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

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;21580494]Read his others posts.[/QUOTE] I see stuff pertaining to communism, not china. :\

Global Warming really isn't a threat like many climatologists and such have made it out to be. I'm not going to start an argument over this either. However; I do not think Liberalism is a lie, it really can't be. It's pretty straightforward, and the mass opinions Liberals do have aren't cloaked or "Lied" about to promote Socialism secretly.

[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] What will that do for me, though? I mean, reducing pollution is great, but we can't destroy our standard of living in the process, otherwise it is a pretty stupid idea.

[QUOTE=Deathbane;21580432]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.[/QUOTE] I didn't say they were right this time. I said they are probably right this time. And that IS how probability works. Otherwise nobody would listen to them ANY of the time, and that would be stupid. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21580432]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.[/QUOTE] Possible, but unlikely. We have a phenomenon in search of a forcing mechanism, and we have a forcing mechanism that suits the phenomenon. To start with the assumption that the conclusion is wrong, and then look for a hidden factor for which there is no evidence, doesn't seem like sound science to me. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21580432]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.[/QUOTE] America's evidence enough--the scientific community is very well-networked internationally, so if the UK scientists were fudging the data, the American scientists would have called them on it, since they had nothing to gain from playing along in a hostile political climate at home. The fact that they did the opposite, and have been doing so at least since the late 1980s, regardless of how popular the subject is in politics, strongly suggests that it's not politically motivated. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21580432]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.[/QUOTE] That's not what I said, and you know it's not what I said. Don't be disingenuous. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21580432]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?[/QUOTE] This is an easy one--the vast majority of "Global Warming is a hoax" material out there consists of easily-debunked claims like "it's a natural cycle" or "scientists used to believe in global cooling" or "volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans." From an academic perspective, the stuff is pure nonsense, yet it's promoted heavily by oil interests, much like tobacco companies used to publish "studies" showing cigarettes were good for you, to the consternation of the scientific community. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21580432]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.[/QUOTE] This has occasionally been a problem, but it hardly constitutes evidence of fraud--again, creationists love to accuse the peer review process of conspiracy against research that "disproves" evolution. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21580432]'Usually' is a personal word.[/QUOTE] "Personal word?" With respect, that doesn't mean anything. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21580432]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[/QUOTE] Do you feel the same way about evolution? What about nuclear power? There's a lot of things we take scientists' words for every day--what makes this one different? It seems like, in your efforts to avoid the politicization of this issue, you've fallen squarely in line with what one side wants people to think. After all, Big Oil doesn't have to convince everyone that Global Warming is a lie--if they can muddy the waters even a little bit, it's a victory. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21580432]especially since its not just a theory, but the way it is presented is incredibly spun by both the media and politicians.[/QUOTE] Remember that it's spun by fossil fuel interests just as much as, if not more than, it is by government. Many governments have been reluctant to get onboard with the idea, because it means more regulation, often higher taxes, and general shitting-up of the economy as various industries comply with tightened emissions standards. It's hardly in government's best interest to push something like this if it's not true. But either way, the fact that it's so much of a political football is the exact reason why it's best to get your information from credible scientific sources. After all, it's a science issue. If you really want information about science as free from political spin as is possible, just read Science and Nature. [QUOTE=Deathbane;21580432]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.[/QUOTE] Like I said, subscribe to Science and Nature. They're the two most respected and reputable peer-reviewed science journals in the world. Even if you don't change your mind about AGW, they've still got great articles on lots of topics :)

Also, theory is scientific fact.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;21580690]Global Warming really isn't a threat like many climatologists and such have made it out to be. I'm not going to start an argument over this either.[/QUOTE] Bredirish: Internet climate expert, knows more than real climate experts, but won't say how [sp]he doesn't know[/sp]

Also by the way Deathbane, we can't just go under the assumption that scientists are wrong because they have been wrong before. If we do that we will get nowhere and science would be useless.

-snip-

It's too small to read.

[QUOTE=TH89;21580985]Bredirish: Internet climate expert, knows more than real climate experts, but won't say how [sp]he doesn't know[/sp][/QUOTE] It's because all the scientists that say global warming is real are really working for Obama so that he can make us drive Priuses and use florescent lightbulbs for his secret plot.

Priuses are gay

[QUOTE=TH89;21581001]It's too small to read.[/QUOTE] Yep. Looking for a picture host that doesn't shrink it. :(

[QUOTE=yawmwen;21580917]What will that do for me, though? I mean, reducing pollution is great, but we can't destroy our standard of living in the process, otherwise it is a pretty stupid idea.[/QUOTE] What industrial reforms can you think of that would "destroy our standard of living"?

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;21581023]What industrial reforms can you think of that would "destroy our standard of living"?[/QUOTE] Well, if you start charging companies a lot more and making it hard for them to increase their output, companies begin raising prices on goods. I'm just saying that we have to be careful not to destroy our life trying to reduce pollution or it is a self-defeating cause. [editline]03:33AM[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;21581018]Priuses are gay[/QUOTE] ur ghey!1

[QUOTE=Superginger;21581022]Yep. Looking for a picture host that doesn't shrink it. :([/QUOTE] Filesmelt.com

[url=http://j.imagehost.org/view/0205/1268470082900]Found a good host. Click for some unsourced image goodness ;)[/url] [editline]03:36AM[/editline] Oh damn. It DOES have sources.

I saw a bumper sticker that said "if it wasnt meant to be eaten, it wouldnt be shaped like a taco"

[QUOTE=yawmwen;21581049]Well, if you start charging companies a lot more and making it hard for them to increase their output, companies begin raising prices on goods. I'm just saying that we have to be careful not to destroy our life trying to reduce pollution or it is a self-defeating cause. [editline]03:33AM[/editline] ur ghey!1[/QUOTE] Idk, ideally the push for regulation would be subsidized, so the companies have some incentive to actually do it, and the charges would only come in when regulations are violated. Of course, it would take quite a bit of money, and it would probably *gasp* raise taxes, so... the plan needs some work.

Trust me I saw worse on a pickup truck today "kill they're soldiers steal their oil" with an American flag in the back round

This thread has been derailed, what were we talking about again?

[QUOTE=GhettoGeek;21581996]This thread has been derailed, what were we talking about again?[/QUOTE] Morons with insulting things on their cars?

It's like "Communism is a lie". It doesn't really make sense. It's just senseless bashing.

[QUOTE=ryandaniels;21577830]After I joined the ILL (International liberalism league), they put on me on a strict schedule of 100 lies and a day, plus 20 for global warming. In addition, I had to produce 10 aborted fetuses every month.[/QUOTE] If you fill out a 71-B you can get down to 50 lies per day as long as you produce 25 aborted fetuses in a month and help some illegal aliens get into the country to steal citizens' jobs. (But they have to actually steal a job or it doesn't count)

IRL troll

[QUOTE=TH89;21580985]Bredirish: Internet climate expert, knows more than real climate experts, but won't say how [sp]he doesn't know[/sp][/QUOTE] I do, but it was getting late and I wanted to go to bed. But many scientists have stated that these global temperatures are part of a cycle in the Earth's climate. Changes in temperature are part of nature, and that if you look at recorded climate information from a hundred years ago the climate was going through very similar temperatures. Just because another scientist bought out by green companies and spokespeople comes waving his dick around with scientific "fact" about greenhouse gases affecting our climate, make sure you do your own research. It seems people will be duped into believing anything as long as a nicely dressed man tells them its true. This applies to both Conservatives and Liberals. Liberals are just prone to jumping on the environment bandwagon while Conservatives will follow religious opinions and gospel first.

[QUOTE=TH89;21577902]If the earth is suddenly warming rapidly, there has to be a reason for it--it doesn't just happen for no reason. Since climatologists haven't found any other credible reason for this warming, and since we already KNOW CO2 traps heat, and the amount of CO2 released correlates with the amount of warming, it's a pretty reasonable conclusion. The world doesn't just go through temperature "phases" for no reason. There's always something that causes it.[/QUOTE] MY BULLSHIT'O'METER IS GOING WILD!!!!!! read a book. or just think. As humans, WTF do we know? we only know temperature information for MAYBE 600 years. MAYBE! out of the several million years the earth has been around (scientific numbers, of course. which aren't necessarily accurate) that doesnt seem like such a hot data set to be making these kinds of judgments from. ESPECIALLY when theres the whole ICE AGE thing. I guess neolithic cars caused that wild temperature swing too? Or perhaps the FACT that when our parents were in school, everybody was scared of GLOBAL COOLING!!!! /Thread

[QUOTE=sdwise;21599825]MY BULLSHIT'O'METER IS GOING WILD!!!!!! read a book. or just think. As humans, WTF do we know? we only know temperature information for MAYBE 600 years. MAYBE! out of the several million years the earth has been around (scientific numbers, of course. which aren't necessarily accurate) that doesnt seem like such a hot data set to be making these kinds of judgments from. ESPECIALLY when theres the whole ICE AGE thing. I guess neolithic cars caused that wild temperature swing too? Or perhaps the FACT that when our parents were in school, everybody was scared of GLOBAL COOLING!!!! /Thread[/QUOTE] oh my FUCKING god are you GODDAMN thick, you RETARD!!!!

Just as bad as a vegitarian saying "I don't believe in sugar"

We should still try to not use oil and all. You know, cause that shit will run out.

[QUOTE=sdwise;21599825]MY BULLSHIT'O'METER IS GOING WILD!!!!!! read a book. or just think. As humans, WTF do we know? we only know temperature information for MAYBE 600 years. MAYBE! out of the several million years the earth has been around (scientific numbers, of course. which aren't necessarily accurate) that doesnt seem like such a hot data set to be making these kinds of judgments from. ESPECIALLY when theres the whole ICE AGE thing. I guess neolithic cars caused that wild temperature swing too? Or perhaps the FACT that when our parents were in school, everybody was scared of GLOBAL COOLING!!!! /Thread[/QUOTE] How do we know there was an ice age if we only have temperature data from the past 600 years :downs: We can gather data on the way a climate was thousands of years in the past, if not millions.