zoogs Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I bet it's those damn scientists. Honestly, to put it nicely, that link you touted in the original post of this thread demonstrates such a thorough lack of understanding in this area I'm surprised you would ask anybody else to "go do some research" on this. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Big oil? seriously? Do a little research and see what side has the most funding.. You might be shocked. Not going to mention names, but I think someone needs to check the batteries in their Sarcasm Detecto-tron 2000. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 So... what predated the IPCC? Your contention is that, for no particular reason whatsoever, the UN decided to create a body to study the climate back in 1988? You don't think climate data gathered decades before the IPCC ever existed had anything at all to do with its foundation? Do some basic research on this stuff. It's pretty simple. No kidding, you should try that. I am saying the current state of global warming hysteria is driven by politics I'm fully versed on the origins of this topic, and its current state of affairs. I'm also aware that the Republican Mouthpiece is the biggest fear-mongerer regarding Global Warming/Climate Change, and the biggest disseminater of misinformation. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Using the terms "scientific consensus" in this argument lowers your credibility. Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Only if you read conservative tabloids. But come on, you're welcome to elaborate. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 So... what predated the IPCC? Your contention is that, for no particular reason whatsoever, the UN decided to create a body to study the climate back in 1988? You don't think climate data gathered decades before the IPCC ever existed had anything at all to do with its foundation? Do some basic research on this stuff. It's pretty simple. No kidding, you should try that. I am saying the current state of global warming hysteria is driven by politics I'm fully versed on the origins of this topic, and its current state of affairs. I'm also aware that the Republican Mouthpiece is the biggest fear-mongerer regarding Global Warming/Climate Change, and the biggest disseminater of misinformation. Wow....Do you know a guy by the name of Al Gore? Link to comment
Nebula Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I will ask again.. when has this ever been an academic issue? So what belief are you using? The one were scientist say man is part of the problem, or the one were scientist says it is more natural event? By the way, were do you think the funding comes from? It has always been an academic issue for people looking for potential answers based on evidence, not people who want to tell you immediately what the right answer is. The latter, which unless I'm mistaken seems to be where your position germinated, is a political one. Politics has devolved into a realm where zero concessions are made, and all discussions are debated with absolute statements. Science, which is not another word for academia but here I think it applies, is ruled by the scientific method. You have to prove your theories with black and white evidence. So, by nature, scientists aren't typically engaged in preening, screaming matches. They're in muted conversation, comparing data they've compiled, looking for the strongest possible rational statement that can be made based on accumulative research. I very much prefer that strategy. (Ben Franklin, fwiw, was a brilliant man who was entirely self taught. His entire life he constantly tried to identify his weaknesses, and improve in those areas. He specifically eschewed speaking in absolute tones. American politics today would almost certainly disgust him. Maybe not Adams, though ) 1 Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share Posted October 16, 2012 Only if you read conservative tabloids. But come on, you're welcome to elaborate. http://www.politikdi...cane-irene.html listen and watch the video... Link to comment
Ziggy Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 If I am not mistaken, I remember people worried about a mini ice age when I was a kid, now its global warming, next it will be the poles are going to switch. It is all about research $ and humans predisposition to thinking they know how everything works and how that is creating X that is happening right now. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 If I am not mistaken, I remember people worried about a mini ice age when I was a kid, now its global warming, next it will be the poles are going to switch. It is all about research $ and humans predisposition to thinking they know how everything works and how that is creating X that is happening right now. You are not mistaken. I very much remember the impending mini ice age myself. Totally agree with where you're coming from here. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share Posted October 16, 2012 I will ask again.. when has this ever been an academic issue? So what belief are you using? The one were scientist say man is part of the problem, or the one were scientist says it is more natural event? By the way, were do you think the funding comes from? It has always been an academic issue for people looking for potential answers based on evidence, not people who want to tell you immediately what the right answer is. The latter, which unless I'm mistaken seems to be where your position germinated, is a political one. Politics has devolved into a realm where zero concessions are made, and all discussions are debated with absolute statements. Science, which is not another word for academia but here I think it applies, is ruled by the scientific method. You have to prove your theories with black and white evidence. So, by nature, scientists aren't typically engaged in preening, screaming matches. They're in muted conversation, comparing data they've compiled, looking for the strongest possible rational statement that can be made based on accumulative research. I very much prefer that strategy. (Ben Franklin, fwiw, was a brilliant man who was entirely self taught. His entire life he constantly tried to identify his weaknesses, and improve in those areas. He specifically eschewed speaking in absolute tones. American politics today would almost certainly disgust him. Maybe not Adams, though ) I 100% believe the planet warms and cools.. not a doubt in my mind. EDIT: let me add that you couldn't be more wrong about the bold.. I had a link where scientist for global warming had a few choice words for those that don't believe but I can't find it now. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share Posted October 16, 2012 If I am not mistaken, I remember people worried about a mini ice age when I was a kid, now its global warming, next it will be the poles are going to switch. It is all about research $ and humans predisposition to thinking they know how everything works and how that is creating X that is happening right now. yep, that was the big "scare" back then. Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 http://www.politikdi...cane-irene.html See, you're conflating again. The silly media that likes nothing more than to run around waving their arms and screaming, 'OMG!', they aren't scientists, and these efforts aren't taken seriously by scientists. Alarmist claims have always been just that, alarmist. It is pretty foolhardy to attempt to use that to discredit what no scientific body in the world disputes. Global warming controversy The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,[157][158]regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[159][160] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions. From 1990–1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good.[161] But I'm sure those political think tanks are on the right track. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share Posted October 16, 2012 http://www.politikdi...cane-irene.html See, you're conflating again. The silly media that likes nothing more than to run around waving their arms and screaming, 'OMG!', they aren't scientists, and these efforts aren't taken seriously by scientists. Alarmist claims have always been just that, alarmist. It is pretty foolhardy to attempt to use that to discredit what no scientific body in the world disputes. Global warming controversy The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,[157][158]regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[159][160] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions. From 1990–1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good.[161] But I'm sure those political think tanks are on the right track. you missed the point of posting that video. That video is all part of the global crap being pushed down peoples throat.. The rest of that site can be ignored because I didn't pay attention to the rest. The video is what I was interested in. Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Great post by the way, Nebula. If I am not mistaken, I remember people worried about a mini ice age when I was a kid, now its global warming, next it will be the poles are going to switch. It is all about research $ and humans predisposition to thinking they know how everything works and how that is creating X that is happening right now. I think the best policy is to avoid the media frenzy over things like this, because they are rarely informative and often the opposite. Science tends to be far more measured and humble than articles of the "Hey, here's some study or data. Let me make a headline out of it" vein. Earth's inconstant magnetic field: http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/ Re: the video, I'm not going to argue that anything you see on any media outlet, most of which are politically leaning one way or another, or at the very least completely disregarding of science (for the sake of news), is trash. It's totally separate from the scientific issue, which is what I mean when I say, 'you're conflating.' Link to comment
Recommended Posts