BF2S Forums Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice

usmarine wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

But, but global warming is a myth!

in the context we put it yes.  there isnt a damn thing we can do about it, nor could we even cause it.  sure maybe we accelerated it by like 5 months or whatever.  that was all in the name of human progress.

Or pursuing profit with no concern for consequences.

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

in the context we put it yes.  there isnt a damn thing we can do about it, nor could we even cause it.  sure maybe we accelerated it by like 5 months or whatever.  that was all in the name of human progress.

Or pursuing profit with no concern for consequences.

whats the difference?  stop rewording shit.

For someone who seems to loathe debating, you spend an awful lot of time doing it.

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

in the context we put it yes.  there isnt a damn thing we can do about it, nor could we even cause it.  sure maybe we accelerated it by like 5 months or whatever.  that was all in the name of human progress.

Or pursuing profit with no concern for consequences.

whats the difference?  stop rewording shit.

Profit =/= progress.

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

For someone who seems to loathe debating, you spend an awful lot of time doing it.

fuck sakes there are two other words associated with this section other than debate you know....

but my point stands.  we have gotten better since the industrial age right?  the worst damage has been done though.  what we do now wont change or reverse shit.

What we do now has the potential to speed things up further.

The point is to lower pollution so that we don't keep speeding up global warming.  You're right that we can't reverse or stop it, but we can at least keep things from accelerating further.

thats great and all.

its great words to speak.  politicians do it also.  then we pick up our cell phones, ipods and hop in the car to the airport.  i am not sure how you can truly slow it down.

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

fuck sakes there are two other words associated with this section other than debate you know....

but my point stands.  we have gotten better since the industrial age right?  the worst damage has been done though.  what we do now wont change or reverse shit.

What we do now has the potential to speed things up further.

The point is to lower pollution so that we don't keep speeding up global warming.  You're right that we can't reverse or stop it, but we can at least keep things from accelerating further.

thats great and all.

its great words to speak.  politicians do it also.  then we pick up our cell phones, ipods and hop in the car to the airport.  i am not sure how you can truly slow it down.

Again, it's not about slowing it down.  It's about keeping it from continuing to accelerate.

Think of it like this....

The climate is the Autobahn.  We're in a Ferrari.  It might be fun to put the pedal to the floor, but if you keep the pedal down continuously, you'll eventually crash when you lose control of the car.   In the 1800s, we were at 60 mph.  In the mid-1900s, we were at 100.  Today, we're well over 100, and thanks to the rapid industrialization of China and other poor countries, we're pushing the pedal down further.

Unfortunately, we can't let off the gas any, but we can keep from pushing the pedal down further.  So, again, it's not about slowing things down, it's about keeping things from getting even faster.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Or pursuing profit with no concern for consequences.

The global warming phenomena is employing a whole bunch of scientist also. The same argument can be made conversely.

I'd be more worried about people profiting from carbon credits and such than the actual scientists.

You think scientist are shielded from the desire to protect their employment/funding?

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'd be more worried about people profiting from carbon credits and such than the actual scientists.

You think scientist are shielded from the desire to protect their employment/funding?

Of course not...  especially the ones employed by oil companies.

Both do.. it's only logical.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Of course not...  especially the ones employed by oil companies.

Both do.. it's only logical.

I would think the motivation is a bit different when you're paid specifically to debunk something.  That's essentially what the energy sector has been doing for years now.

The vast majority of scientists side with man having influence over global warming.  The debate isn't whether or not we affect it.  It's the extent to which we affect it.

The motivation is exactly the same. Employment and funding.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Both do.. it's only logical.

I would think the motivation is a bit different when you're paid specifically to debunk something.  That's essentially what the energy sector has been doing for years now.

The vast majority of scientists side with man having influence over global warming.  The debate isn't whether or not we affect it.  It's the extent to which we affect it.

The motivation is exactly the same. Employment and funding.

Consider a few things for a moment here.

Scientists make a decent amount of money, but there are much easier ways to make it.  There are plenty of jobs that require the same skills and knowledge (or even less) that pay far better and are much easier to find work in.

Knowing all this, it would seem that most scientists do it for the passion they have for a topic.  A true scientist isn't interested in the politics of it but instead wants to discover more about the topic.

On the other hand, if you seek out employment from a company that has a vested interest in debunking something, you're clearly not interested in objective analysis.  Since these scientists get their funding from a much wealthier source, there's less worry that they'll get paid or lose their job -- as long as they simply provide results that fit the agenda.

To me, there's a big difference between these 2 groups.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I would think the motivation is a bit different when you're paid specifically to debunk something.  That's essentially what the energy sector has been doing for years now.

The vast majority of scientists side with man having influence over global warming.  The debate isn't whether or not we affect it.  It's the extent to which we affect it.

The motivation is exactly the same. Employment and funding.

Consider a few things for a moment here.

Scientists make a decent amount of money, but there are much easier ways to make it.  There are plenty of jobs that require the same skills and knowledge (or even less) that pay far better and are much easier to find work in.

Knowing all this, it would seem that most scientists do it for the passion they have for a topic.  A true scientist isn't interested in the politics of it but instead wants to discover more about the topic.

On the other hand, if you seek out employment from a company that has a vested interest in debunking something, you're clearly not interested in objective analysis.  Since these scientists get their funding from a much wealthier source, there's less worry that they'll get paid or lose their job -- as long as they simply provide results that fit the agenda.

To me, there's a big difference between these 2 groups.

Sorry but no.  You're taking a decisively slanted view based on nothing but presumptions. A "true scientist" has the same needs and desires just like everyone else. If the politics are funding their existence then it's complete shit to think it only influences one side of the debate.. passion or not. You're also ignoring that fact that there has been many other "passionate" Scientist who have come out against the alarmist.. some of the were on the original IPCC and have never received a dollar from oil. These scientist can not be accounted for in your line of thinking.

My contention is simply that funding unfortunately influences both sides. I'm obviously aware of global warming.. see the OP.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Sorry but no.  You're taking a decisively slanted view based on nothing but presumptions. A "true scientist" has the same needs and desires just like everyone else. If the politics are funding their existence then it's complete shit to think it only influences one side of the debate.. passion or not. You're also ignoring that fact that there has been many other "passionate" Scientist who have come out against the alarmist.. some of the were on the original IPCC and have never received a dollar from oil. These scientist can not be accounted for in your line of thinking.

My contention is simply that funding unfortunately influences both sides. I'm obviously aware of global warming.. see the OP.

So the fact that there wasn't much of a debate about global warming until the energy sector got involved doesn't concern you?

What the hell are you talking about..? There really wasn't much debate because it wasn't being pushed until the Goracle produced his film. The hysteria did not need to be addressed until then. Does Al Gores connection to the carbon trading scam bother you? We can do this all day if you want.. my point stands. Both sides have a financial interest. This whole thing is entirely hypocritical.

It was a an afterthought before an out of work politician took his shot at hysteria. Of course the oil company has their scientist, just like the greenies have theirs. I am talking about the ones that have come out against it that weren't being funded by them. There are plenty, and as mentioned some of them were once on the other side of the debate.