100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Science not faked, but not pretty | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The science was faked. Your topic headline is a complete lie. Just look in to Professor Lindzen, of MIT , foremost expert on climate to give you the truth on AGW. Might I start you off on your investigation with this 30 min presentation by him? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmGiiNQ0yHQ Science is not religion. The TRUTH HAS nothing to do with science. Lindzen as a scientist, and avowed denier of global warming, which is his science given right, has no business peddling his 'work' as THE THRUTH, and people aware of and/or endorsing his work have no business miss-packaging it as THE TRUTH. Science questions, validates, and PROPOSES what it can demonstrate as MOST PROBABLE!!! Truth has nothing to do with MOST PROBABLE. Science keeps questioning, through a healthy spirit of applied skepticism, any statistically accepted 'MOST PROBABLE'. The scientific means of establishing that which is 'most probable' at any given moment, is the volume of 'scientific consensus' vs 'counter scientific consensus' on any issue. Personal opinions, public surveys and individual biases, subjective convictions and dogmatic beliefs are of absolutely no relevance in the scientific discourse. As for the global warming question, there is no more debate within the scientific community. There is an overwhelming number of 'eligible' scientific candidates whom have presented and defended their findings amongst peers, pointing to global warming as 'MOST PROBALBE', measuring up against an insignificant proportion of equally eligible scientists, presenting and defending their opposition or downright denial. That simple! Overwhelming eligible members of the scientific community presenting and defending successfully a converging number of varied SCIENTIFIC perspectives, ELECTS THAT WHICH IS PROBABLE. Given the permanent probing, questioning and skeptical nature of science, it always welcomes and encourages 'expert dissension'. Unlike religion that would excommunicate any questioning and dissension against dogma. Like it or not, agree with it or not, believe it or not, does not enter into this equation. Statistical 'scientific support' establishes that which is 'MOST PROBABLE', in spite of the 'welcomed' and on-going small proportion of dissenting positions, or downright 'dirty tricks' from questionable foes (e-mail fabricated scandal)! But, all that being said, what you fail to recognize is this... We have been told for YEARS that Global Warming being caused by man is THE TRUTH!!! The alarmists tried everything they could to keep the science itself from being questioned because they didn't want people to find out that their data, though not completely faked, was heavily " massaged " to show what they wanted it to. There was no real " truth ' involved in the process. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But let's take YOUR PERSONAL PERCEPTION of public opinion for argument sake's.
people who do anything for "arguments sake" annoy the crap out of me every little thing is not subject for argument for arguments sake if you don't agree just say so I don't play debater games '... I don't play debater games...' Well then, share your wonderful opinions with yourself and stay out of discussion forums. This is not a polling station, it's a DISCUSSION - ARGUMENT - DEBATING FORUM !!! It is intended for those whom wish to discuss, exchange, argue and debate opposing views and ideas. And no offense intended, but get real about your tantrums: '... annoy the crap out of me...'. I have no personal interest in 'your crap', nor do I have any personal interest in you. We don't know each other. I responded to a comment you posted, with an OPPOSING view. It would appear you missed that too. it sounds to me as though it's YOU who is having the tantrum. 
i've nothing to add but that; wanna tell me to FO too? 
I didn't realize that Quiet needed backup. Did you just come post to bait someone into an argument? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haha quiet doesn't need ANY backup, against anyone.
baiting? nah, sometimes it's just impossible not to laugh at someone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But, all that being said, what you fail to recognize is this... We have been told for YEARS that Global Warming being caused by man is THE TRUTH!!! The alarmists tried everything they could to keep the science itself from being questioned because they didn't want people to find out that their data, though not completely faked, was heavily " massaged " to show what they wanted it to. There was no real " truth ' involved in the process. The data has been available to anyone and everyone wanting to view it. No one is hiding it! Quite the opposite. It isn't that hard to realize changes in atmospheric conditions given measurement over time. I suppose you'd doubt the findings that reflect the dying of trees in WNC due to acid rain as well. Acid rain that has been tracked to emissions from the Ohio Valley! They have even been able to track them to specific factories. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haha quiet doesn't need ANY backup, against anyone. baiting? nah, sometimes it's just impossible not to laugh at someone. Just checking! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But, all that being said, what you fail to recognize is this... We have been told for YEARS that Global Warming being caused by man is THE TRUTH!!! The alarmists tried everything they could to keep the science itself from being questioned because they didn't want people to find out that their data, though not completely faked, was heavily " massaged " to show what they wanted it to. There was no real " truth ' involved in the process. The data has been available to anyone and everyone wanting to view it. No one is hiding it! Quite the opposite. It isn't that hard to realize changes in atmospheric conditions given measurement over time. I suppose you'd doubt the findings that reflect the dying of trees in WNC due to acid rain as well. Acid rain that has been tracked to emissions from the Ohio Valley! They have even been able to track them to specific factories. over time? what a 150 years out of a couple of million? climate cycles take centuries.. all of the sudden we are supposed to believe that people who can't accurately predict where a hurricane will make landfall can tell us what the temperature will be 50 years from now.. how ridiculous is that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The chemicals and the rate of change are all related to the Industrial Revolution.
They didnt exist before then at the levels they have since. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But, all that being said, what you fail to recognize is this... We have been told for YEARS that Global Warming being caused by man is THE TRUTH!!! The alarmists tried everything they could to keep the science itself from being questioned because they didn't want people to find out that their data, though not completely faked, was heavily " massaged " to show what they wanted it to. There was no real " truth ' involved in the process. The data has been available to anyone and everyone wanting to view it. No one is hiding it! Quite the opposite. It isn't that hard to realize changes in atmospheric conditions given measurement over time. I suppose you'd doubt the findings that reflect the dying of trees in WNC due to acid rain as well. Acid rain that has been tracked to emissions from the Ohio Valley! They have even been able to track them to specific factories. This is pretty funny, actually. I have never, at ANY POINT, ever said that we shouldn't do anything about pollution. However, Man Made Global Warming, and pollution aren't necessarily walking hand in hand. The company I work for, two years ago, installed a multi million dollar " scrubber " to cut down on it's emissions. We're doing OUR part to cut down on pollution, but people are still screaming that it's not enough. " It isn't that hard to realize changes ...." No. It isn't. After all, the Earth alternately heats and cools over a period of several hundred years. What IS hard to realize is that the current changes are man caused. Especially considering that there are NO climate models that can take into account every single variable that could cause a temperature fluctuation. Sunspots, or lack of sunspots, and the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth are just a couple of those variables. The emails that were " hacked " pointed out that Climate Science is an inexact science at best. If they have to " massage " the data to get it to say what they want it to, then the science is inexact and should not be spouted by the likes of Al Gore ( who, by the way, makes himself appear more and more clueless every day. Take a look at his appearance on a recent Tonight Show for a very good example ) as total truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The chemicals and the rate of change are all related to the Industrial Revolution. They didnt exist before then at the levels they have since. That's odd. On another forums I belong to, someone pointed out that the last time CO2 levels were comparable to the levels now, we actually went into an Ice Age. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The chemicals and the rate of change are all related to the Industrial Revolution. They didnt exist before then at the levels they have since. That's odd. On another forums I belong to, someone pointed out that the last time CO2 levels were comparable to the levels now, we actually went into an Ice Age. And? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The chemicals and the rate of change are all related to the Industrial Revolution. They didnt exist before then at the levels they have since. That's odd. On another forums I belong to, someone pointed out that the last time CO2 levels were comparable to the levels now, we actually went into an Ice Age. And? Isn't CO2 the main gas that they are blaming for Global Warming?? Last I heard, CO2 is the " main culprit ". If that's the case, then why is it that the last time the levels were near where they are now, the world didn't boil like the alarmists would like us to think it will now?? Wow. Talk about ME being illogical...lmao |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't heard anyone say it's going to boil. LOL
You seem to be ignoring what happened prior to the last ice age and exactly how long it actually took for the ice age to happen. The world didn't simply slip into an ice age between April and March of one year. Not even in two, three, or 100 years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we are actually just returning Co2 to the atmosphere. at one time Co2 was the dominant gas in the earth air. the plants loved it and grew and grew. the plankton in the seas were thick as soup. and they sucked up and stored all that Co2 before they turned into oil.
of course human life couldnt exist at that time because of Co2 levels but the issue isnt so much the amount of carbon but the rate at which we are returning it. It took the plants a few hundred thousand years to pull all that carbon out of the atmosphere and we are returning it in decades |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Sat 12/12/09 04:29 PM
|
|
Grasp your mind around this,
March 6, 2009 -- Scientists have discovered a tropical Asian turtle fossil not in Asia or in the tropics, but high in the Canadian Arctic. The find supports the view that, tens of millions of years ago, the Arctic was much warmer then than it is now. The fossil also suggests that Asian turtles took advantage of those balmy conditions to migrate across the North Pole on a land bridge that was filled with lakes and rivers. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/06/arctic-turtle-fossil.html Aren't we now seeing the Arctic ice caps melt? How did that turtle get where there has been permanent ice sheets since mans existence? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we are actually just returning Co2 to the atmosphere. at one time Co2 was the dominant gas in the earth air. the plants loved it and grew and grew. the plankton in the seas were thick as soup. and they sucked up and stored all that Co2 before they turned into oil. of course human life couldn't exist at that time because of Co2 levels but the issue isn't so much the amount of carbon but the rate at which we are returning it. It took the plants a few hundred thousand years to pull all that carbon out of the atmosphere and we are returning it in decades Right, the CO2 at that time came from the active Volcanic geology of the Earth. Massive Super Volcano eruptions and the like that caused the plates of the Earth to shift. How do we know this? Scientific evidence. Sometime between ice ages the arctic regions were tropical. ie the turtle fossil. It didn't happen over night and there weren't humans living. At least not how they live today. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, promoting 'Classical Liberalism' in America. And this is just one more personal opinion, attempting to 'SPIN' the topic and shape it to its perspective of things. Confusion galore!!! Climate from the scientific perspective is no longer the heart of the matter here. Ah, but that's just the rub-the scientific perspective was NEVER at the heart of the matter. For the activists and their political/corporate buddies, it's always been POLITICAL. This is why they want treaties, legislation, and so forth. If it were a matter of science, then consumers would look at the science and demand that market actors produce something better by withholding their dollars. The market cannot produce more now because the government has put the private sector into trillions of debt. Money that would have been spent producing better products is now spent killing people in pointless wars, paying bribes, propping up zombie corporations, and other government-incurred debt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, promoting 'Classical Liberalism' in America. And this is just one more personal opinion, attempting to 'SPIN' the topic and shape it to its perspective of things. Confusion galore!!! Climate from the scientific perspective is no longer the heart of the matter here. Ah, but that's just the rub-the scientific perspective was NEVER at the heart of the matter. For the activists and their political/corporate buddies, it's always been POLITICAL. This is why they want treaties, legislation, and so forth. If it were a matter of science, then consumers would look at the science and demand that market actors produce something better by withholding their dollars. The market cannot produce more now because the government has put the private sector into trillions of debt. Money that would have been spent producing better products is now spent killing people in pointless wars, paying bribes, propping up zombie corporations, and other government-incurred debt. The reason for treaties, legislation, and so forth is because corporations, in their greedy rush for profits will never act on their own. Also because it is a world problem. If your business is oil or coal production you would spend billions trying to shut-up the scientific community. You would spend billions trying to create doubt about the scientific evidence the scientist were revealing. You would even be in the business to hire a few scientist of your own in the process and goal to continue your profits. The people? A man with a family living in a cold climate is going to buy the cheapest and most available source of energy to keep his family warm. Now. Who begs to benefit most from all this. I'd put my money on the corporations. |
|
|
|
|
