Oh please, all he implied was there are people on both sides who use the issue for personal gain. You could win an Oscar with your dramatic portrayals.
Does not address my point, this is not a "both sides" issue. This is about one radically ignorant and dangerous group of people content with speeding toward a brick wall and another who sees disaster coming.
@ken42
Over 30 years of rock solid research hasn't worked. You're still bringing up the canard that there's some type of opposing research and data where essentially none exists.
The only thing we have left is noise.
So I guess coming back to the table for the in the 31st year and bringing up ever more sophisticated research and pointing to the exact same conclusion will finally be the incentive to act?
No this isn't about science anymore, this is entirely politics. It's not like we're just one paper away from saying see here's definitive proof we're warming the planet and here's proof it's going to be a catastrophe is the missing piece to action.
The Following User Says Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
The theory behind global warming, or climate change as it's called now, has nothing to do with the hole in the ozone layer. Besides, the ozone layer hole was the global weather disaster fad of the 90s... we've since moved on.
If by 'move on' you mean 'developed global public policy initiatives to minimize the damage and perhaps repair it' which was then successful, negating the need to continue talking about, you are correct.
If by 'move on' you mean 'developed global public policy initiatives to minimize the damage and perhaps repair it' which was then successful, negating the need to continue talking about, you are correct.
No I mean moved on as in it's not cool to talk about it anymore.
Until media improves in this (which I will say looks like never), it's far better to actually look at the science, do that and the message is quite clear and consistent.
The problem with political involvement is that the science is biased towards the hand that is feeding it. It really is lose lose for us.
The theory behind global warming, or climate change as it's called now, has nothing to do with the hole in the ozone layer. Besides, the ozone layer hole was the global weather disaster fad of the 90s... we've since moved on.
Since you seem to be an expert.
Can you give a simplified explanation (for the dumb ones on this forum) as to the correlation between GHG/carbon emissions and how and why that is increasing the temperature of the earth.
I was under the impression that GHG/carbon emissions eroded the ozone layer which allowed more of the suns rays in which is what has heated up the earth since the ozone was like a sunscreen for the earth. That simplified explanation made sense to me.
Basically a scientific reason as to why I should drive a Prius instead of a Hummer.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
Well on one hand we have to listen to people like you on one side of the extreme and then the people on the other side of the extreme tell us all how uneducated we are when it's nearly impossible to find an unbiased source from which to educate ourselves. The information is all skewed depending on where it originated.
Can you give a simplified explanation (for the dumb ones on this forum) as to the correlation between GHG/carbon emissions and how and why that is increasing the temperature of the earth.
I was under the impression that GHG/carbon emissions eroded the ozone layer which allowed more of the suns rays in which is what has heated up the earth since the ozone was like a sunscreen for the earth. That simplified explanation made sense to me.
Basically a scientific reason as to why I should drive a Prius instead of a Hummer.
Basically, it's a greenhouse effect.
It's like a case on your computer.
Your computer will be cooler without the shell around it than it is contained in the case.
The more hummers on the road, the thicker the cloud gets, the more heat gets trapped. Obviously it's not about cars, but, that's the example you used.
It has a resonating effect where, as the problem gets worse, it begins to speed up, and once it starts to speed up, it gets even worse, causing an increase in the speed and on and on we go.
How is climate scientists being harassed and railroaded an example of science being biased by monetary interests?
Oh my god do you not read?
Quote:
In 1998, following the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the American Petroleum Institute convened a task force to spend more than $5.9 million to discredit climate science and quash growing public support of curbing emissions.The group borrowed many of the methods and people, including Milloy, that had been used to mislead Congress and the public about the connection between smoking and cancer and heart disease. In a leaked memo titled the “Global Climate Science Communications Plan,” the task force laid out a strategy to “build a case against precipitous action on climate change based on the scientific uncertainty.” The memo details a plan to recruit, train and pay willing scientists to sow doubt about climate science among the media and the public.
The article states that groups were willing to pay scientists to discredit other scientists. Is any of this true? No idea which is the problem. It very well may be but it's hard to believe anything when both sides are so vehomately opposed and there is so much propaganda.
It means the issue is being exploited to achieve political and economic ends. For instance, it often becomes a Liberal vs. Conservative political party issue, despite the fact the Liberals did absolutely nothing to bring Canada in line with Kyoto.
The politics have gotten so crazy, that scientists are now being stopped from actually investigating what is going on.
Climate change belief is more like religion than science these days.
The article states that groups were willing to pay scientists to discredit other scientists. Is any of this true? No idea which is the problem. It very well may be but it's hard to believe anything when both sides are so vehomately opposed and there is so much propaganda.
Yeah, and how many of those petroleum studies found their way into peer reviewed literature?
You need to draw a distinction between lobbying and PR groups and the actual science. Scientific consensus isn't being perverted by monetary interests, just the public discourse is.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Well on one hand we have to listen to people like you on one side of the extreme and then the people on the other side of the extreme tell us all how uneducated we are when it's nearly impossible to find an unbiased source from which to educate ourselves. The information is all skewed depending on where it originated.
You live your whole life utterly dependent on science. You are a baby in the wilderness without it. You trust it to deliver clean water from hundreds of miles away, you trust it to fly 30 000 feet in the air at 600kph land ITSELF based on satelites orbiting the earth, and yet, on this specific aspect of weather related science (which, if you pay any attention at all to the weatherman, you area already on board with climate science), you choose to not accept it, citing some 'i don't know what it all means' reasoning?
You just choose to not accept this one part of it?
This is like not believing in dinosaurs. This is the level we're at here. The comparison to flat-earthers is so apt most people gloss over it because of how deeply insulting it is to be on that flat-earth side. This is 'let's wait for more evidence' that tobacco causes cancer argument.
I mean, seriously, we're sending robots out of the solar system, but guys who study climate change are a bunch of politically motivated jerks out to screw the economy for their own personal gain, and, not only that, the conspiracy is so large, essentially the entire scientific community --responsible for the previously mentioned marvels of technology and who rely on much of this data for their own scientific endeavors -- is on board with it.
I'm with Tinordi on this one. These opinions should be seen as outrageous, like a creationism museum. It's stunting our growth as a society.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Can you give a simplified explanation (for the dumb ones on this forum) as to the correlation between GHG/carbon emissions and how and why that is increasing the temperature of the earth.
I was under the impression that GHG/carbon emissions eroded the ozone layer which allowed more of the suns rays in which is what has heated up the earth since the ozone was like a sunscreen for the earth. That simplified explanation made sense to me.
Basically a scientific reason as to why I should drive a Prius instead of a Hummer.
I don't claim to be an expert, but Flash Walken's diagram explains it pretty well.
Greenhouse gases are a natural part of the atmosphere. They are the reason why the temperature of the earth can be maintained, rather than having all heat bounce off the earth and into space. Carbon Dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases, along with other things such as water vapour.
The debate lies in how effective carbon dioxide is as a greenhouse gas, ie. does it reflect heat as well as is being claimed. I won't say which side I'm on, but I will agree that the politicization of this issue is detrimental. For example, I had a professor at UofC that was considered to be one of the leading climate scientists in North America. Whenever a student would question some of his work he would answer with "If you don't believe in global warming, then frankly, you're stupid." Well... Dr. D-bag, that's not how science works.
Last edited by _Q_; 07-24-2013 at 02:52 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to _Q_ For This Useful Post:
Your computer will be cooler without the shell around it than it is contained in the case.
The more hummers on the road, the thicker the cloud gets, the more heat gets trapped. Obviously it's not about cars, but, that's the example you used.
It has a resonating effect where, as the problem gets worse, it begins to speed up, and once it starts to speed up, it gets even worse, causing an increase in the speed and on and on we go.
Is that the generally accepted scientific hypothesis or is it the theory? If its the hypothesis is there any supporting evidence.
I would be interested to read the supporting evidence as it would seem to be difficult to test the theory in a lab environment to turn it into a hypothesis.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
This is like not believing in dinosaurs. This is the level we're at here. The comparison to flat-earthers is so apt most people gloss over it because of how deeply insulting it is to be on that flat-earth side. This is 'let's wait for more evidence' that tobacco causes cancer argument.
I mean, seriously, we're sending robots out of the solar system, but guys who study climate change are a bunch of politically motivated jerks out to screw the economy for their own personal gain, and, not only that, the conspiracy is so large, essentially the entire scientific community --responsible for the previously mentioned marvels of technology and who rely on much of this data for their own scientific endeavors -- is on board with it.
I'm with Tinordi on this one. These opinions should be seen as outrageous, like a creationism museum. It's stunting our growth as a society.
Ironically, science says the dinosaurs died from extreme climate change borne from natural causes.
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank MetaMusil For This Useful Post:
