Political Hypocrisy at it's Finest

[taks]

There's nothing wrong with taking precausions, but i hate it when science is being used as an agenda by different political and industrial groups.

i hate it when people that don't understand what "science" is use it to state some agenda as well.

 

taks

[Sand]

Never be certain about anything. It is a sign of weakness. Nothing is more uncertain than science.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Sand

[Meshugger]

It's already a proven scientifical fact, but the scientists are still investigating on how much impact humanity, the sun and other parts of nature has on it, and even if it's still part of a cycle.

ok, i guess because the media say so it must be...

 

i hate to tell you, but there is no such thing as proven scientifical fact. that's not the way science works in the first place, i.e. the goal of science is not to prove anything, it is merely to disprove alternatives. anybody whose life/career is based on science can tell you that. second, there is no such thing as scientific (not scientifical) fact anyway.

 

taks

 

Sorry, it was a mistype. What i meant was that there's conclusive evidence that a global warming is happening as we speak, if you go back a 100 years or so, and scientists are investigating wether if humans accelerate it. But if you go back 5000 years(where the weather was way warmer than today), it seems like it's more of a cycle, regardless of human intervention. We simply don't have enough data.

 

To give an example, Greenland was named Greenland for a reason.

[Meshugger]

There's nothing wrong with taking precausions, but i hate it when science is being used as an agenda by different political and industrial groups.

i hate it when people that don't understand what "science" is use it to state some agenda as well.

 

taks

 

Don't be so paranoid, unless your agenda is against free beer for everyone

[SteveThaiBinh]

To give an example, Greenland was named Greenland for a reason.

I thought Greenland was so named as a con trick, because the King of Denmark wanted people to settle there to reinforce his claim of ownership, and the name 'Greenland' made it more attractive.

 

For the evidence to be so strong that even the Bush administration now seems to admit that global warming is taking place, it must be strong indeed. Of course, those on the left will tend to propose government-led solutions, and those on the right will prefer private individual responsibility and market mechanisms. That's the next great debate. The debate on whether global warming is happening, whether we're causing it, and whether it's desirable is over.

[taks]

Sorry, it was a mistype. What i meant was that there's conclusive evidence that a global warming is happening as we speak, if you go back a 100 years or so, and scientists are investigating wether if humans accelerate it. But if you go back 5000 years(where the weather was way warmer than today), it seems like it's more of a cycle, regardless of human intervention. We simply don't have enough data.

 

To give an example, Greenland was named Greenland for a reason.

ok, i apologize for my remarks. i'm a little touchy on this subject particularly given some of the recently discovered data manipulations (yup, hansen and folks are changing the data... unbelievable).

 

taks

[taks]

To give an example, Greenland was named Greenland for a reason.

I thought Greenland was so named as a con trick, because the King of Denmark wanted people to settle there to reinforce his claim of ownership, and the name 'Greenland' made it more attractive.

nope, it really was greener than now, though the reason for calling it greenland may have been what you state.

 

For the evidence to be so strong that even the Bush administration now seems to admit that global warming is taking place, it must be strong indeed.

a political ploy since they're trying to win the next election, IMO. they seem to think this is a hot topic with the public, though it is my position that it is really only a hot topic with the media.

 

The debate on whether global warming is happening, whether we're causing it, and whether it's desirable is over.

grrr... ok, simple concept, there is no such thing as scientific proof, therefore, debate will always continue for any scientific hypothesis/theory. heck, the most tested theory on the planet, relativity, is still being debated! furthermore, this particular debate is hardly over, in spite of what many seem to claim. more and more scientists are coming forward as "denialists" w.r.t. the climate every day. if anything, the debate is only heating up.

 

taks

[taks]

There's nothing wrong with taking precausions, but i hate it when science is being used as an agenda by different political and industrial groups.

i hate it when people that don't understand what "science" is use it to state some agenda as well.

 

taks

 

Don't be so paranoid, unless your agenda is against free beer for everyone

that last comment, btw, was really directed generally, gore specifically.

 

i would approve of free beer for everyone. socialism be damned!

 

taks

[kumquatq3]

Never be certain about anything. It is a sign of weakness. Nothing is more uncertain than science.

 

Well, talking in probabilities is no fun either

[Sand]

Are you certain?

[Gorgon]

"

grrr... ok, simple concept, there is no such thing as scientific proof, therefore, debate will always continue for any scientific hypothesis/theory. heck, the most tested theory on the planet, relativity, is still being debated! furthermore, this particular debate is hardly over, in spite of what many seem to claim. more and more scientists are coming forward as "denialists" w.r.t. the climate every day. if anything, the debate is only heating up.

"

Roughly 90% of the scientific comunity believe that the global warming phenomenon is man man made, roughly 10% believe that the temperature changes are a natural phenomenon, that is quite sufficient to say that the debat whether or not

it exists or not is nolonger in the foreground.

 

The Republicans, traditionally quite content to believe there was no such thing, are quite keen on some of Arnold's success in energy management in California rubbing off on them.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Gorgon

[Sand]

I think it is a combination of both. The trend of getting warmer was already being put forth by the climate naturally but partialy accelerated by the actions of man.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Sand

[taks]

Roughly 90% of the scientific comunity believe that the global warming phenomenon is man man made, roughly 10% believe that the temperature changes are a natural phenomenon, that is quite sufficient to say that the debat whether or not it exists or not is nolonger in the foreground.

prove it. i love such unfounded statements. so easy to shoot down.

 

even at that, maybe roughly 90% of those that publish, or are funded, but that does not mean 90% believe as such. many that disagree are afraid to for fear of being black-listed. more and more are coming forward every day to point out how ludicrous, sometimes outright fraudulent, the so-called "science" regarding this topic is.

 

The Republicans, traditionally quite content to believe there was no such thing, are quite keen on some of Arnold's success in energy management in California rubbing off on them.

it's got nothing to do with being a republican or a democrat, conservative or liberal. bad science is bad science, no matter which "side" you're on.

 

taks

Edited March 1, 2007 by taks

[SteveThaiBinh]

it's got nothing to do with being a republican or a democrat, conservative or liberal. bad science is bad science, no matter which "side" you're on.

Exactly. That's why I'm so glad that we now have a real consensus on the need to deal with man-made global warming in the UK. There are debates between left and right on how to do it, but all the major parties accept the strength of the science now. It's good that all science continues to be debated within academic circles, including the theory of relativity and who knows what. This academic process of testing and refining knowledge should not impact upon public policy debate, however. The inherent 'unprovability' of science should not be used as an excuse to bury one's head in the sand.

[Lokey]

grrr... ok, simple concept, there is no such thing as scientific proof, therefore, debate will always continue for any scientific hypothesis/theory. heck, the most tested theory on the planet, relativity, is still being debated! furthermore, this particular debate is hardly over, in spite of what many seem to claim. more and more scientists are coming forward as "denialists" w.r.t. the climate every day. if anything, the debate is only heating up.

 

taks

Poor Raman and Mie, so little love. Can't think of a branch of science that doesn't spectroscopy of some stripe.

 

Also, I wouldn't call someone that denies we have a climate even a bad scientist. Have a name for the wall of shame...or was that just propaganda?

[taks]

There are debates between left and right on how to do it, but all the major parties accept the strength of the science now.

which keeps getting dinged. the latest revelations that the keepers of "the faith" (phil jones and jim hansen) have manipulated the actual temperature record to favor their position only heightens the need to debate what is actually happening, before debating how to deal with it. in general, the science that claims we've seen some warming is fairly strong, but the connection to man, CO2 in general, is extremely weak.

 

It's good that all science continues to be debated within academic circles, including the theory of relativity and who knows what. This academic process of testing and refining knowledge should not impact upon public policy debate, however. The inherent 'unprovability' of science should not be used as an excuse to bury one's head in the sand.

nor should one leap on faith to extreme "solutions" to imagined "problems" based on bad science.

 

taks

[taks]

Poor Raman and Mie, so little love. Can't think of a branch of science that doesn't spectroscopy of some stripe.

huh?

 

Also, I wouldn't call someone that denies we have a climate even a bad scientist. Have a name for the wall of shame...or was that just propaganda?

anyone that refuses to allow independent audit of their results is a bad scientist. making a claim that is obviously incorrect, or completely against mainstream thought, however, does not constitute bad science. as for names, phil jones, jim hansen and michael mann would be my top picks. phil is on record stating that he refuses to allow inspection of his data, and methods, of calculating the "global average temperature" on the grounds that "all they're going to do is try to find flaws in the work" (paraphrased). duh, that's the entire purpose of science, aka falsifiability. michael mann refused to report adverse statistics in his so-called "hockey stick." he even told congress last summer (maybe 2005?) that he never calculated them (the cross-validation statistic, or r) stating that it would be "silly" to do so. it turns out that he did calculate, and fail to report, r, and the result was near zero for most of the stick, i.e. that was an indicator that the result is probably due to chance alone (caspar amman finally published the result, which may still be "in press," i.e. not public yet). jim hansen is more of an activist now, and probably the most quoted "scientist" of the bunch. he's another keeper, in charge of the GISS station data. he and phil are the two data manipulation culprits.

 

taks

Edited March 1, 2007 by taks

[Weiser_Cain]

clearly an attempt to discredit gore to disrupt any movement on reducing environmental damage and to keep him from reentering politics. Civil War II is going to be awesome!

[Cantousent]

Give me a break. ...And Gore is a pretty long shot for president. It could happen, but neither party tends to return to someone who failed to carry the day for them in the first place. The Democrats need someone who will have broad appeal beyond left, and that leaves Gore out of it. He's made too many strident, shrieking speeches. If he weren't a senator, I'd think Obama would be their best bet. As it is, I'd look outside the senate for a candidate, but not to Gore.

[Weiser_Cain]

He did win.

It's funny how democrats (even the retired private citizen types) have to meet the approval of the right wingers, but the liberals just have to put up with the crazy right (never mind that they all say liberal like some people say Nazi).

[taks]

clearly an attempt to discredit gore to disrupt any movement on reducing environmental damage and to keep him from reentering politics. Civil War II is going to be awesome!

gore's done plenty to discredit himself.

 

taks

[Sand]

Give me a break. ...And Gore is a pretty long shot for president. It could happen, but neither party tends to return to someone who failed to carry the day for them in the first place. The Democrats need someone who will have broad appeal beyond left, and that leaves Gore out of it. He's made too many strident, shrieking speeches. If he weren't a senator, I'd think Obama would be their best bet. As it is, I'd look outside the senate for a candidate, but not to Gore.

 

That could have been Vilsack if he didn't drop out of the race.

[Cantousent]

Civil War II is going to be awesome!

 

Civil war is certainly not the answer. It would cost a lot of lives and the folks who talk about it, crazy left and right wing fringe, would not benefit from it. By the way, your side would lose. Don't seek a Civil War you have no chance of winning.

[Sand]

Depends on how you conduct a war, a side with very little resources and very little personal can do great harm if you strike at the right targets and use the right methods to sway the opinions of the mob. Win the mob, and you win the war.

[Gorgon]

"

prove it. i love such unfounded statements. so easy to shoot down.

 

even at that, maybe roughly 90% of those that publish, or are funded, but that does not mean 90% believe as such. many that disagree are afraid to for fear of being black-listed. more and more are coming forward every day to point out how ludicrous, sometimes outright fraudulent, the so-called "science" regarding this topic is."

 

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=116511

http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...-humankind.html

 

Why don't you prove that there is widespread bullying of scientist who refuse to go along with the notion now ?

Edited March 1, 2007 by Gorgon