I'm not saying we can't have changed the climate, I am saying that people are way too afraid of the whole thing. Yes we may have changed the climate but is still a tiny contribution. Global warming is part of the earth's natural cycle, whether we stick gases into the atomsphere or not its gonna happen anyway. So when we have theses adverts on the TV saying we can stop global warming if you turn down your washing machine or whatever, its a load of crap, cause there's no way to stop global warming. Despite the fact the earths temp dropped no that long ago.Bertster7 wrote:
It's interesting that the people who claim that human contributions are so small and that people can't have changed the climate, never actually produce any substantial evidence to back up their claims. It's disappointing really.M.O.A.B wrote:
Check the ice cores, lots of evidence there of past heating and cooling, global warming being caused by humans is way overhyped. Yes we contribute but its a miniscule amount. Also when you hear reports of like the worst flood since 1953 is due to Global warming, was global warming responsible for that flood in 1953 and where was it in the years since? Ponder over that one for a moment.Spark wrote:
Got anything to back that up? Or is it just more comfortable to think that you can pour shit on the planet and it won't matter?
Poll
What is your stance on global warming?
| It wont affect me in my lifetime, therefore I dont care | 11% | 11% - 16 | ||||
| We must protect the future generations by acting now | 60% | 60% - 84 | ||||
| Global warming is a myth | 28% | 28% - 39 | ||||
| Total: 139 | ||||||
I chose "Global warming is a myth"
Well, we do have global warming but I do not agree that it's our fault. We may not be helping anything but scientists have discovered all the other planets are also getting warmer. Is that our fault too?
I think the sun has a huge roll in this. (just my opinion)
I also think we should clean up our earth. Not because of global warming but because we are treating the earth as a big dog kennel that's never cleaned out.
"...the TV saying we can stop global warming if you turn down your washing machine or whatever, its a load of crap,..."
LOL, best line I ever read!!! Would that be a large or medium load?! Warm or cold?! Lights or darks?!
Cool line M.O.A.B
Well, we do have global warming but I do not agree that it's our fault. We may not be helping anything but scientists have discovered all the other planets are also getting warmer. Is that our fault too?
I think the sun has a huge roll in this. (just my opinion)
I also think we should clean up our earth. Not because of global warming but because we are treating the earth as a big dog kennel that's never cleaned out.
"...the TV saying we can stop global warming if you turn down your washing machine or whatever, its a load of crap,..."
LOL, best line I ever read!!! Would that be a large or medium load?! Warm or cold?! Lights or darks?!
Cool line M.O.A.B
Last edited by spacebandit72 (2007-06-25 09:34:57)
It's the difference between it happening over a few hundred or a few thousand years. It's a big difference. Over a few thousand years adaptation is quite possible, yet over a few hundred it isn't. That's the problem, the rate of change. No one is saying that the greenhouse effect is a bad thing overall - without it the average temperature on Earth (according to NASA) would be about -20C, which is too damn cold. The Earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles, but the changes are very gradual. Human greenhouse gas emissions distrub the delicate balance and have increased the rate of change dramatically.M.O.A.B wrote:
I'm not saying we can't have changed the climate, I am saying that people are way too afraid of the whole thing. Yes we may have changed the climate but is still a tiny contribution. Global warming is part of the earth's natural cycle, whether we stick gases into the atomsphere or not its gonna happen anyway. So when we have theses adverts on the TV saying we can stop global warming if you turn down your washing machine or whatever, its a load of crap, cause there's no way to stop global warming. Despite the fact the earths temp dropped no that long ago.Bertster7 wrote:
It's interesting that the people who claim that human contributions are so small and that people can't have changed the climate, never actually produce any substantial evidence to back up their claims. It's disappointing really.M.O.A.B wrote:
Check the ice cores, lots of evidence there of past heating and cooling, global warming being caused by humans is way overhyped. Yes we contribute but its a miniscule amount. Also when you hear reports of like the worst flood since 1953 is due to Global warming, was global warming responsible for that flood in 1953 and where was it in the years since? Ponder over that one for a moment.
Turning down your washing machine does have an impact on global warming, things like that are not a load of crap. It is not hard for virtually every house in the world to cut about 25% of their power consumption by making small changes, like turning washing machines down. Do you really think that cutting domestic electricity consumption by 25% is not going to have an impact on the amount of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere. These things may seem minor, but if everyone does them, suddenly there is a big change.
Is it a cheese roll?spacebandit72 wrote:
I think the sun has a huge roll in this.
Mmmm... toasted cheese roll...
arrggg!!!!!.,,, enough with the global warming post!!!!!!..... sick off it...there's been one every month!!!!
Tens of thousands agreee, but every so often one disagrees then gets completely destroyed by the overwhelming evidence against them and the huge flaws in their arguments. See natural cycles, the sun causes it, the globe isn't warming, the globe is cooling etc. for all these alternative hypothesis all of which got rightfully crucified. THERE IS NO CURRENT CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE. All the alternate ideas have been checked out and proved incorrect. It's the same crap as the creation crowd does; keep coming out with flawed, incorrect alternatives to the scientific main steam and despite the fact that they all turn out to be wrong, people seem to start believing it. Look back at any two threads on here about global warming and you'll see the same few arguments against man made global warming being destroyed every time. There is a growing number of people who incorrectly believe that the world is 6,000 years old, it doesn't make them right.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
And, if you do a) in a truly unbiased manner, you will discover two things:PureFodder wrote:
My view is that on the topic of global warming you really have two choices;
a) Trust the tens of thousands of scientists, some of the most brilliant and clever people our species has to offer, that have spent years researching, taking data, making theories, running models, testing confirming disproving and refining the human races knowledge about this large and complicated system. Actually look at their massive amounts of data that backs up their position.
b) Trust what some bloke off the internet says, despite having no experience in the subject, having no data to back up arguments, an entirely biased viewpoint and no qualifications to suggest that even if presented with the data, would be able to understand it.
1) Tens of thousands of scientists, some of the most brilliant and clever people our species has to offer, that have spent years researching, taking data, making theories, running models, testing confirming disproving and refining the human races knowledge about this large and complicated system, have reached the hypothesis that global-warming is man made.
2) An ever growing number of other scientists, some of the most brilliant and clever people our species has to offer, that have spent years researching, taking data, making theories, running models, testing confirming disproving and refining the human races knowledge about this large and complicated system, have reached the hypothesis that global-warming is not man made.
Lots and lots of wrong arguments don't all add up to make a right.
The only real scientific debate going on is how much has and will mankind increase the global temperature.
There will always be scientists who disagree with pretty much anything. The vast majority of the time they turn out to be wrong. Lets not pretend like 'a growing number' and 'tens of thousands' are even remotely close in number (by the way, the tens of thousands are increasing in number much faster than the other side, a point that seems to be forgotten about all too often) or close in verifiable data. By the same arguments we should be teaching creationism to kids, teaching that the holocaust never happened and telling people that AIDS and HIV aren't related. All these are claimed by scientists and supposed experts. All of them are wrong.
What do you think we should do? Sit back and wait to see if things go badly wrong on the basis of a few against the vast majority? Only act when the hypothesis turns into utterly 100% undeniable fact, by which time it's already too late? When the stakes are potentially so high, err on the side of caution. Not to mention the fact that most of the steps to sorting out global warming are things that we're going to have to do anyway on the basis of health grounds, the need for renewable energy sources and need to protect feed stocks of oil and gas for future plastics production.
Why, why, why oh why do so many people insist on listening to the crackpots on both sides of the issue (yes the idiots who run around saying the world will flood and the seas will boil and everyone will die because of global warming are stupid and un-informed. They do a great deal of damage by drawing attention away from the actual science and putting up easily discreditable, stupid, incorrect theories. The problem being that every time that someone rightfully rips these people apart, people mistake them for the actual science and believe the actual science had been discredited).
We all need to learn to fart in moderation. When it is appropriate, or funny.
There is nothing I can do about global warming anyway.
The only Co2 that is released in the atmosphere because of me is when I breathe and when in some means of polluting transportation, and maybe the trash after me that emit carbon dioxide.
All electricity and house warming on Iceland is made by Hydroelectricity and Geothermal heat.
The only Co2 that is released in the atmosphere because of me is when I breathe and when in some means of polluting transportation, and maybe the trash after me that emit carbon dioxide.
All electricity and house warming on Iceland is made by Hydroelectricity and Geothermal heat.
Wow! Didn't Iceland used to be all coal powered, that's a great switcharound. The rest of the world could learn a lot of lessons.PBAsydney wrote:
There is nothing I can do about global warming anyway.
The only Co2 that is released in the atmosphere because of me is when I breathe and when in some means of polluting transportation, and maybe the trash after me that emit carbon dioxide.
All electricity and house warming on Iceland is made by Hydroelectricity and Geothermal heat.
Still more than double China's emissions per capita though and everyone keeps complaining about them.
True enough, but unlike most of the rest of the world, Iceland has more than enough Hydroelectric and, particularly, Geothermal heat for all their energy needs.Bertster7 wrote:
Wow! Didn't Iceland used to be all coal powered, that's a great switcharound. The rest of the world could learn a lot of lessons.PBAsydney wrote:
All electricity and house warming on Iceland is made by Hydroelectricity and Geothermal heat.
Wind and tidal power is the best bet for most of the developed world. And anywhere at all equatorial should invest in solar power. But, unlike in Iceland, for the majority of the world, switching from non-renewable to renewable power sources, without going down the nuclear route (which a) ain't green and b) ain't truly renewable), isn't going to be anywhere near as easy as it has been for Iceland.
PureFodder wrote:
Tens of thousands agreee, but every so often one disagrees then gets completely destroyed by the overwhelming evidence against them and the huge flaws in their arguments. See natural cycles, the sun causes it, the globe isn't warming, the globe is cooling etc. for all these alternative hypothesis all of which got rightfully crucified. THERE IS NO CURRENT CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE. All the alternate ideas have been checked out and proved incorrect. It's the same crap as the creation crowd does; keep coming out with flawed, incorrect alternatives to the scientific main steam and despite the fact that they all turn out to be wrong, people seem to start believing it. Look back at any two threads on here about global warming and you'll see the same few arguments against man made global warming being destroyed every time. There is a growing number of people who incorrectly believe that the world is 6,000 years old, it doesn't make them right.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
And, if you do a) in a truly unbiased manner, you will discover two things:PureFodder wrote:
My view is that on the topic of global warming you really have two choices;
a) Trust the tens of thousands of scientists, some of the most brilliant and clever people our species has to offer, that have spent years researching, taking data, making theories, running models, testing confirming disproving and refining the human races knowledge about this large and complicated system. Actually look at their massive amounts of data that backs up their position.
b) Trust what some bloke off the internet says, despite having no experience in the subject, having no data to back up arguments, an entirely biased viewpoint and no qualifications to suggest that even if presented with the data, would be able to understand it.
1) Tens of thousands of scientists, some of the most brilliant and clever people our species has to offer, that have spent years researching, taking data, making theories, running models, testing confirming disproving and refining the human races knowledge about this large and complicated system, have reached the hypothesis that global-warming is man made.
2) An ever growing number of other scientists, some of the most brilliant and clever people our species has to offer, that have spent years researching, taking data, making theories, running models, testing confirming disproving and refining the human races knowledge about this large and complicated system, have reached the hypothesis that global-warming is not man made.
Lots and lots of wrong arguments don't all add up to make a right.
The only real scientific debate going on is how much has and will mankind increase the global temperature.
There will always be scientists who disagree with pretty much anything. The vast majority of the time they turn out to be wrong. Lets not pretend like 'a growing number' and 'tens of thousands' are even remotely close in number (by the way, the tens of thousands are increasing in number much faster than the other side, a point that seems to be forgotten about all too often) or close in verifiable data. By the same arguments we should be teaching creationism to kids, teaching that the holocaust never happened and telling people that AIDS and HIV aren't related. All these are claimed by scientists and supposed experts. All of them are wrong.
What do you think we should do? Sit back and wait to see if things go badly wrong on the basis of a few against the vast majority? Only act when the hypothesis turns into utterly 100% undeniable fact, by which time it's already too late? When the stakes are potentially so high, err on the side of caution. Not to mention the fact that most of the steps to sorting out global warming are things that we're going to have to do anyway on the basis of health grounds, the need for renewable energy sources and need to protect feed stocks of oil and gas for future plastics production.
Why, why, why oh why do so many people insist on listening to the crackpots on both sides of the issue (yes the idiots who run around saying the world will flood and the seas will boil and everyone will die because of global warming are stupid and un-informed. They do a great deal of damage by drawing attention away from the actual science and putting up easily discreditable, stupid, incorrect theories. The problem being that every time that someone rightfully rips these people apart, people mistake them for the actual science and believe the actual science had been discredited).
Once upon a time, hundreds of thousands of scientists believed the world was getting colder.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
if you do a) in a truly unbiased manner
And the global warming experts were few in number.
Science changes. We must not abandon the good science on any side of what is a multifaceted, not just bi-polar, argument.
You are falling into the very trap that you are warning others to avoid - that of throwing out the baby with the bathwater - the good science with the bad!
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-06-25 10:57:18)
Watch the great global warming swindle from channel four, it changed my views and i believe that global warming isnt a myth, but its not influenced in any way by humans, the amount of co2 in the atmosphere is 0.054%, most of that comes from the sea, then animals decaying, then plants decaying, then volcanos and finally an insignificant amount of CO2 comes from humans, temperature charts dont have a correlation with co2 levels, check the solar activity levels with the temp levels and the cosmic ray levels with the temperature levels, youll see that they fit nicely and have a proportional relationship with the temperature levels.
This video had somewhat convincing evidence, though research should be your best friend - not the media.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjczyA75jU
A video with the opinion of some actual scientists
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … ;plindex=8
A rebutle to the previous video, also made by a scientists
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … ;plindex=4
http://www.stopdumbingdown.com/
http://www.realclimate.org/ (has some evidence both supporting and debunking global warming)
One of the best facts to use against global warming would be that water vapor, which makes up far more of the atmosphere (I think it was like 4000 parts per million, leaving CO2 way behind) has an exponentially greater capacity to trap heat and cause global warming than C02. Hydrogen emission cars would then contribute much more to heat in urban environments. Much of the facts which support the non-threatening nature of global warming today are left out of the environmentalists arguments - even though they're aware of the facts - which really leaves me to doubt the dangers the media foresees. Global warming is real, yes. The dangers and eventual armageddon that it will allegedly cause? No, not so accurate or true. It's also damaging to the environmentalist's argument to know that not to long ago the scientific community was worried about the global decline in temperature. lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjczyA75jU
A video with the opinion of some actual scientists
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … ;plindex=8
A rebutle to the previous video, also made by a scientists
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … ;plindex=4
http://www.stopdumbingdown.com/
http://www.realclimate.org/ (has some evidence both supporting and debunking global warming)
One of the best facts to use against global warming would be that water vapor, which makes up far more of the atmosphere (I think it was like 4000 parts per million, leaving CO2 way behind) has an exponentially greater capacity to trap heat and cause global warming than C02. Hydrogen emission cars would then contribute much more to heat in urban environments. Much of the facts which support the non-threatening nature of global warming today are left out of the environmentalists arguments - even though they're aware of the facts - which really leaves me to doubt the dangers the media foresees. Global warming is real, yes. The dangers and eventual armageddon that it will allegedly cause? No, not so accurate or true. It's also damaging to the environmentalist's argument to know that not to long ago the scientific community was worried about the global decline in temperature. lol.
Thats what i was referring to, a very very interesting watch i reccomend it to anyone convinced that we cause global warmingjetxburned wrote:
A video with the opinion of some actual scientists
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … ;plindex=8
Shit is real and you non believers bitches and ho's get the fark off my planet.
It's friggin june and i've watched it piss it down for 2 days constantly. Where the fuck is my summer? You Chelsea tractor loving slags stole it, that's what.
It's friggin june and i've watched it piss it down for 2 days constantly. Where the fuck is my summer? You Chelsea tractor loving slags stole it, that's what.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
There is:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
Tens of thousands agreee, but every so often one disagrees then gets completely destroyed by the overwhelming evidence against them and the huge flaws in their arguments. See natural cycles, the sun causes it, the globe isn't warming, the globe is cooling etc. for all these alternative hypothesis all of which got rightfully crucified. THERE IS NO CURRENT CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE. All the alternate ideas have been checked out and proved incorrect. It's the same crap as the creation crowd does; keep coming out with flawed, incorrect alternatives to the scientific main steam and despite the fact that they all turn out to be wrong, people seem to start believing it. Look back at any two threads on here about global warming and you'll see the same few arguments against man made global warming being destroyed every time. There is a growing number of people who incorrectly believe that the world is 6,000 years old, it doesn't make them right.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
And, if you do a) in a truly unbiased manner, you will discover two things:
1) Tens of thousands of scientists, some of the most brilliant and clever people our species has to offer, that have spent years researching, taking data, making theories, running models, testing confirming disproving and refining the human races knowledge about this large and complicated system, have reached the hypothesis that global-warming is man made.
2) An ever growing number of other scientists, some of the most brilliant and clever people our species has to offer, that have spent years researching, taking data, making theories, running models, testing confirming disproving and refining the human races knowledge about this large and complicated system, have reached the hypothesis that global-warming is not man made.
Lots and lots of wrong arguments don't all add up to make a right.
The only real scientific debate going on is how much has and will mankind increase the global temperature.
There will always be scientists who disagree with pretty much anything. The vast majority of the time they turn out to be wrong. Lets not pretend like 'a growing number' and 'tens of thousands' are even remotely close in number (by the way, the tens of thousands are increasing in number much faster than the other side, a point that seems to be forgotten about all too often) or close in verifiable data. By the same arguments we should be teaching creationism to kids, teaching that the holocaust never happened and telling people that AIDS and HIV aren't related. All these are claimed by scientists and supposed experts. All of them are wrong.
What do you think we should do? Sit back and wait to see if things go badly wrong on the basis of a few against the vast majority? Only act when the hypothesis turns into utterly 100% undeniable fact, by which time it's already too late? When the stakes are potentially so high, err on the side of caution. Not to mention the fact that most of the steps to sorting out global warming are things that we're going to have to do anyway on the basis of health grounds, the need for renewable energy sources and need to protect feed stocks of oil and gas for future plastics production.
Why, why, why oh why do so many people insist on listening to the crackpots on both sides of the issue (yes the idiots who run around saying the world will flood and the seas will boil and everyone will die because of global warming are stupid and un-informed. They do a great deal of damage by drawing attention away from the actual science and putting up easily discreditable, stupid, incorrect theories. The problem being that every time that someone rightfully rips these people apart, people mistake them for the actual science and believe the actual science had been discredited).Once upon a time, hundreds of thousands of scientists believed the world was getting colder.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
if you do a) in a truly unbiased manner
And the global warming experts were few in number.
Science changes. We must not abandon the good science on any side of what is a multifaceted, not just bi-polar, argument.
You are falling into the very trap that you are warning others to avoid - that of throwing out the baby with the bathwater - the good science with the bad!
1.) Not two sides to this issue, other than one side is scientific and the other moronic political crap.
2.) No such thing as a real scientific basis to that myth you "subjectively" & falsely believe exists (myth of a coming ice-age or severe Global Cooling). It is a distortion of recent invention. You still fail to be skeptic of the skeptic position, simply because you have not investigated that position to any real depth.
P.S. Let me paraphrase Richard Dawkins, in reference to your notions of unbiased. "It is possible to be too open minded, so much so that your brain falls out."
Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-25 12:31:38)
1. There is always more than one side to every story.topal63 wrote:
There is:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
Tens of thousands agreee, but every so often one disagrees then gets completely destroyed by the overwhelming evidence against them and the huge flaws in their arguments. See natural cycles, the sun causes it, the globe isn't warming, the globe is cooling etc. for all these alternative hypothesis all of which got rightfully crucified. THERE IS NO CURRENT CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE. All the alternate ideas have been checked out and proved incorrect. It's the same crap as the creation crowd does; keep coming out with flawed, incorrect alternatives to the scientific main steam and despite the fact that they all turn out to be wrong, people seem to start believing it. Look back at any two threads on here about global warming and you'll see the same few arguments against man made global warming being destroyed every time. There is a growing number of people who incorrectly believe that the world is 6,000 years old, it doesn't make them right.
Lots and lots of wrong arguments don't all add up to make a right.
The only real scientific debate going on is how much has and will mankind increase the global temperature.
There will always be scientists who disagree with pretty much anything. The vast majority of the time they turn out to be wrong. Lets not pretend like 'a growing number' and 'tens of thousands' are even remotely close in number (by the way, the tens of thousands are increasing in number much faster than the other side, a point that seems to be forgotten about all too often) or close in verifiable data. By the same arguments we should be teaching creationism to kids, teaching that the holocaust never happened and telling people that AIDS and HIV aren't related. All these are claimed by scientists and supposed experts. All of them are wrong.
What do you think we should do? Sit back and wait to see if things go badly wrong on the basis of a few against the vast majority? Only act when the hypothesis turns into utterly 100% undeniable fact, by which time it's already too late? When the stakes are potentially so high, err on the side of caution. Not to mention the fact that most of the steps to sorting out global warming are things that we're going to have to do anyway on the basis of health grounds, the need for renewable energy sources and need to protect feed stocks of oil and gas for future plastics production.
Why, why, why oh why do so many people insist on listening to the crackpots on both sides of the issue (yes the idiots who run around saying the world will flood and the seas will boil and everyone will die because of global warming are stupid and un-informed. They do a great deal of damage by drawing attention away from the actual science and putting up easily discreditable, stupid, incorrect theories. The problem being that every time that someone rightfully rips these people apart, people mistake them for the actual science and believe the actual science had been discredited).Once upon a time, hundreds of thousands of scientists believed the world was getting colder.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
if you do a) in a truly unbiased manner
And the global warming experts were few in number.
Science changes. We must not abandon the good science on any side of what is a multifaceted, not just bi-polar, argument.
You are falling into the very trap that you are warning others to avoid - that of throwing out the baby with the bathwater - the good science with the bad!
1.) Not two sides to this issue, other than one side is scientific and the other moronic political crap.
2.) No such thing as a real scientific basis to that myth you "subjectively" & falsely believe exists (myth of a coming ice-age or severe Global Cooling). It is a distortion of recent invention. You still fail to be skeptic of the skeptic position, simply because you have not investigated that position to any real depth.
P.S. Let me paraphrase Richard Dawkins, in reference to your notions of unbiased. "It is possible to be too open minded, so much so that your brain falls out."
2. Where did I say that I, either subjectively or objectively, believe in global cooling? I did not. I do not. I merely stated the fact that
P.S. Let me paraphrase, I believe it was Philip K Dick, in reference to skepticism. "The true skeptic neither fully adopts nor completely abandons any hypothesis that has some degree of supporting evidence."Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Once upon a time, hundreds of thousands of scientists believed the world was getting colder.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-06-25 13:03:35)
and let me quote Carl Sagan -"Those who have something to sell, those who wish to influence public opinion, those in power, a skeptic might suggest, have a vested interest in discouraging skepticism"
One side of the "debate" is science. The other is ^^^
One side of the "debate" is science. The other is ^^^
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-06-25 13:11:36)
LOLScorpion0x17 wrote:
.... hundreds of thousands of scientists believed the world was getting colder.1. There is always more than one side to every story.There is:
1.) Not two sides to this issue, other than one side is scientific and the other moronic political crap.
2.) No such thing as a real scientific basis to that myth you "subjectively" & falsely believe exists (myth of a coming ice-age or severe Global Cooling). It is a distortion of recent invention. You still fail to be skeptic of the skeptic position, simply because you have not investigated that position to any real depth.
P.S. Let me paraphrase Richard Dawkins, in reference to your notions of unbiased. "It is possible to be too open minded, so much so that your brain falls out."
2. Where did I say that I, either subjectively or objectively, believe in global cooling? I did not. I do not. I merely stated the fact thatP.S. Let me paraphrase, I believe it was Philip K Dick, in reference to skepticism. "The true skeptic neither fully adopts nor completely abandons any hypothesis that has some degree of supporting evidence."Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Once upon a time, hundreds of thousands of scientists believed the world was getting colder.
1. And the number of idiot stories out numbers genius stories an untold amount. There is not two sides to this as a scientific issue - there is only a marginal amount of controversy surrounding anthropomorphic Global Warming (the trend above any natural cycle). But there is a lot of nonsense going on in the political realms - where the skeptic position originated from.
2. Why try and weasel your way out of something you brought up - as a point.. The counter-point is that - that is a myth - that little thing you brought up (see: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p1531195). It is a distortion of recent invention to serve a purpose. There never really was a large or scientific movement; consensus; serious theory; etc - concerning severe global cooling. What utter nonsense - pure myth created for the utterly uncritical thinker.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-25 13:28:44)
Global warming is sl4y3rs fault.
1. The true skeptic position does not originate from politics. It originates from the philosophy of skepticism. Something many think they practice, but very few do.topal63 wrote:
LOLScorpion0x17 wrote:
.... hundreds of thousands of scientists believed the world was getting colder.1. There is always more than one side to every story.There is:
1.) Not two sides to this issue, other than one side is scientific and the other moronic political crap.
2.) No such thing as a real scientific basis to that myth you "subjectively" & falsely believe exists (myth of a coming ice-age or severe Global Cooling). It is a distortion of recent invention. You still fail to be skeptic of the skeptic position, simply because you have not investigated that position to any real depth.
P.S. Let me paraphrase Richard Dawkins, in reference to your notions of unbiased. "It is possible to be too open minded, so much so that your brain falls out."
2. Where did I say that I, either subjectively or objectively, believe in global cooling? I did not. I do not. I merely stated the fact thatP.S. Let me paraphrase, I believe it was Philip K Dick, in reference to skepticism. "The true skeptic neither fully adopts nor completely abandons any hypothesis that has some degree of supporting evidence."Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Once upon a time, hundreds of thousands of scientists believed the world was getting colder.
1. And the number of idiot stories out numbers genius stories an untold amount. There is not two sides to this as a scientific issue - there is only a marginal amount of controversy surrounding anthropomorphic Global Warming (the trend above any natural cycle). But there is a lot of nonsense going on in the political realms - where the skeptic position originated from.
2. Why try and weasel your way out of something you brought up - as a point.. The counter-point is that - that is a myth - that little thing you brought up (see: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p1531195). It is a distortion of recent invention to serve a purpose. There never really was a large or scientific movement; consensus; serious theory; etc - concerning severe global cooling. What utter nonsense - pure myth created for the utterly uncritical thinker.
2. I'm sorry but you are incorrect that the theory of Global Cooling is "is a distortion of recent invention to serve a purpose" - There was, during the late 50s, the 60s and early 70s, exactly the "scientific movement, consensus and serious theory" that you state did not exit.
Anyway, the point is that it is a example of how scientific consensus changes.
I dont think its real but i dont see a problem using global warming solutions to help out the enviorment and ween america and other powers off of gasoline (or petrol)
That's pure incorrect BS... put up or shut up. I will.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
1. The true skeptic position does not originate from politics. It originates from the philosophy of skepticism. Something many think they practice, but very few do.topal63 wrote:
LOLScorpion0x17 wrote:
.... hundreds of thousands of scientists believed the world was getting colder.
1. There is always more than one side to every story.
2. Where did I say that I, either subjectively or objectively, believe in global cooling? I did not. I do not. I merely stated the fact that
P.S. Let me paraphrase, I believe it was Philip K Dick, in reference to skepticism. "The true skeptic neither fully adopts nor completely abandons any hypothesis that has some degree of supporting evidence."
1. And the number of idiot stories out numbers genius stories an untold amount. There is not two sides to this as a scientific issue - there is only a marginal amount of controversy surrounding anthropomorphic Global Warming (the trend above any natural cycle). But there is a lot of nonsense going on in the political realms - where THIS skeptic position originated from.
2. Why try and weasel your way out of something you brought up - as a point.. The counter-point is that - that is a myth - that little thing you brought up (see: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p1531195). It is a distortion of recent invention to serve a purpose. There never really was a large or scientific movement; consensus; serious theory; etc - concerning severe global cooling. What utter nonsense - pure myth created for the utterly uncritical thinker.
2. I'm sorry but you are incorrect that the theory of Global Cooling is "is a distortion of recent invention to serve a purpose" - There was, during the late 50s, the 60s and early 70s, exactly the "scientific movement, consensus and serious theory" that you state did not exit.
Anyway, the point is that it is a example of how scientific consensus changes.
Demonstrate that fact. Source it. I will source it for what it truly is - a myth. I've done it before, I will do it again.
Also scientific vacancy = missing science = gaps - and that does not equal a real serious scientific position existing in the past. It did not exist. There is no way you can even be remotely right - not in your mind - not in the real world outside of your mind.
Your attempting to compare a near vacancy of scientific research and a few spurious opinions with recent more thorough science.
Edited for: "... where THIS skeptic position originated from."
Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-25 13:47:33)
Protect me please
Hey topal cut it with the personal attacks