The way global warming is presented really kills me. Real science (the field of theoretical physics, for example) entails an exchange (even a heated and hostile exchange) over test results, methods, and theories under the scientific method; there is usually a large schism concerning any area of research and theory, and until definitive proof is found, it remains supporters v. skeptics.
With global warming, there are a large, large number of scientists who are indeed skeptics, but also those who claim global warming is fact and [i]press[/i] the issue, making liberal use of their control of international organizations and many of the world's propaganda machines, using the premise of "scientific consensus" as a basis to imply that global warming is somehow indisputably real. Simply put, consensus speaking to fact is terrible science; and not just that, it's political, to an almost disgusting degree. So, because there remain a large number of legitimate skeptics in the scientific community, suppressed as they are, global warming remains as it rightfully should in my eyes: Simply a theory.
Sure, save the environment. That's great, and truly good. But it's hard to rise up and chant that message when I would be counted among such groups of politicians and (from my perspective) disgraced, fallen former scientists blatantly tossing the scientific method out the window to forward whatever cause may lie underneath.
Global warming is political. Make no mistake about it.
[QUOTE=lum1naire;18496058]giant mirrors are the answer[/QUOTE]
Drop an ice cube in the ocean
[QUOTE=lum1naire;18496058]giant mirrors are the answer[/QUOTE]
They are actually looking into putting a billion tiny mirrors into space. Sounds dumb to me.
I do think we are changing the climate, but all good studies, such as the one By MIT showing CO2 does not have an effect on the enviroment, are ignored.
Global warming theory is bullshit but is stimulating strong engineering development. Which I'm all for since i'm in engineering, meaning i make more money.
it's the skeptics that are the politically motivated ones you dummy
[QUOTE=redonkulous;18496103]They are actually looking into putting a billion tiny mirrors into space. Sounds dumb to me.[/QUOTE]
I know, that's why I said it. They actually said that if the situation worsens changing the sunlight might be an answer
sounds like prisky whiskey risky business to me
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;18495987]The way global warming is presented really kills me. Real science (the field of theoretical physics, for example) entails an exchange (even a heated and hostile exchange) over test results, methods, and theories under the scientific method; there is usually a large schism concerning any area of research and theory, and until definitive proof is found, it remains supporters v. skeptics.
With global warming, there are a large, large number of scientists who are indeed skeptics, but also those who claim global warming is fact and [i]press[/i] the issue, making liberal use of their control of international organizations and many of the world's propaganda machines, using the premise of "scientific consensus" as a basis to imply that global warming is somehow indisputably real. Simply put, consensus speaking to fact is terrible science; and not just that, it's political, to an almost disgusting degree. So, because there remain a large number of legitimate skeptics in the scientific community, suppressed as they are, global warming remains as it rightfully should in my eyes: Simply a theory.
Sure, save the environment. That's great, and truly good. But it's hard to rise up and chant that message when I would be counted among such groups of politicians and (from my perspective) disgraced, fallen former scientists blatantly tossing the scientific method out the window to forward whatever cause may lie underneath.
Global warming is political. Make no mistake about it.[/QUOTE]
Does this need a Politics or Rant post icon? :ohdear:
This is how black holes are formed.
Its a tax scam.
[QUOTE=lum1naire;18496058]giant mirrors are the answer[/QUOTE]
Geo engineering awayyyyyy
What will it take to actually, seriously, look into this issue? And would either party be willing to admit that they were wrong even if we did? What would be so bad about increasing the automobile standards so that we aren't dead last in the entire world? Or maybe increasing appliance standards to energy star levels?
Futurama has you covered, OP.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hib8zdoZ-YY&feature=related[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyTm_0D0uS8[/media]
That wasn't quick at all.
[QUOTE=CaptainSnake;18496283]That wasn't quick at all.[/QUOTE]
You don't read very much, do you?
Go ahead. Take a seat, here's a book. Maybe you'll discover something about yourself.
As for the Facepunch response on the whole, I appreciate the productive posts, but I still have to remember that this is a forum of 13-year-olds, and I was not much older than that when I joined.
A. The new political term is Climate Change.
B. For once, if your politicians are lying to us to do something good (i.e. clean up the environment, get off oil, etc.), then I'm all for it. At least they aren't lying to us to get us into a War.
Just finished watching the day after tomorrow. :v:
It's okay.
I have sunglasses.
That sounds awfully familiar.
Oh yeah.
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;18495987]The way evolution is presented really kills me. Real science (the field of theoretical physics, for example) entails an exchange (even a heated and hostile exchange) over test results, methods, and theories under the scientific method; there is usually a large schism concerning any area of research and theory, and until definitive proof is found, it remains supporters v. skeptics.
With evolution, there are a large, large number of scientists who are indeed skeptics, but also those who claim evolution is fact and [i]press[/i] the issue, making liberal use of their control of international organizations and many of the world's propaganda machines, using the premise of "scientific consensus" as a basis to imply that evolution is somehow indisputably real. Simply put, consensus speaking to fact is terrible science; and not just that, it's political, to an almost disgusting degree. So, because there remain a large number of legitimate skeptics in the scientific community, suppressed as they are, evolution remains as it rightfully should in my eyes: Simply a theory.[/QUOTE]
[editline]02:22AM[/editline]
OP, can you link to a peer-reviewed paper in a well-regarded journal that disputes the IPCC findings?
I believe in global warming as we once used to have snow-layered hills around the start of November to somewhere around March-April. Last year, we just had one week of snow. This year, we still don't have any snow and I doubt that we'll have it for one full week.
[quote]I do think we are changing the climate, but all good studies, such as the one By MIT showing CO2 does not have an effect on the enviroment, are ignored.
[/quote]
Heres the ITN thread, might just leave it here. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=16965866#post16965866[/url]
I can't help but agree with the fact that we are changing the climate, but we are greatly underestimating the planet's natural climate changes through volcanoes, ice ages etc.
Would you guys please pollute more, my feet are cold.
[QUOTE=smurfy;18496077][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I[/media][/QUOTE]
Haha oh man
Bodybag
[editline]02:46AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Occlusion;18496107]I do think we are changing the climate, but all good studies, such as the one By MIT showing CO2 does not have an effect on the enviroment, are ignored.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how a paper written by a single person, who has ultra-right political leanings, and who is paid $2500 a day by the oil industry for consulting, constitutes a "good study?"
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ[/media]
Try not to mind that it's Red Eye, because it's John Coleman! Don't know who he is?
[quote=Wikipedia]John Coleman is an American TV weatherman. Along with entrepreneur Frank Batten, he founded The Weather Channel (but is no longer affiliated with it), and presently works as an on-camera weathercaster at KUSI-TV in San Diego.
[b]Views on global warming[/b]
Coleman is a harsh critic of anthropogenic global warming. In the fall of 2007 he described the current concern over global warming "a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam." In 2008 Coleman gave a speech of the same tone, before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, blaming the "global warming scam" and environmentalist lobby, for rising gas and food prices. He also declared the scam "a threat to our economy and our civilization."
Coleman has also made appearances on Fox News Channel and on the Showtime program, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, to share his global warming views. Coleman recently published an article entitled "The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam" in which he promotes his ideas that many scientists and politicians have been embroiled in what amounts to scam based on incomplete science and a political motive for a world government. Coleman says the genesis of the global warming movement was the claims of scientist Roger Revelle, an early mentor of Al Gore, whose goal was seeking increased funding for the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.[/quote]
Source: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_%28news_weathercaster%29[/url]
Have some time to read?
[url]http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html[/url]
Too long; didn't read?
[quote=John Coleman]I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.[/quote]
[QUOTE=lum1naire;18496058]giant mirrors are the answer[/QUOTE]
A giant mirror covering all of africa... GENIUS
Here's my rant:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiVvA9YQpiI[/media]
Darn politics getting in the way of everything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
