APOCALYPSE - The Great LieAPOCALYPSE - The Great Lie ----- [ENGLISH]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7lqwg_apocalypse-the-great-lie_newsExtraterrestrial World Contact (June 6th)http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x40n0q_extraterrestrial-world-contact-june_newsAPOCALYPSE - Le Grand Mensonge ----- [FRANCAIS]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7lrcl_apocalypse-le-grand-mensonge_newsKARL JUNG - La synchronicité 666http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7m9wj_karl-jung-la-synchronicit-666_news2012 Vers la Lumièrehttp://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3cvtq_2012-vers-la-lumire-12_news2012 L'Eveil au Point Zérohttp://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6pn5y_2012-leveil-au-point-zro-12_newsRencontre avec le 666http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x74r5w_rencontre-avec-le-666-12_newsContact Mondial avec les Extraterrestres (6 uin)http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ogtf_contact-mondial-avec-les-extraterre_newsAPOCALIPSIS - La Gran Mentira ----- [ESPANOL]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7lz8d_apocalipsis-la-gran-mentira_news(TOUTES LES VIDEOS), (ALL VIDEOS), (TODOS LOS VIDEOS), ANTOLL MAhttp://www.dailymotion.com/visited/Antoll_MA/1
There is only a small problem... there aren't 18'000 climatologist on this planet.
Honestly, your argument is bunk. Science isn't done by comittee, it's done by who's right and has the better arguments and data. Also, please list your sites from which you've got this ridiculous number, since it makes it easier to debunk it/laugh at them.
Reading comprehension, you're doing it wrong.
So, you say you don't say that there is a conspiracy while saying there is a conspiracy of scientists that just want to get more money? Make up your mind.
Bah, deniers annoy me.
My mistake, I meant scientists, not necessarily climatologists.
The 18,000 scientists I was referring to have all signed what is known as the Oregon Petition - and you're right, now that I look at the information, it seems that I was wrong about the number. It isn't 18,000, it's 31,000. I guess the other site was old. I'm not going to claim that this number is 100% accurate, but I believe it has some merit. Here is Wikipedia's article on the petition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
If there is such a debate over global warming, then obviously nobody has come out with absolutely conclusive facts. I might add that this is also the case with the evolution/creationism debate, which is supposed to have been settled, yet we still have factions such as the Intelligent Design movement which are gaining support.
Also, even if only half of the research money goes toward climate-friendly technologies, it is still plently of incentive for scientists to make a big panic about global warming. Plus, the more people they convince of the problem, the more money the government is likely to give them. Note in that article that Bush wanted to add $4.2 million to current budget for that area, which is exactly what I'm talking about. While it is true that not all of the money goes toward global climate control, not all of it has to in order to create the same reaction I already mentioned.
Finally, I never said there was a conspiracy, and my mind is perfectly made up. Coordinating that many scientists into a cohesive plan would be rediculous to attempt anyway. What I mean is that people are selfish, and it would be in their interest to keep their government funding by supporting global warming, whether they believe it or not.
It would be more productive if you gave your own opposing facts instead of trying to poke holes in my logic. Or do you not have any? Are you one of the 96% of people who believe every statistic they hear?
I would have to disagree with you Vandenberg - at least to the extent that I am not placed to independently verify or debunk global warming personally, my evaluation of the evidence is very much influenced by the consensus view - i.e., by committee.
That said . . .
You get points for linking to the Oregon petition sir. You lose a point however for obviously not having read the article to completion.
First of all - 'Climatologists' that claim to have proof that debunks man-made climate change but cannot circulate that proof in a manner to get it published in a journal, frankly don't impress me. I thoroughly believe that someone both partisan and dishonest on a peer review board could kill 'an' article. But science is like any other domain - rebels that look at data in different ways may annoy some people but they are admired by others - and there would be articles published. If those arguments had a valid case it would . . . convince people.
There are a lot of naysayers, but the blunt fact is that I take the fact that they can't seem to get their articles publishes in peer reviewed journals to indicate that, by and large, they have not been able to support their case. If you do not believe in the process of peer review, then by all means, you can choose not to accept that as evidence, but lets be fair about it and ignore all peer review, not just the journals that come to conclusions you don't like. Enjoy your leeches and voodoo dolls, I hope they help.
Second of all, if I *were* to be convinced by 31,000 people signing a petition, it would have to be 31,000 verified signatures of, you know, *climatologists*. Not engineers, not doctors, and certainly not 'Dr' Geri Halliwell.
Third of all - science is done by verifiable procedures; repeatable, in which you can double and triplecheck. So that when you look at it and "That doesn't look right" you can go back and confirm "But I'll be damned, it is!". What we have here is a list of people that responded to a postcard or 'signed' a website, with publicly verified means of verifying the data. These people didn't go to sufficient effort to match the guy that insists there's $100,000,000 dollars in an account in Kenya with my name on it, and you expect me to accept them rather than the actual journals.
Not good enough dammit. Not merely incompetent, but insulting. These people have succeeded in having less respect for my intelligence than the spammer that swears he can get me generic V1@gr@. That takes work.
No, I'm not going to 'support' the case and give opposing facts. I'm not competent to do so (although, having a BS, like the 12,850 people that supposedly signed the petition in possession of that same degree, evidently merely having a degree in something should be sufficient.) and we have an entire field of people that run journals that say, "No, that's not the case", so it turns out, I don't have to do so.
You're the one who has no case, you give opposing facts.
Jonnan
you guys are still talking about the global warming myth?
the flying spaghetti monster will come and destroy you all.
Yeah, I hear you.If people want to unveil a great lie, they should look into the holocaust, not global warming.
Good lord, a Holocaust denier? My estimation of humanity's intelligence has fallen considerably.
And Jonnan, I get what you mean - the petition does have issues, and I would certinaly admit that, and I think it is a good point you bring up about those people not publishing why they think global warming isn't a problem. However, it is possible that they actually have, and nobody knows about it or thinks it noteworthy enough to look at it. Suppression of opposing ideas is not beyond possibility, and again, not due to a conspiracy, but because they don't want the truth to be known because terror sells. I'm not going to say that this is actually what is happening, I'm just pointing out the possibility.
I would like to point out that my supposedly 'losing a point' for not reading the whole article is kind of silly, when your reasons for that 'point loss' have to do with the petition itself and not something I just neglected to read.
Vandenburg, take note: Jonnan has debating skills that you should learn if you're going to argue a case here.
As for the lack of evidence, there is certainly evidence if you do the research:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/16/global-warming-myth/
\/ And this last website has hundreds of articles and scientific studies which discredit various aspects of global warming, from the rate at which the sea level is rising to the number of hurricanes it 'causes' each year.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
I suggest at least reading this article from this site:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/07/01/of-antarctica-and-penguins/#more-333
The crowds go wild!
Well, sarcasm doesn't exactly register through writing. I had no way of knowing if you are one of those people who denies that it happened.
Although now that I know what you meant, I have to ask, why don't you make a useful contribution to this thread? For example, by what evidence do you take global warming to be a fact? Or do you merely regurgitate the position of people smarter than yourself, and have no factual knowledge of your own?
yep its a myth. the suns just getting hotter and theres nothing you can do about it.
we should all just wait for the mayan death ray to come online in 2012 or for kygore to finish his black hole generator.
You're still missing my fundamental point.
There are two possibilities - that the concept of peer-reviewed publication of science papers within a dispcipline is a valid means of checking experiments for repeatability , verifiability, and checking for errors of bias, or that it is not.
If you don't accept it as a method, then I think it is incumbent upon you to suggest a better method.
If you accept it as a method, but believe that this particular field has become so politicized that it has failed in this instance, then I think it is your responsibility to prove that papers with one bias are being accepted, while papers with another are being rejected. I have seen a number of people make exactly this claim, however I have never seen anyone actually support this claim with statistically valid data showing a pattern of perfectly good papers rejected or invalid but politically acceptable papers accepted. Without those actual facts, the mere fact that you happen to disagree with the consensus opinion of those journals would tend to indicate a bias in you, not in those journals.
If you accept it as a method, and you accept that the journals have no indications of bias, then for you to have a rational objection indicates that you must be privy to some fact or experiment which would, if submitted to the journals, be accepted as a counter-argument, but has not been submitted. In which case, again, you have the responsibility for explaining why this experiment has not been submitted for the peer review which is the basis of all modern science.
If you don't accept it as a method, you accept that the journals are fundamentally unbiased, and you don't have a formal experiment which has not yet, but would, pass peer review supporting your opinion, but on some other basis choose not to accept the consensus opinion of the experts of the discipline, then I feel it is my sad duty to inform you that you are being irrational on this topic.
Which is fine by the way, we're all irrational on some topics - I happen to firmly believe that I will one day be kidnapped and kept as a high class gigolo by Rebecca Romjin. Some foolish people believe that the fact that she much better looking, wealthier, and younger than me, in combination with the fact that we have no common interests and only met that once when they had the restraining order put in place, could be taken as indicators that this is perhaps unlikely. However, despite my ironclad realization that they are all wrong, I confess to being aware that this is not a rational belief and accept that.
But I have learned to not insist that others just accept my worldview on this - {G}.
Yeah, I'm tired of talking about global warming. Lets talk about how we can end the world!
I'm first going to invent a way to turn uranium into the next illegal drug craze. Then I'm going to commandeer the US military's new Globalhawk spy plane, and retrofit it to drop 50 kiloton Junkies (as opposed to the regular 10-20 kiloton models). Then I'm going to solve a few of the world's problems, as indicated by my to-do list:
1. Present China with the solution to their population issues via Junkie
2. Bomb Alaska to help decide whether or not polar bears should be on the endangered species list
3. Create a tsunami with a few Junkies, just because I can
4. Think of more things to put on the to-do list
P.S. Jonnan - I think that there currently is very little or no method for determining the accuracy of the current global warming claims made by either side because (1) experiments on a global scale take a very long time, and (2) the pro-global-warming side doesn't see the need to objectively study the case because it has been 'resolved' in their favor. So really the debate is one of which side has the better cumulative argument, because no absolutely conclusive, all-encompassing study has been done to date. Any method, in this case, was thrown out the window long ago.
Although now that I know what you meant, I have to ask ...
With all the hysteria around the possibility of a threatening global warming, people tend to forget that wheter it's real or not shouldn't matter. I could go out of my way to shed light on the hypocrisy of either side, or highlight similar "big lie" situations, and I could ask the questions as to why someone would perpetuate a lie such as this, or any big lie.
I choose to offer a much more important point - it shouldn't have to matter.
I can see validity in arguing that global warming is not man-made, but to say the world is not getting warmer at all is right on the same smarts level with holocaust denial. I mean, on the poles, it's pretty obvious. The glacier used to be here...now it's there. When we built our homes, we didn't need air conditioning...now, we need AC.
However, given that the atmosphere's CO2 content has doubled in the last century, it sure would be a wild coincidence if global warming was due to some shift in the earth's position in the galaxy, either. I mean wow, a naturally-occurring 100% fluctuation in carbon dioxide content, AND a shift in the earth's astronomical position causing rising global temperatures--at the same time! What are the odds?
So Luckmann, your 'big contribution' is that you're telling us we shouldn't have to care?
That's a rather naive viewpoint. The scientific method wouldn't even work if people didn't argue and cross-experiment to prove each other wrong - you're saying we should all live like cavemen, devoid of scientific progress. Not only that, but issues such as the Holocaust are learned in history courses because history tends to repeat itself if it is forgotten. So yes, it definitely should matter.
Speaking of which, the Holocaust was not just 'taught' to me, I did a very large amount of independent research on the topic. You see, I don't merely believe something without logical cause.
And Tetley, just to clarify, I never said that global warming was not occuring. I am arguing that it is not man-made.
Also, I have seen numerous sites which state that increases in CO2 actually follow after an increase in temperature, because the oceans store large amounts of CO2, which they release as they warm up.
Don't worry, it will be ready before 2012. I want to beat the Mayans. 11:59:59, December 31, 2011, just to one-up the Mayans, a blackhole will form at the center of the Earth and everything will be torn apart and sucked in. Or I might change my mind and go with a white hole generator. Its pretty much the exact opposite of a black hole. Instead of stuff going in, lots and lots of stuff comes out. And of course it is completely hypothetical. The Earth will be forcibly blown apart from all the matter that comes into existance at the core!! BWA HA HA HA!!
An 'all-encompassing' study. On Global Climate Change. With mind you the definition of 'all-encompassing' carefully passing unremarked.
So, fundamentally, your plan is to set the bar up so high that there is no feasible study that will ever convince you, thereby putting a potentially catastrophic issue onto the back burner until it becomes an actual, y'know, catastrophe, while simultaneously ignoring every other study that has looked at smaller aspects of the problem and in total verified that the problem is real, the cause is man-made, and the solution is feasible (albeit not easy).
Sorry, I put that into the "Irrational" range. Science does not work that way. It has never, ever, worked that way. Science builds up the view of a problem from an array of different perspectives and uses induction to merge those varying perspective into a cohesive whole, building, not truth, but better and better approximations of the truth, which it then uses to predict new information, test those predictions, and in the wonderful cases where those predictions fail take the new information into account and revise itself into an even better approximation of the truth.
To say the "Science is indisputable" would be a misnomer - because Science, by it's nature, only closes in on better and better approximations of the 'truth', it is of course always disputable. The question is never "Is there doubt?", but "Is there any reasonable doubt?".
There is no more reasonable doubt that "Man Made Climate Change" is supported as a legitimate theory of science than there is reasonable doubt that the earth is not flat, that the earth is somewhere in moderate excess of 4,000,000,000 years old, that species evolve due to random mutations of the genome, or relativity and quantum physics.
All of these models can be undermined if you presume enough irrational assumptions with no way of disproving them, none of them (With the limited exception perhaps, of natural selection. Even Einstein's theory of relativity built (IMO) more on prior experiments and mathematics than Charles Darwin, whose observations made such a cohesive whole and predicted so many results so far ahead of their proofs in other sciences. If you've never read "Origin of Species" and "Voyage of the HMS Beagle" I highly recommend them to you.) arose out of some 'whole' cloth, but as ways of consolidating disparate results from previous observations.
But to undermine them does require 'irrational' assumptions, in the clinical definition of the word, assumptions "Without Reason" to support them.
You may, as the flat earth society does, construct marvelous mental contructs that produce the exact same results as our regular observations, which involve strange disconnects of cause from effect, warp light, assume unseen forces behind the scenes which leave neither footprint nor echo, and yet result in a planet which looks just like the one science while behind the scenes these forces 'prove' it is completely different at a fundamental level.
But applying the term "irrational" to such constructs is not an insult, but mere dry description.
I'm not meaning to say that at all. I'm saying that with studies involving climate change, you have to measure a large land area over a long period of time, a commitment which not many scientists are unwilling to make - mainly because everyone seems to believe the debate is settled. What I meant by 'all-encompassing' was that it studied the entire globe at once and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt which position was correct, which as you point out, will never happen. Therefore the accuracy of each of the smaller studies cannot be fully determined at this time, because as you said, science is not indispuable (which I had already stated, if you look a few posts back). I would have no case against anthropogenic global warming if I didn't look at smaller studies (speaking of which, did you look at this site?). All I am trying to say is that there seems to be substantial evidence that anthropogenic global warming is a myth, and that these smaller studies seem to add up. Plus there is the question of motive - and I highly doubt the oil industries are paying people off, because someone would've noticed and the media would've blown it sky-high. That, and as I said before, organizing that many people into a conspiracy is virtually impossible (expanse of territory, a principle argument James Madison uses in one of his Federalist papers on how to control the effets of faction).
Also, I might point out that there is also a debate over the age of the Earth still as well (Google the Intelligent Design movement, if you will), and that Charles Darwin also predicted the existence of 'missing links' which should comprise a very sizeable portion of the fossil record. I don't know about you, but I've only heard of about 2 or 3 (archeopterix, Lucy? the human/ape, maybe one other I don't remember). I've heard of more complete dinosaur skeletons being dug up.
I don't want to get into that particular debate though. The reason I bring this up is that yes, there is no reasonable doubt that science accepts these as theories. Whether they are true or not has yet to 'proven' to the extent which science is capable, and just because one is generally more accepted than another does not make the lesser one 'irrational', because even the best of us can be biased. This is the focal point of my argument against anthropogenic global warming - that scientists may be personally motivated to support a position, even if they secretly know it is false.
This leads me to my next point: if it is truly an irrational position, then destroy it with logic and physical evidence. The scientific method is not kind to irrationality, as I am certain you know. Debates arise not because one side is irrational, but because both sides claim to have logic and evidence. The question is thus, whose evidence is correct?
Anyway, I hope that you will consider doing some of your own research on this topic. If you do the research and conclude that they have the better argument, then fine, I support you wholeheartedly. However, if you believe the mainstream ideas without question, that doesn't mean you're smart, it means you're gullible. Use the various conclusions of smarter people to fuel your own position, but don't take it wholesale, because if you do then it's not your belief.
You will not destroy the Earth Kyogre12. Like all before you you will be stopped by my Flaming Ninjas. They watch you even now, waiting for the moment to strike.
Samurye.
That's what you think. There is nothing you can do to stop me! Nothing I say! Nothing! Your ninjas have already been defeated. As I type, their leader, who is completely unguarded, hangs over a tank of man-eating killer swordfish, and a laser is cutting the wire holding him above them! There is no way that he can use the laser to cut his bonds, escape, and stop me! I will be victorious!
Wait... I thought Samuyre was their leader?
You should enlist Devilface to help you. He beat the ninjas over in the Digi*Con thread. (I love that smiley)
None of the arguments here remotely applies to any scientific process. Needless to say, the scientific method is not a process settled over an argument in a forum.
The fact that you try to discredit by voicing someone elses apparent disdain for the scientific method speaks volumes. So try to go back again and read what I said, comprehend it, and save yourself further ridicule.
Holy crap. "died in the freakin' APOCALYPSE!" just became my status.
Actually, Luckmann, I think you're the one misunderstanding me. The topic cannot be pointless, as you've said, unless we forgo scientific progess of any kind (see reply #64).
And if that's not what you're saying, then learn to actually state what you mean. Being vague doesn't make you look smart, or others stupid for not understanding you.
Of course, it may be that I am not able to understand you simply because I am incorrectly assuming that your argument makes logical sense.
Look at your original post in this thread:
What does that have to do with anything you've subsequently posted? Please, enlighten me.
Louis Black's Root of all Evil FTW!!!
"K-Boom, C-Ya"
I've never said that I'm disinterested in the subject or the research behind the issue of global warming. I've merely argued for another point entirely; That it shouldn't have to matter either way. If you actually went back and read my original post in the thread, you'd understand what I'm talking about. This is why I asked you to read and comprehend before you respond. Since you seem unable to find it, I'll go back and quote myself;
Second, who's to say it has anything to do with what I've subsequently posted? It was a nudge directed at Vandenburg and his annoyance of deniers. The point itself flew right past you, and nor was it a sarcastic remark. I guess this has to count as Strike Three, you're out(!).
Edit: I hate how quoting (doesn't) work on these forums.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
