LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksForgive me, but I have this terrible habit of wanting to see the evidence MYSELF and making up my own mind.
Forgive me, but I have this terrible habit of wanting to see the evidence MYSELF and making up my own mind.
Please sign the petition to establish a national day of celebration in honour of the vision of the United Irishmen!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Hang on, you use the conspiracy word when scientists refuse to provide data to ANYONE and we question it. Then you try to link whoever does not agree with your opinion to big business and how they work behind the scenes to change public opinion....ok...tad ironic there, no?Originally Posted by Akrasia
Look, I'd be the first one to admit that big business does not have the interests of the majority in mind but if there is nothing wrong with that data then just release it. The proof is in the pudding after all.
Economic Left/Right: -8
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That pretty much says it all really....
Voters don't decide issues, they decide who will decide issues.
George Will
Apart from failing to explain what is confidential about historical global temperature data, or failing to explain why scientific research must on this occasion be taken on trust, completely contrasting with centuries of tradition which dictates that data which supports scientific conclusions should be made available to all so that it can be reviewed.
Please sign the petition to establish a national day of celebration in honour of the vision of the United Irishmen!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"why don't you google it" - you complete moron
Last edited by PAD10H; 26th September 2009 at 11:12 AM.
Directed at me too i guess.
The green movement is a worldwide organisation that operates on half truths and point in time evidence to push a conservative agenda.
It has filled the gap of religion and has more influence in world governance than any major religion.
It is simply unproven - there is no consensus. There is evidence to suggest that sun spots and single cases of volcanic activity have far more effect on the atmosphere than man kind ever has.
We were threatened with acid rain 20 years ago - water would become corrosive and undrinkable if we didn't stop polluting - it didn't happen...
We hear about peak oil - but we have no idea how much oil there is down there and recently found the biggest oil deposit off the coast of texas.
Like pacific islanders the greens fear the god in the volcano and seek to appease him with sacrifice. We see polar bears swimming sadly and think "thats my fault, i better wear a second jumper and leave the heat off"
But it is all toss -
no one knows either way what effect we have!
what if carbon in the atmosphere was a stabilising effect on the atmosphere? what if burning oil actually staved off an ice age?
Week, limp wristed environmental whack jobs have no business in government - they are ultra conservatives and seek to rein in mans advancement.
They seek to return us to the days of local sustainability (which is noble until you have to deal with a famine and you all die)
They seek to return us to the days of little house on the prarie where we ride around in horse and cart and grind our own bread.
They threaten us with consequences not for us but for our children, our grand children and cute little polar bears...
In short - there is no compelling evidence either way and while i am grand with the idea of recycling and having a few vegatables in the back i am not prepared to isolate communities and roll back on progression because of some angry volcano god....
The early bird may get the worm - but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Scientific data you don't share is worthless, I have said it here serveral times recently and been attacked for it but scientists can be wrong. The opinion of people in itself is weak evidence. We need to see the actual evidence. What I have seen is very much confused to say the least.
There is so much money and politics now tied up in global warming it is unthinkable by many that it might actually either be wrong or not the full story.
The evidence that reducing CO2 emissions will make the difference between mass flooding and safety is thin to say the least.
[quote=PAD10H;2123603]
And that says it all, if you dont already agree on the result you will not be allowed to be a climate scientist. Its funny how history repeats itself, the green movement is rapidly starting to look like a religious or political cult. How are you or anyone else qualified to decide who takes part in a scientific debate? The greatest idiot in the world should have access to this basic information.
careful now or you will end up in a wicker man
No. I don't need to try to link the deniers with big business, the links are there for anyone to see, and it is not a conspiracy theory to say that corporations lobby governments and use marketing and public relations to influence people. It's not hidden, they do it all the time. What do you think their marketing budget is for? It's to try to change public opinion te be more favourable towards what their interests are.
Now, not all climate change deniers are bought and paid for, Many are just ideologues who sincerely believe that free markets and globalisation are wonderful, and anything that tries to impose limits on enterprise is evil and ought to be stopped. This is a quasi religious belief, because economic theories and atmospheric sciences are totally unrelated, but the ideologue needs to link everything back to his core dogma which can never be challenged.
In this regard, climate change denial is no different from creationism. The conclusion is arrived at first, and then all the evidence is made to fit in with the answer they want to hear.
Climate change denial and creationism use very similar tactics, it's quite spooky actually.
Creationists often believe that all biologists are in some kind of conspiracy to fake the evidence for evolution
Creationists claim that the science behind evolution does not stand up. They use the same strategy as climate change denial, they focus on tiny areas of limited public understanding and try to claim that these obscure technical claims totally refute all the other evidence for evolution/climate change (eg the bacterial flagellum could not possibly have evolved as there is no useful intermediate form..... a claim that is simply not true, but nevertheless, may be convincing if you had never studied that area were unfamiliar with the background to the debate) Climate change deniers use the exact same device, for example "the planet has not warmed since 1998" A claim which is deliberately misleading but sounds convincing if you are not familiar with that argument.
Creationists also use the 'it's too unlikely' argument, that it's so improbable that evolution happened 'by accident' therefore someone must have designed everything. Of course, this is nonsense, but very similar to the Climate change denier 'Humans are too insignificant to change our climate, it must have been the sun" argument. (or C02 is only a small component of the atmosphere, it couldn't possible contribute to significant climate change)
And finally, cause I'm getting bored, Creationists often demand immediate answers for how specific animals evolved from different animals and when someone struggles to be specific and concrete to the creationist's satisfaction (impossibly high standards, often refusing to listen to the actual response) they declare that the evolutionists don't know what they're talking about and it's all made up as they go along. The Climate change denier version of this is "Why do I have to wear a jumper today, I thought the planet was supposed to be getting warmer" Trying to conflate weather with climate, and pretend that if the conditions in one place at one time are not what they expect from their cartoon version of what climate change is, then that is somehow proof that the planet is not warming and there is a conspiracy to lie to him.
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
Reply With Quote