Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1761  
Old 25.01.2015, 15:05
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 4,640
Groaned at 255 Times in 181 Posts
Thanked 9,561 Times in 3,589 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
e.g. because science is not democracy?
e.g. because an unproven hypothesis does not equal fact or thruth?
Nor does an unproven hypothesis equal fiction.

At one time, many people believed that the Copernican/heliocentric model of the solar system was a myth, as they believed there was insubstantial evidence. We now accept it as general fact.

Quote:
View Post
I'm not talking about "anyone." I'm talking about you. You are scaremongering.
No, I'm giving consideration to something that such a large percentage of the scientific community regards as fact. If you are so certain that all of these scientists have joined forces in such an international conspiracy, then who is really the paranoid one, and who is doing the scare-mongering here?

Quote:
View Post
Such people are not going blindly accept dire warnings about the future effects of global warming no matter how many scientists stand behind it. The reason is that it is plain to see there has been practically no global warming this century despite the fact that a quarter (25%) of all man made carbon dioxide ever created was released into the atmosphere this century. There is no generally agreed theory to explain this warming pause.
It may well be that in future years temperatures start to rise again but myself I have little confidence that this will happen; obviously many other people have more confidence.
Every scientist that I know prefers to use the term "climate change" rather than "global warming" (I have even been advised to do this myself) -- as apparently there is a chance that some areas might actually cool.
Reply With Quote
  #1762  
Old 25.01.2015, 15:50
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
so where do you get off telling me that I am posting links that have nothing to do with MY thread?
It's not YOUR thread. Nor was it before I merged it with the existing one. It's a public forum where we allow anyone to comment, within the rules, whether it be nonsense scaremongering or mocking disbelief.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1763  
Old 25.01.2015, 17:02
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Nor does an unproven hypothesis equal fiction.

At one time, many people believed that the Copernican/heliocentric model of the solar system was a myth, as they believed there was insubstantial evidence. We now accept it as general fact.



No, I'm giving consideration to something that such a large percentage of the scientific community regards as fact. If you are so certain that all of these scientists have joined forces in such an international conspiracy, then who is really the paranoid one, and who is doing the scare-mongering here?



Every scientist that I know prefers to use the term "climate change" rather than "global warming" (I have even been advised to do this myself) -- as apparently there is a chance that some areas might actually cool.
About "Every scientist that I know prefers to use the term "climate change" rather than "global warming"

Title of this thread is "global warming" so that is the topic?

More likely the change of name is to gently guide us away from the concept of "global warming"
I hope the name does not change to climate cooling as we are overdue for the next ice age.

About "all of these scientists have joined forces in such an international conspiracy" No, I do not believe it is an international conspiracy.

I simply believe it is a theory that fitted well the facts of the real physical world in the last half of the last century but fails to explain what is happening this century - I mean practically no global warming.
If the 90% of scientists who believe in the theory of global warming would get together and provide a convincing and agreed explanation of why there was no warming so far this century then I would be happy to buy into it.

As I posted before the basic theory of global warming (not the theory of climate change) is that the more carbon dioxide in the air so less and less sunlight (energy) is reflected back into space and consequently the earth warms up.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84499
This NASA US Govt. study ( a reputable source) used satellite technology to measure the changes in the amount of sunlight reflected; over an 11 year period there was no trend of reduced sunlight reflection - hence no warming.
Why there was no trend of decreased sunlight reflection is an open question.

I am a physicist and the whole history of physics contains many examples of convincing sounding theories that had to be changed or replaced because they failed to correctly forecast what was happening in the real world.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1764  
Old 25.01.2015, 17:27
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Nor does an unproven hypothesis equal fiction.

At one time, many people believed that the Copernican/heliocentric model of the solar system was a myth, as they believed there was insubstantial evidence. We now accept it as general fact. ......................
Actually this is a good example; the Copernican model, with it assumption of uniform circular motion could not explain all the details of planetary motion on the celestial sphere without epicycles. Consequently the theory had to be "tuned".

A number of changes had to be made to the Copernican model to fit the facts observed in the real physical world.
Kepler showed that elliptical orbits gave a better match to the real world.
Then later Newton showed the centre of gravity of the solar system was not at the centre of the Sun.
Then it was found the Sun is not at the geometric centre of the solar system.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1765  
Old 25.01.2015, 18:06
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SG
Posts: 8,930
Groaned at 466 Times in 349 Posts
Thanked 11,858 Times in 6,168 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Death By A Thousand Cuts: Earth Enters The ‘Danger Zone’

Quote:
View Post
e.g. because an unproven hypothesis does not equal fact or thruth?
Outside of math I think not a single theory can be proven. For instance, Einsteins Relativity Theory is accepted as fact today, and yet despite the huge amount of supporting evidence it's still unproven. That's why it's still called "... theory".

Quote:
View Post
Back then, day by day you were told on all channels that 30% of the Swiss woods were dying or dead and another 35% severely ill. Of course, everything was scientifically bullet-proof, and most of the science community eagerly supported the panic.

In reality 95% of the whole campaign was hogwash.
Quote:
View Post
The "crisis" gave us the catalytic converter, now fitted to all cars: the device works well in California, but in colder countries is fairly useless.
The chemistry the catalytic converter works off of is the same wherever you are, as is the chemistry the combustion engine is based upon.

The environmental temperature is largely irrelevant once the engine got running as the cats' (catalysator, catalytic converter) operating temperature is provided for by the engine's exhaust gas temperature, which is very much the same all around the world. So if it works in California it will and does work similarly well around here, in Canada, at the poles (though you may have problems there with gasoline temperature in the tank), as well as the Sahara.

As a result of that "hysteria" in the eighties some major changes happened. For instance, gasoline and heating oil (basically, all fossil fuels) were made less acidic (less "sour", i.e. more of the sulfur contained gets extracted during refining), car catalytic converters became mandatory and reduced nitrogen dioxides other than NO2 (aka "NoX"). Similar action was taken for industrial exhaust and fossil fuel power plants. As a result the sour rain disappeared.

In short:
Scientific methods and knowledge helped us identify the problem, its reasons, and a way out. We implemented it (removed the causes) and indeed the problem disappeared. The effect on the forests is quite obvious, as you already mentioned.

And of course, since lead had to be banned from gasoline lest it destroy the catalysators we're no longer poisoned by hundreds of thousands tons of lead each and every year. Even the car industry survived, despite their doomsday scenarios claiming the cost increase would kill them.

With all that said, the main issue to me is:
Our resources are finite! However big they may be (or not), that much is certain and imho undisputable. The generations after us will need them just as much as we do, so we should try and preserve them best we can. There's a clear reason why western Europe is twice as energy efficient as the US even though the two have roughly the same standard of living.

Edit:

As for the thread title:
It implies consequences too narrow to reflect reality accurately

Global warming implies that it will get warmer basically everywhere. That need not apply generally. For instance if the Gulf Stream were to disappear Ireland, England and Greenland, as welll as western Europe in general, may well get colder. And of course there are additional possible effects, for instance if it gets warmer around here (Switzerland) the permafrost in the Alps may well disappear, possibly causing lots of catastrophes that may have the "Bergsturz von Goldau" (article in german) look like childs play.

Last edited by Urs Max; 25.01.2015 at 18:22.
Reply With Quote
  #1766  
Old 25.01.2015, 18:33
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
No, I'm giving consideration to something that such a large percentage of the scientific community regards as fact. If you are so certain that all of these scientists have joined forces in such an international conspiracy, then who is really the paranoid one, and who is doing the scare-mongering here?
What is it, exactly, to which you are giving consideration? What I've seen thus far from you is a bunch of vague statements laced with emotive rhetoric. There's nothing about the climate "that such a large percentage of the scientific community regards as fact," unless you are speaking in the most general of terms (e.g. "The climate is changing."). As I pointed out earlier, there is significant debate about what climate change is happening, whether and how much of it is driven by human activity, what it will actually mean for the future, and even what we should do about it.

I've not said any scientists have joined forces in a conspiracy. I've described pro-ACC/Global Warming types as having taken on the behaviors of a religious cult, yes. I do believe there are organizations that push the environmental agenda too far, so maybe that's your "conspiracy?" I also believe there are organizations that have hijacked environmentalism to pursue anti-West or anti-capitalist agendas. Last, I believe many media outlets sensationalize environmental news in order to gain viewership, and subsequently more advertisement revenues.

What I believe most, however, is that this is not the decided science that you believe it to be. So, yes, you are scaremongering.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1767  
Old 25.01.2015, 18:55
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Death By A Thousand Cuts: Earth Enters The ‘Danger Zone’

Quote:
View Post
Outside of math I think not a single theory can be proven. For instance, Einsteins Relativity Theory is accepted as fact today, and yet despite the huge amount of supporting evidence it's still unproven. That's why it's still called "... theory".




The chemistry the catalytic converter works off of is the same wherever you are, as is the chemistry the combustion engine is based upon.

The environmental temperature is largely irrelevant once the engine got running as the cats' (catalysator, catalytic converter) operating temperature is provided for by the engine's exhaust gas temperature, which is very much the same all around the world. So if it works in California it will and does work similarly well around here, in Canada, at the poles (though you may have problems there with gasoline temperature in the tank), as well as the Sahara.

As a result of that "hysteria" in the eighties some major changes happened. For instance, gasoline and heating oil (basically, all fossil fuels) were made less acidic (less "sour", i.e. more of the sulfur contained gets extracted during refining), car catalytic converters became mandatory and reduced nitrogen dioxides other than NO2 (aka "NoX"). Similar action was taken for industrial exhaust and fossil fuel power plants. As a result the sour rain disappeared.

In short:
Scientific methods and knowledge helped us identify the problem, its reasons, and a way out. We implemented it (removed the causes) and indeed the problem disappeared. The effect on the forests is quite obvious, as you already mentioned.

And of course, since lead had to be banned from gasoline lest it destroy the catalysators we're no longer poisoned by hundreds of thousands tons of lead each and every year. Even the car industry survived, despite their doomsday scenarios claiming the cost increase would kill them.

With all that said, the main issue to me is:
Our resources are finite! However big they may be (or not), that much is certain and imho undisputable. The generations after us will need them just as much as we do, so we should try and preserve them best we can. There's a clear reason why western Europe is twice as energy efficient as the US even though the two have roughly the same standard of living.

Edit:

As for the thread title:
It implies consequences too narrow to reflect reality accurately

Global warming implies that it will get warmer basically everywhere. That need not apply generally. For instance if the Gulf Stream were to disappear Ireland, England and Greenland, as welll as western Europe in general, may well get colder. And of course there are additional possible effects, for instance if it gets warmer around here (Switzerland) the permafrost in the Alps may well disappear, possibly causing lots of catastrophes that may have the "Bergsturz von Goldau" (article in german) look like childs play.
About "we're no longer poisoned by hundreds of thousands tons of lead" True, but they replaced the lead with Benzine which is a carcinogen with no safe limit, oddly nobody seems concerned about this

Did you write "Western Europe might get colder and Switzerland might get warmer"? I do not see both these happening together, Switzerland being in Western Europe

Einsteins Relativity Theory is accepted as fact today because it forecasts what happens in the real world with a very high degree of accuracy even though "it is not proven".
If it did not so forecast then we would need to think again

About "Our resources are finite!" I agree but what has this to do with global warming?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1768  
Old 25.01.2015, 19:26
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SG
Posts: 8,930
Groaned at 466 Times in 349 Posts
Thanked 11,858 Times in 6,168 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Death By A Thousand Cuts: Earth Enters The ‘Danger Zone’

Quote:
View Post
About "we're no longer poisoned by hundreds of thousands tons of lead" True, but they replaced the lead with Benzine which is a carcinogen with no safe limit, oddly nobody seems concerned about this

Did you write "Western Europe might get colder and Switzerland might get warmer"? I do not see both these happening together, Switzerland being in Western Europe

Einsteins Relativity Theory is accepted as fact today because it forecasts what happens in the real world with a very high degree of accuracy even though "it is not proven".
If it did not so forecast then we would need to think again

About "Our resources are finite!" I agree but what has this to do with global warming?
What is Benzine? (serious question)
If you meabt gasoline in german, the lead content (used to be 0.15g/lt) has no effect it's carcinogenicity.

I didn't say both happen simultaneously, though I wouldn't rule that out.

And still it's "Einsteins RelativitätsTHEORIE"

Reduction of CO2 output requires reduction of fossil fuels consumption. However, since the reserves are finite one need not rely on that theory to make reduction a reasonable proposition/demand.

And your point is?
Reply With Quote
  #1769  
Old 25.01.2015, 19:35
cyrus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Emmenbruecke
Posts: 2,904
Groaned at 37 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 3,471 Times in 1,513 Posts
cyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
e.g. because science is not democracy?
e.g. because an unproven hypothesis does not equal fact or thruth?
The lone wolf and false equivalence.

There have been times in science where unexpected theories have overturned everything. That doesn't mean that having the minority view = the embattled correct view.

This debate has been going 40+ years, initially starting as the minority view, or the lone wolf view. And guess what, over time, science now overwhelmingly backs the evidence that our climate is heavily influenced by our actions. Like that should be a surprise, when practically every other aspect of our landscape, unless protected, we've altered. We level mountains for minerals, divert rivers for power and irrigation, deforest and tame the wilderness, make the night so bright we can't see the stars. To declare we don't affect the climate is about as humble as declaring your shit don't stink.
Reply With Quote
  #1770  
Old 25.01.2015, 20:40
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Death By A Thousand Cuts: Earth Enters The ‘Danger Zone’

Quote:
View Post
What is Benzine? (serious question)
If you meabt gasoline in german, the lead content (used to be 0.15g/lt) has no effect it's carcinogenicity.

I didn't say both happen simultaneously, though I wouldn't rule that out.

And still it's "Einsteins RelativitätsTHEORIE"

Reduction of CO2 output requires reduction of fossil fuels consumption. However, since the reserves are finite one need not rely on that theory to make reduction a reasonable proposition/demand.

And your point is?

About "What is Benzine? (serious question)"
The material safety data sheet for unleaded gasoline shows at least 15 hazardous chemicals occurring in various amounts. Benzene (and many other anti-knocking additives) that replace lead (as an anti-knocking additive) are carcinogenic.

About "And still it's "Einsteins RelativitätsTHEORIE"" True but Einstein's theory forecasts what happens in the real world with an accuracy of at least 99.99%
Global warming theory forecasts what happens in the real world with an accuracy of ca. 65%
Do you see a difference?

About "And your point is?" Sorry if you do not see this then I cannot help you
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1771  
Old 25.01.2015, 20:43
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
The lone wolf and false equivalence.

There have been times in science where unexpected theories have overturned everything. That doesn't mean that having the minority view = the embattled correct view.

This debate has been going 40+ years, initially starting as the minority view, or the lone wolf view. And guess what, over time, science now overwhelmingly backs the evidence that our climate is heavily influenced by our actions. Like that should be a surprise, when practically every other aspect of our landscape, unless protected, we've altered. We level mountains for minerals, divert rivers for power and irrigation, deforest and tame the wilderness, make the night so bright we can't see the stars. To declare we don't affect the climate is about as humble as declaring your shit don't stink.
About "To declare we don't affect the climate is about as humble as declaring your shit don't stink" To declare we do affect the climate is conceited
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1772  
Old 27.01.2015, 20:56
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
And guess what, over time, science now overwhelmingly backs the evidence that our climate is heavily influenced by our actions.
Unfortunately, I do not think science "overwhelmingly" believes climate is "heavily influenced" by human activity.
Further, this is a tremendously vague statement itself. Is climate positively influenced or negatively so by our actuons? Independent of this, are there other factors that may influence climate more?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1773  
Old 27.01.2015, 21:54
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 868
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,775 Times in 727 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Here's an interesting paper from "Climate Risk Management". Nice statistics :-)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...12096314000163

Last edited by FrankZappa; 27.01.2015 at 21:57. Reason: Fat fingers
Reply With Quote
  #1774  
Old 27.01.2015, 22:18
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 868
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,775 Times in 727 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

From Wikipedia: Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3][4] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[5][6][7][8][9] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]
Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system,[17][18] the politics of global warming combined with some of the debate in popular media has slowed global efforts at preventing future global warming as well as preparing for warming "in the pipeline" due to past emissions. Much of this debate focuses on the economics of global warming.
Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) via two trusts (Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.[19]
__________________
Whatever works
Reply With Quote
  #1775  
Old 27.01.2015, 22:27
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Here's an interesting paper from "Climate Risk Management". Nice statistics :-)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...12096314000163
Pity they did not attempt to forecast temperatures after 2010.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1776  
Old 27.01.2015, 22:46
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
From Wikipedia: Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming,
Weird how this link goes to Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.


Quote:
View Post
Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) via two trusts (Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.[19]
That is interesting. I haven't received a check. But I wonder how much funding has gone into the Global Warming research industry, and how much more is being requested with as they go along? I want in.


Too much hocus pocus on the topic and not enough concrete facts.

Last edited by Phos; 27.01.2015 at 22:49. Reason: combined
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1777  
Old 27.01.2015, 23:11
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 868
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,775 Times in 727 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

"Denialists are driven by a range of motivations. For some it is greed, lured by the corporate largesse of the oil and tobacco industries. For others it is ideology or faith, causing them to reject anything incompatible with their fundamental beliefs. Finally there is eccentricity and idiosyncrasy, sometimes encouraged by the celebrity status conferred on the maverick.

Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice."

From "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?"
__________________
Whatever works
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank FrankZappa for this useful post:
  #1778  
Old 27.01.2015, 23:17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Is asking for more proof denialism? Or would 'scientists' rather set a lower bar for themselves in the interest of.... what? I had hoped real 'scientists' would rather get to the bottom of the matter.

What is it that 'scientists' propose for their Global Warming theories anyway? Restructuring of society according to their theories, or merely more research funding?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1779  
Old 27.01.2015, 23:36
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,430
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,156 Times in 7,618 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
The Voltaire quote i mentioned on the BBC radio discussion last night about global warming was:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong."

Why push the global warming agenda? There is a lot of profit for many people. Carbon taxes, carbon credits, cap and trade system, carbon derivatives. You enable a new large scale financial system.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #1780  
Old 28.01.2015, 06:07
Texaner's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zentralschweiz
Posts: 2,047
Groaned at 99 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 2,984 Times in 1,429 Posts
Texaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Why push the global warming agenda? There is a lot of profit for many people. Carbon taxes, carbon credits, cap and trade system, carbon derivatives. You enable a new large scale financial system.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 16:17.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0