More on Global Warming..

[Tominator]

I've often argued that Scientists are as guilty of having an agenda as anyone else...


The Politics of 'Science'

 

[Czar]

I´d rather listen to scientists with some twisted political agenda than money grabbing idealists

 

[Tominator]

I'd rather listen to scientists without an agenda that indeed base their opinions on science. Is that deep enough?:Q

 

[Helpless]

That's too much to ask; it's like asking a newspaper to report merely the facts...bastages!

 

[rmeijer]

Scientist, reporters, 'free thinkers'... they come from the same gene pool as politicians and business folk. It is folly to think that anyone is truly unbiased one way or the other.

So yes, I certainly agree with you.

But of course, you have to recognize that the article you refer to was written by a biased journalist, who interviewed a biased scientist, and then published by a biased press.

There probably is an absolute truth, somewhere... The prevailing 'truth' is probably just a majority consensus. This, in of itself, does not make it any less the 'truth'.

 

[Elledan]

That article was truly pathetic.

And BTW, this article was about global warming, and not about 'science' in general.

This article seems more like the whining of some spoiled children, who aren't getting told everything they want. But do politicians tell us everything? No, they don't, so when some scientists are researching something which is also a political issue, do you expect the Government to allow those scientists to tell the public all of their results? Of course not.

 

[rc5]

Scientists tell us the global warming is mainly due to bull farts.

 

[Mikal]

It sure is hot out today, ya'll!

 

[Modeps]

this winter was quite cold and we had a helluva lot of snow... i guess global warming just stopped for this past winter eh?

 

[Harvey]

There is nothing wrong with having "an agenda" if your goals are based on knowledge. At this point, the only people who question whether human beings are in fact causing environmental changes, including global warming, are those who have financial and/or political reasons not to recognize the problem or do anything about it.

 

[Kosugi]

Ironically, as global warming increases, so too should snowfall.


Wetter rainy seasons, and more severe dry seasons.


Oh, you need to look at temperture/precipitation over a period of at least 10 years to determine trends. And actually, 30 to 50 is even better.


Face it, its getting warmer.

 

[NovaTerra]

Once again, Tominator conveniently leaves out the fact that the "scientist" who wrote this article is a member of the CATO institute. The CATO institute, for those of you who don't know, supports many of the planks of the Republican party platform.

The only "politics" I see coming out of this science is from the conservatives.

 

[Pyro]

[sarcasm]Yes, Tom, scientists are a mysterious and dangerous people with their own secret hidden agenda. The world is not getting warmer and old Bushie needs to burn even more coal since scientists are only lying to us when they say our fuel deposits are finite![/sarcasm]

 

[Tominator]

Now, if I wanted to leave that little tidbit out, I would have paste instead of linked.

It MAY be getting warmer is the realistic way to look at this. We have yet to determine if humans have any large effect on it AND if it is indeed harmful or part of earth's natural reaction to it's inhabitants.

My point, other than to prompt discussion, is to show that some scientists do indeed have an agenda and are loyal to the environmentalist regardless of the facts....which are lacking in a big way. Othere have sarcastically asked in previous discussions if I really believe that scientists have an agenda. The question has been answered.

 

[Ferocious]

If it somehow would benefit corporations, I think conservatives would try an argue the Earth is indeed flat.

 

[Pyro]

They DO have an agenda, which 90% of the time is to help humanity.

When scientists say the world is getting hotter and we should cut back on emissions, do you think they do so because they have shares in some environmental company, or do you think they do it because every year the weather gets worse and worse. Five years ago the news channels didnt have any UV reporting, now there are daily UV forcasts. 50 years ago people hardly knew what sunscreen was, now everybody's buying it like crazy.


If you can't appreciate what scientists do for you, they maybe you should stop using things that science has brought you.

 

[tcamste]

how old is the 'living' earth? well..dinosaurs lives about 70 miliion years ago. Taking into account ONLY the 70 million years since the last dinosaur, is it good science to base a theory (prediction) on less than 0.000004286% of the data?? That would seem to me to leave a lot of room for error.

 

[AppleTalking]

I've had some meteorological training, and I can say without a doubt that I am up in the air about global warming. Actually, let me rephrase that, I'm up in the air about global warming caused by humans.

It is undeniable that the temperature readings that we are taking are steadily increasing. However, what these readings actually show is debatable. For starters, most temperature sensors are placed in cities. As cities get larger, the amount of heat they give off increases as well. The temperature reading, therefore, will increase as the city grows.

Sorry, I have to go home now. I'll post some more information when I get there.

Nick

 

[RossGr]

I do not see the problem here the author of the article does not argue the fact of global warming only the degree. The panel says



<< between 1.4 and 5.8º C by the end of this century >>



While the author argures for the lower end of the scale. Why does this void the work of the panel? They obviously consider the lower end of the scale of sufficent concern to warrent a warning. Like a borderline chirsitian who believes in christ, &quot;just in case&quot;, wouldn't it be wise to take measures &quot;just in case&quot;.

 

[Tominator]

Pyro

Although you have a right to your opinion, there is ZERO evidence the earth's weather is worse than 50 or 100 years ago.

The Sunscreen and UV radiation reporting has as much to do with cancer prevention as anything.

For every scientist you find that says the earth is in danger because of warming, I'll find you at least 1 to match that says there isn't.



Ferocious

Actually the opposite would be true. The more Liberal scare tactics we are subjected to results directly influence the market. Making useless laws does little to help anyone BUT corporations who then benefit.

The asbestos scare is a good example. Unless it is open to a space we breath, it is harmless, but let a school find even a shread of it and watch the school close. Then a business that specializes in removal MUST be hired by law and the procedures used are both archaic and expensive...make that VERY expensive. They then MUST follow more laws and then dispose of it in a...you guessed it...'lawful way.' The whole thing is bogus!

I've related the solar panel fiasco of the Carter Administration. The panels brought $2100 each and were subsidized by taxpayer's money. After Reagan quit funding them, the price dropped to under $300 each and as little as 10 years ago, thet were $50 each on the surplus market. This was not and is not new technology. Nothing in them could not have been created in the normal home workshop. Who made the initial dollars? Corporations!

They like you Liberals!

 

[Pyro]

<< Pyro

Although you have a right to your opinion, there is ZERO evidence the earth's weather is worse than 50 or 100 years ago.

The Sunscreen and UV radiation reporting has as much to do with cancer prevention as anything.

For every scientist you find that says the earth is in danger because of warming, I'll find you at least 1 to match that says there isn't.
>>



I wish I had the time to find many many sources to prove you wrong, but exams are around the corner.

jsut a question, do you also believe that CFCs don't cause the breakup of the ozone layer?

 

[NovaTerra]

<< Although you have a right to your opinion, there is ZERO evidence the earth's weather is worse than 50 or 100 years ago. >>



Are you really serious when you make such statements, or are you sitting at your PC, typing and laughing at the same time?

Oh, I forgot, Rush said something like this a few days ago, didn't he? That means, it must be true! Rush also said on the same show that photosynthesis is the main culprit for the increase in greenhouse gasses (that do not exist because there really is no global warming...talk about confused logic).

Of course, he also said on the same show that fat people are evil...which he should know as well...

So, in Tominator's twisted little world, the CONSERVATIVE scientists are non-biased and non-judgemental, while the tree-hugging liberal pinko i love you scientists cannot be trusted to predict the weather.

Hey, Tom--do you also believe those nice conservative &quot;scientists&quot; who said that cigarettes do not cause cancer?

 

[Tominator]

CFCs do indeed decrease ozone...and the earth just keeps producing more....The problem was that some forms of manmade CFCs did not disappear after awhile like natural ozone destroying gases do. However, there is no evidence they do or did any lasting damage.

Let me make this clear...There is ZERO, spelled OOOO, evidence that our weather is getting worse because of humans.

Here's one to set you off....Trees cause pollution....put that in your environ-pipe and smoke it...

 

[rmeijer]

&quot;Let me make this clear...There is ZERO, spelled OOOO, evidence that our weather is getting worse because of humans.&quot;

This is a strange statement. When one says &quot;worse&quot; what does that mean? And what do you mean by &quot;weather&quot;? And does ZERO evidence mean based on stochastic analysis, there is no correlation between increased carbon emmission and rising temperatures? Very puzzling statement, full of vagueness.

Answer this: Is rain &quot;weather&quot;? Does a rain's pH make specific rainfall &quot;worse&quot; or &quot;better&quot; (and for whom)? Do humans affect the pH of rain?

 

[Noirish]

too few beautiful babes.
otherwise, we could be seeing lots of bikini's walking around even in winter