I saw a "Liberalism is a Lie, Global Warming is a Hoax" sign in a car's back window today - General

[QUOTE=TH89;21579103]China's participation is important, but Western powers are just as crucial, and as first-world nations they're under an increasing amount of political and scientific pressure to pass regulations, so yes, there probably will be significant steps made. Geologists are not climatologists, no matter how much they would like to be. And a large portion of geologists are employed in some capacity or another by the oil industry, which is why they, as a field, tend to have the most climate skeptics. That said, your college geology classes, impressive though they may be, are still nowhere near as credible a source as hundreds of published, peer-reviewed climatological studies. And your geology teacher's climate-denial is much more of an "internet hype fueled view" than simple support of the scientific consensus.[/QUOTE] I would break my own code and bother replying to someone who didnt READ what i was saying or make an attempt to understand, but i cannot be bothered. Ill just point out i did not say she was AT ALL A CLIMATE SKEPTIC. Just that alternative models were CONSIDERED. Geology is important, it is not only climatologists that can have their say - last i checked, earth processes greatly influenced the climate. What you dont also realise is that alot of PRO climate scientists are funded by the government, who of course, want reasons for higher taxes in these times. Its ok though. Label me a climate skeptic without reading what i actually typed. Also, please continue to believe that is ever seriously going to happen. The economy and the power it provides individuals with via immense wealth will always be more important to the majority of people. It would also be nice to know what alternative models you are even aware of.

[QUOTE=Deathbane;21579233]I would break my own code and bother replying to someone who didnt READ what i was saying or make an attempt to understand, but i cannot be bothered. Ill just point out i did not say she was AT ALL A CLIMATE SKEPTIC. Just that alternative models were CONSIDERED. Geology is important, it is not only climatologists that can have their say - last i checked, earth processes greatly influenced the climate. What you dont also realise is that alot of PRO climate scientists are funded by the government, who of course, want reasons for higher taxes in these times. Its ok though. Label me a climate skeptic without reading what i actually typed. Also, please continue to believe that is ever seriously going to happen.[/QUOTE] Here's a hint, random capitalization makes you look like a nutjob. Try and avoid it.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;21579267]Here's a hint, random capitalization makes you look like a nutjob. Try and avoid it.[/QUOTE] It is a hint not required. Thanks for the advice though, but enough people think that anyway and it'd be a shame to disappoint them.

[QUOTE=Deathbane;21579233]I would break my own code and bother replying to someone who didnt READ what i was saying or make an attempt to understand, but i cannot be bothered. Ill just point out i did not say she was AT ALL A CLIMATE SKEPTIC. Just that alternative models were CONSIDERED. Geology is important, it is not only climatologists that can have their say - last i checked, earth processes greatly influenced the climate.[/QUOTE] Very true, they often do! My mistake re: your Geology teacher--I guess I assumed her class was what made you think there were viable alternative forcing mechanisms. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21579233]What you dont also realise is that alot of PRO climate scientists are funded by the government, who of course, want reasons for higher taxes in these times.[/QUOTE] Oh, I realize! Bias is always a problem in science. Fortunately, that's why we have the peer review system, which ensures that published scientific research is fact-checked by people who don't share the researchers' interests (sources of funding being one of them). [i]Unless[/i] you believe in a giant global conspiracy of all scientists everywhere, for which there isn't a whole lot of evidence, the peer review process is more than adequate when it comes to keeping published research reasonably honest. Certainly enough to keep people from publishing hundreds upon hundreds of papers that are outright lies.

[QUOTE=TH89;21579378]Very true, they often do! My mistake re: your Geology teacher--I guess I assumed her class was what made you think there were viable alternative forcing mechanisms. Oh, I realize! Bias is always a problem in science. Fortunately, that's why we have the peer review system, which ensures that published scientific research is fact-checked by people who don't share the researchers' interests (sources of funding being one of them). [i]Unless[/i] you believe in a giant global conspiracy of all scientists everywhere, for which there isn't a whole lot of evidence, the peer review process is more than adequate when it comes to keeping published research reasonably honest. Certainly enough to keep people from publishing papers that are outright lies.[/QUOTE] No, but it did point out to me other factors which could be influencing, or contributing, to a possible current problem. Do not assume i take either side as being conclusive. I dont take a stance on the matter, and nowhere did i state that they were 'lying' - i merely stated that you cant use the financial arguement against oil back companies without also having the same charge levied at the government back scientists. I am not qualified or have the appropriate training to make a reasonable conclusion, nor decide which side is in the right. Any scientist who says they have fully understand the phenomenon of global warming is not being truthful, and is an excuse for a scientist. Just because theyve have all reached a conclusion, also doesnt necessarily make that conclusion correct. It wouldnt be the first time a scientific certainty has been invalidated by future evidence. These are all possibilities - therefore to blindly support them without even considering this by throwing sources at people who simply ask 'what if theyre wrong' questions.

[QUOTE=Deathbane;21579603]Words[/QUOTE] [img]http://radiopatriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/glenn-beck2.jpg[/img] WHAT I'M DOING IS ASKING QUESTIONS!!!

[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;21579658][img]bigasspicture[/img] WHAT I'M DOING IS ASKING QUESTIONS!!![/QUOTE] Which dont have a simple definite answer im afraid :P

[QUOTE=Deathbane;21579765]Which dont have a simple definite answer im afraid :P[/QUOTE] Here's the simple answer: Reduce pollution. If it causes global warming, bam problem solved. If it doesn't, oh well, we have a less shitty planet now.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;21579852]Here's the simple answer: Reduce pollution. If it causes global warming, bam problem solved. If it doesn't, oh well, we have a less shitty planet now.[/QUOTE] Because its that simple to accomplish, overnight. I think we should make you an embassador to China. If you have a plan of how to simply accomplish this without significantly impacting other areas of peoples lives, please say. I dont disagree with the idea.

[QUOTE=Deathbane;21579901]Because its that simple to accomplish, overnight. I think we should make you an embassador to China.[/QUOTE] It's a simple answer, not a simple action. I don't know how to solve the problem of China (and India and America and etc) being massively polluting assholes, I just know that it would have a positive effect no matter what, and it's something we should work towards. Edit: I just know you're not offering any solutions, just saying "Oh this could be the problem, this could be the problem, or this or this".

[QUOTE=Deathbane;21579901]Because its that simple to accomplish, overnight. I think we should make you an embassador to China.[/QUOTE] Seriously, what does it matter? We know one thing: Pollution is bad. Why would you ever deny this?

[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;21579940]Seriously, what does it matter? We know one thing: Pollution is bad. Why would you ever deny this?[/QUOTE] I sure love how much Communist China is preventing pollution, eh comrade?

[QUOTE=Deathbane;21579901]Because its that simple to accomplish, overnight. I think we should make you an embassador to China.[/QUOTE] He's right, though. People who say we have no reason to do anything because global warming is wrong are not stupid because they think global warming is wrong, they are stupid because even if it is, any measures to fix it would also reduce pollution massively, helping us even if we are not the source,

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;21579963]I sure love how much Communist China is preventing pollution, eh comrade?[/QUOTE] How does pollution being bad have anything to do with the way china runs their country?

[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;21579940]Seriously, what does it matter? We know one thing: Pollution is bad. Why would you ever deny this?[/QUOTE] Read my post. Nowhere do i say it isnt bad, or that something shouldnt be done. But i dont see anything being constructive being suggested, and im simply stating that its pure idealism to believe that any significant headway is going to be made on the issue.

Everything is a lie.

[QUOTE=Shoupie;21579999]Everything is a lie.[/QUOTE] Touché. And like i said, i cant offer solutions. Im not an engineer, or a climatolist, or an ecologist.

[QUOTE=Deathbane;21579998]Read my post. Nowhere do i say it isnt bad, or that something shouldnt be done. But i dont see anything being constructive being suggested, and im simply stating that its pure idealism to believe that any significant headway is going to be made won the issue.[/QUOTE] What I suggested isn't constructive? And I don't think it's too idealistic. Even disregarding China, we could do far more at home than we are now. We need serious pollution regulations for industrial companies, and ones that actually carry some weight and penalty behind them. Of course, that isn't simple either due to half of congress being in the pocket of industrial interests, but that's another issue for another day.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;21580105]What I suggested isn't constructive? And I don't think it's too idealistic. Even disregarding China, we could do far more at home than we are now. We need serious pollution regulations for industrial companies, and ones that actually carry some weight and penalty behind them. Of course, that isn't simple either due to half of congress being in the pocket of industrial interests, but that's another issue for another day.[/QUOTE] No, but you've hit the nail on the head. Alot of people dont want to do anything, people with alot of money and power. Therefore, nothing will be done to ease the issue. Therefore, it is a pointless debate to have. It is impossible to force the issue in time for action to be taken and have the effect desired, if the scientists are correct.

[QUOTE=Deathbane;21579603]No, but it did point out to me other factors which could be influencing, or contributing, to a possible current problem. Do not assume i take either side as being conclusive. I dont take a stance on the matter, and nowhere did i state that they were 'lying' - i merely stated that you cant use the financial arguement against oil back companies without also having the same charge levied at the government back scientists.[/QUOTE] Untrue, for three reasons: One: Scientists advocating global warming have been doing so for a long time. During the Bush era, they were basically ignored, and even suppressed, contradicted by Bush staffers, and had their funding cut, because the US government would much rather global warming didn't exist at all. Yet the climatologists still stuck to their global warming story. If their motive was solely to get funding, they weren't doing a very good job. Two: Government-funded research, like most government-funded operations, has a generous helping of regulation and bureaucracy to make sure the people asking for money aren't lying about it. If they're willing to pay a guy who lies about his research, you can bet they're willing to pay even more to a guy who tells them the first guy was lying. Three: This is the most important one. The climate research I am citing is PEER-REVIEWED. That means it's reviewed by other scientists who don't get their funding from the same people, and have no reason to play along with a hoax. The claims coming from big oil's mouthpieces like the Cato Institute and independent geologists are subject to no review or fact-checking whatsoever, just published and distributed as widely as possible. In other words, comparing the two is disingenuous, primarily because one is extensively fact-checked, and one isn't. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21579603]I am not qualified or have the appropriate training to make a reasonable conclusion, nor decide which side is in the right.[/QUOTE] When you are not qualified to judge the data personally, the reasonable thing to do is usually to assume the scientific consensus, especially when the consensus is as strong as this one. Are we absolutely certain it's right? Of course not, but it's a lot more likely to be right than it is to be wrong. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21579603]Just because theyve have all reached a conclusion, also doesnt necessarily make that conclusion correct. It wouldnt be the first time a scientific certainty has been invalidated by future evidence.[/QUOTE] This is the same argument that creationists and intelligent design advocates use against evolution--"scientists have been wrong." Yes, scientists have been wrong from time to time in the past, but they've been right a lot more. Secondly, the vast majority of major scientific misconceptions have been based on a lack of data--the more data they collect, the more accurate their models. Over the past 20 years, huge amounts of data regarding climate change have been collected, and the consensus has only grown stronger. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21579603]These are all possibilities - therefore to blindly support them without even considering this by throwing sources at people who simply ask 'what if theyre wrong' questions.[/QUOTE] What if they're wrong? Then we'll have wasted some money. The consequences of believing them when they're wrong are chump change compared to the consequences of NOT believing them if they're right. And, all things considered, it's a lot more likely that they're right.

But that kind of attitude has never gotten us anywhere. And things obviously can change, it may take a while, but it can change. Look at most any social reform in the past few centuries. How many rich and powerful people, even in the government, were against something like Civil Rights or Equal Opportunity, yet it still got (eventually) enacted into law. It takes a lot of time and effort to reform systems like these, but it's obviously a reform that needs to be done.

[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;21579986]How does pollution being bad have anything to do with the way china runs their country?[/QUOTE] [img]http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/chinese-pollution.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;21580210]But that kind of attitude has never gotten us anywhere. And things obviously can change, it may take a while, but it can change. Look at most any social reform in the past few centuries. How many rich and powerful people, even in the government, were against something like Civil Rights or Equal Opportunity, yet it still got (eventually) enacted into law. It takes a lot of time and effort to reform systems like these, but it's obviously a reform that needs to be done.[/QUOTE] What exactly are you saying needs to be reformed?

[QUOTE=TH89;21580341]What exactly are you saying needs to be reformed?[/QUOTE] Uh, a mix of corporate regulations regarding pollution caps and such, and the lobbyist system. They go hand in hand, cause you're not going to get effective reform of a system that pays off the people that are supposed to be doing the reforming.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;21580384]Uh, a mix of corporate regulations regarding pollution caps and such, and the lobbyist system. They go hand in hand, cause you're not going to get effective reform of a system that pays off the people that are supposed to be doing the reforming.[/QUOTE] Oh, okay. I thought you were replying to my post, saying we needed to reform Science.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing as the OP as I read the thread title.

[QUOTE=TH89;21580168]Untrue, for three reasons: One: Scientists advocating global warming have been doing so for a long time. During the Bush era, they were basically ignored, and even suppressed, contradicted by Bush staffers, and had their funding cut, because the US government would much rather global warming didn't exist at all. Yet the climatologists still stuck to their global warming story. If their motive was solely to get funding, they weren't doing a very good job. Two: Government-funded research, like most government-funded operations, has a generous helping of regulation and bureaucracy to make sure the people asking for money aren't lying about it. If they're willing to pay a guy who lies about his research, you can bet they're willing to pay even more to a guy who tells them the first guy was lying. Three: This is the most important one. The climate research I am citing is PEER-REVIEWED. That means it's reviewed by other scientists who don't get their funding from the same people, and have no reason to play along with a hoax. The claims coming from big oil's mouthpieces like the Cato Institute and independent geologists are subject to no review or fact-checking whatsoever, just published and distributed as widely as possible. In other words, comparing the two is disingenuous, primarily because one is extensively fact-checked, and one isn't. When you are not qualified to judge the data personally, the reasonable thing to do is usually to assume the scientific consensus, especially when the consensus is as strong as this one. Are we absolutely certain it's right? Of course not, but it's a lot more likely to be right than it is to be wrong. This is the same argument that creationists and intelligent design advocates use against evolution--"scientists have been wrong." Yes, scientists have been wrong from time to time in the past, but they've been right a lot more. Secondly, the vast majority of major scientific misconceptions have been based on a lack of data--the more data they collect, the more accurate their models. Over the past 20 years, huge amounts of data regarding climate change have been collected, and the consensus has only grown stronger. What if they're wrong? Then we'll have wasted some money. The consequences of believing them when they're wrong are chump change compared to the consequences of NOT believing them if they're right. And, all things considered, it's a lot more likely that they're right.[/QUOTE] A fair few points made. However, just because theyve been right a whole lot more does not mean they are right this time. Probability does not work like that. Also, how do we know we have enough data to make 100% true predictions? There is always the possibility of an unknown factor that is skewing results unknown to either side. Nobody HAS to be lying. You also assume i meant during the bush era, and only america. Before the recession, it was a highly promoted topic in the UK, as it meant it was an excellent way to create support for the increase in fuel duty. THe point about the checking still stands. Lets say that what you say is the case and that it is 100% impossible for any spun facts in favour of global warming theory to exist. WHat makes the other reports in any way less true? They might not be reviewed, and they might be funded by the oil companies, but is it any less conspiracy theory to instantly jump to the conclusion that all contrary evidence is falsified? The 'peers' might not want to accept contrary evidence if it rocks the boat too much. This has happened in the past, and ill try and find a source for what i have in mind before i give the example. 'Usually' is a personal word. Reasonable to follow consensus because a majority believes in true, is also a personal choice. I dont believe that makes it sufficient enough for me to simply take what they say at face value, especially since its not just a theory, but the way it is presented is incredibly spun by both the media and politicians. As a person, i would need accurate views of multiple journals and sources as published to make an individual decision. Its corrupted by the filtered medium im exposed towards. In reply to Xen, i understand and im not saying a difference cannot be made. Just that in the timeframe they want us to, its not going to happen. Anyhows i have an early programming lecture. It has been good discussing this issue with you all. Goodnight, gentlemen.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;21580240][IMG]http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/chinese-pollution.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] You're not understanding: I know china sucks, What I'm talking about is the fact that pollution is bad no matter what we do, so why would it matter if it causes global warming or not, we should continue to go green for the sake of everyone else living here.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;21580240][img]http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/chinese-pollution.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Point out where he said china was good, please. [editline]10:02PM[/editline] :ninja:

[QUOTE=that1dude24;21580444]Point out where he said china was good, please. [editline]10:02PM[/editline] :ninja:[/QUOTE] Read his others posts.