
Yes, yes...I'm well aware of scientific peer review. However, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, accept what the scientific community is telling me without even a modicum of my own investigation? Again, history is littered with peer-reviewed, scientific community-accepted publications and assertions that have been later proven wrong and discarded to the scrap heap of history.
|
On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:
No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years.
Please, go ahead, name some of those "gaping holes" you're referring to. Don't c/p youtube videos, bring me scientific analyses showing that the scientific community is wrong. I'm waiting.
It's seriously mind-blowing that some people are still refusing to acknowledge the reality of the contribution of humanity to global warming. The steps we should be taking now PALE in their impact on the economy in comparison to the consequences of inaction. It's really crazy how some people can turn a blind eye to the hard evidence that's right in front of them and actually jeopardize the future of mankind because they're too dumb to understand what's at stake.
|
On August 30 2011 10:38 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, yes...I'm well aware of scientific peer review. However, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, accept what the scientific community is telling me without even a modicum of my own investigation? Again, history is littered with peer-reviewed, scientific community-accepted publications and assertions that have been later proven wrong and discarded to the scrap heap of history.
And the part you ignore is that every time the scientific community's so called 'commonly accepted' theories have been discarded, it has been done so by a peer in a peer-reviewed community. As in, 'the mechanism is working as intended'. You yet to have a point, since at no time has a layman disproved science and stuck it to those scientists who 'all be lying and getting me pissed'.
|
On August 30 2011 10:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote:
No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years. Please, go ahead, name some of those "gaping holes" you're referring to. Don't c/p youtube videos, bring me scientific analyses showing that the scientific community is wrong. I'm waiting. It's seriously mind-blowing that some people are still refusing to acknowledge the reality of the contribution of humanity to global warming. The steps we should be taking now PALE in their impact on the economy in comparison to the consequences of inaction. It's really crazy how some people can turn a blind eye to the hard evidence that's right in front of them and actually jeopardize the future of mankind because they're too dumb to understand what's at stake.
I've already referenced one multiple times in this thread: global warming scientists completely failed to predict the current cooling pattern that we're in. In fact, in the Climategate emails, they admit that they have no explanation for what has happened. That's a pretty fucking big hole if you ask me, particularly when these same scientists had been predicting for 10-15 years or so beforehand that the planet would continue warming for the foreseeable future unless we took drastic action to cut emissions.
|
On August 30 2011 10:49 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 10:38 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, yes...I'm well aware of scientific peer review. However, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, accept what the scientific community is telling me without even a modicum of my own investigation? Again, history is littered with peer-reviewed, scientific community-accepted publications and assertions that have been later proven wrong and discarded to the scrap heap of history. And the part you ignore is that every time the scientific community's so called 'commonly accepted' theories have been discarded, it has been done so by a peer in a peer-reviewed community. As in, 'the mechanism is working as intended'. You yet to have a point, since at no time has a layman disproved science and stuck it to those scientists who 'all be lying and getting me pissed'.
You're completely missing the point. I'm not claiming that I know better than these scientists. I've already admitted that I don't. In fact, I agree with you that this an issue that ultimately will be resolved by scientists within the scientific community. HOWEVER, what I am saying is that the theories that these scientists are advancing are too flawed and too uncertain to support implementing the dramatic emissions-cutting policies that many of these scientists advocate.
|
Funny thing is that if I didn't look for the info I wouldn't know what policies these candidates had. Except for ron paul lol. These candidates are campaigning so poorly...
|
Aliens will save us before our race becomes extinct. We are an experiment after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/08/26/repsimpsons_custom.jpg?t=1314370847&s=4)
128
EPT
