[Aj_]

Originally Posted by rlpw

Now listen to this disclaimer.

I am not in any way trying to 'stir the pot' but want to show folks some things that do not get shown regularly on TV due to the fact they have no shock value.
Global Warming is Lies
Great Global Warming Swindle

Very much everything you've posted in this thread has been misinformation.

That show was made for shock value, it's not shocking to go with the consensus, or a massive body of scientific evidence.

When are these "scientists" going even publish a paper countering the wealth of papers supporting Global Warming, let alone get one peer-reviewed? Never, it's a pack of lies, they're left to appear on shows made by people that are allergic to honesty, regardless of the truth of the matter.

There is no science backing these people, there are libertarians, conservatives, and economists who seem to think the truth, and what they want to happen, converge in this universe.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2026091,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/01/30/another-species-of-denial/
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/

[rlpw]

Very much everything you've posted in this thread has been misinformation.

That show was made for shock value, it's not shocking to go with the consensus, or a massive body of scientific evidence.

Oh come on Aj. Just because someone disagrees with people who are making money scaring people to death. Are you telling me that 'An Inconvenient Truth' was not put out for shock value?

And, Ive been waiting to use this. Aren't both sides riding on theories? Wasn't it you yourself that said if it's only theory it is disclaimed. The fact of the matter is their IS science backing these people. It just happens to not be the ones you agree with.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by rlpw

Oh come on Aj. Just because someone disagrees with people who are making money scaring people to death. Are you telling me that 'An Inconvenient Truth' was not put out for shock value?

That's not what they're doing, they're discrediting the science, not with science, but with misinformation and bullshit. An Inconvenient Truth is effective propaganda, backed by science.

The fact of the matter is their IS science backing these people. It just happens to not be the ones you agree with.

Direct me to the papers, peer-reviewed if you can. Please, I beg you to show me the science. I'm waiting. There's people that claim they can prove Intelligent Design with "science", or that the Earth is 10, 000 years old, this is exactly the same.

[rlpw]

Well, that's funny. If it's on your side it is effective propaganda and if is from my side it's just for shock value. Seems like the ones I sighted were made by scientists and the one you site were made by Hollywood and politicians. Let's see, who do I trust? Well, politicians never lie and neither does Hollywood. Screw Paul Reiter, Ian Clark, and others, their just scientists. Besides remember, it's all just theory so papers do not matter.
But all that said I still admire your passion Aj. I know I will not change your mind and visa-versa but passion is a wonderful thing. My problem with this global warming thing is that I have been hearing it for over thirty years and every time they say it's going to kill us all in 10 years the years pass and nothing changes.
Now MY passion is actually not that different from yours. I think that physical and chemical pollution is where everyone should be looking. It really pains me where people run around drinking their late' out of a Styrofoam cup, walking around in beautiful landscaped parks covered in pesticidal poisons worried about global warming. I guess that is the nature lover(and organic gardener) in me.

And don't worry about disproving the people I listen to, I know you cannot disprove negatives and we can throw those around all day. I just wonder how so called 'scientists' can be so skeptical when their profession calls for open mindedness.

NAZI!

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by rlpw

Well, that's funny. If it's on your side it is effective propaganda and if is from my side it's just for shock value.

I mentioned one show... Hasty generalization?

Seems like the ones I sighted were made by scientists and the one you site were made by Hollywood and politicians.

If you're refering to An Inconvient Truth, which you brought up, which cites peer-reviewed science, then you're right, it's not made by scientists. It references them.

If you're refering to the Channel 4 documentary, then I'd like the names of those scientists. How much more misinformation are you going to throw at this?

Let's see, who do I trust? Well, politicians never lie and neither does Hollywood.

The documentary maker with a history of lying, or the oscar winning film that cites real science?

Screw Paul Reiter, Ian Clark, and others, their just scientists. Besides remember, it's all just theory so papers do not matter.

Where are their papers on climate change? You need to write your theories down, get it peer-reviewed, before it's science. I don't care how many scientists comment on the documentary if they don't cite any papers or provide any scientific evidence whatsoever.

But all that said I still admire your passion Aj. I know I will not change your mind and visa-versa but passion is a wonderful thing. My problem with this global warming thing is that I have been hearing it for over thirty years and every time they say it's going to kill us all in 10 years the years pass and nothing changes.

Where are their papers and scientists that predict this? Strawman much?

About negatives, you positively claim there's science behind Global Warming skepticism. Prove it! Instead of trying to dodge everything with bullshit.

[rlpw]

Why should I? After all, it's all just theory so what does it matter?

I could give you a list of Scientists who oppose Global Warming and dig up all their papers but you would just blow them off as hacks. The fact is that you do not WANT to believe any different, and that is your right as far as I'm concerned. What bothers me is your blind following of this. Where is this skepticism that you are so fond of?

Now, I should be ashamed cause I yanked your chain by throwing the 'theory only' thing back in your face and I apologize, but I couldn't help myself.

And on a lighter note... Aliens Cause Global Warming

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by rlpw

After all, it's all just theory so what does it matter?

What's "just theory", gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory, all of science is. It matters because it relates to reality. Gravity theory makes sure you can fly on planes without dying.

I could give you a list of Scientists who oppose Global Warming and dig up all their papers but you would just blow them off as hacks. The fact is that you do not WANT to believe any different, and that is your right as far as I'm concerned. What bothers me is your blind following of this. Where is this skepticism that you are so fond of?

Because, and I get tired of repeating this, they don't publish papers, they don't get peer-reviewed, they're a minority, they don't use the scientific method. I have applied skepticism to Global Warming, like all science.

Now, I should be ashamed cause I yanked your chain by throwing the 'theory only' thing back in your face and I apologize, but I couldn't help myself.

What the hell are you talking about?

[rlpw]

That's not exactly true, much of science cannot be proven in a laboratory, the problem with String Theory is it's not falsifiable. We disregard String Theory yes, until it can be verified, if ever. That doesn't mean stop questioning, stop exploring the possibilties, developing the theories, just means it's not science

That's sort of an ad hok ergo Proctor hok statement, I thought it was funny(and hoped I spelt ad hok ergo proctor hok right)

Well, I'm old and bored with you cussing me for no good reason other than expressing my own opinion, so we're even. And like a already said, their is no use in giving you things that you will blow off since you have already established your opinion and if I put a name out their you will go and instead of reading it will try your best to find a way to discredit them instead of taking their work seriously. You know it's out their, find it yourself (Besides, your probably better at searches than I am)

[Jatsie]

I'm a global warming sceptic.

The Romans could grow vines on Hadrian's Wall, and there weren't any cars or power stations then.

The global temperature naturally changes over time, and hippies are too quick to blame man for the entire issue.

Now excuse me while I go turn some more lights on.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by rlpw

That's sort of an ad hok ergo Proctor hok statement

It really isn't, but then this statement makes about as much sense as all your other posts.

[SnorkleCat]

I can't understand why people are so reluctant to recognize that the recent (last 150 years) industrial boom, as well as the quickly growing population may indeed be having an effect on the climate.
Of course climate change and regime shifts occur naturally as well, but this amount of industrial activity, coal fired plants, automobiles, fossil fuel use, cutting of forests, farming, and breeding of people is absolutely unprecedented. Even if you are skeptical and believe that global warming theories are "just theories", what would it cost you to just err on the side of caution by becoming less wasteful and more cognizant of what "might" be damaging to the planet and future generations, instead of cruising along until something catastrophic happens to convince you?

Finding sources of renewable, clean burning energy just makes sense to me. Resources are finite and air pollution is clearly a fact. For these two reasons alone, isn't it worth practicing conservation as well as seeking better sources of energy?

I don't get this "Oh I'm such a maverick and no liberal scientist is gonna tell me what to do or what to drive so I'll consume as much as I want cause I'm paying for it" mentality that some people seem to have. It's childish and irresponsible and unfair to the rest of us who give a damn and have to share the planet with people like that.

[rlpw]

Originally Posted by SnorkleCat

I can't understand why people are so reluctant to recognize that the recent (last 150 years) industrial boom, as well as the quickly growing population may indeed be having an effect on the climate.
Of course climate change and regime shifts occur naturally as well, but this amount of industrial activity, coal fired plants, automobiles, fossil fuel use, cutting of forests, farming, and breeding of people is absolutely unprecedented. Even if you are skeptical and believe that global warming theories are "just theories", what would it cost you to just err on the side of caution by becoming less wasteful and more cognizant of what "might" be damaging to the planet and future generations, instead of cruising along until something catastrophic happens to convince you?

Finding sources of renewable, clean burning energy just makes sense to me. Resources are finite and air pollution is clearly a fact. For these two reasons alone, isn't it worth practicing conservation as well as seeking better sources of energy?

I don't get this "Oh I'm such a maverick and no liberal scientist is gonna tell me what to do or what to drive so I'll consume as much as I want cause I'm paying for it" mentality that some people seem to have. It's childish and irresponsible and unfair to the rest of us who give a damn and have to share the planet with people like that.

That is a wonderful stance SnorkleCat. To me it's the global POLLUTION that is more important than the global warming aspect. I never said it wasn't a great idea to control pollution or not conserve energy.

I am just bothered by these people whose sole livelihood is based on how much they can scare us so the government will give them more money. The other thing that really annoys me is that instead of doing things on their own to change things they scream for the government to change them. Let's not get me started on the politicians 'Do as I say not as I do' attitudes.

[Jayel]

Aj_ is right in saying that all science is theories. You can't prove scientific theories (but you can prove mathematical theorems, which is an entirely different class of studies). All we've got are theories that can be either supported by evidence or disproven. "It's just a theory" argument suggest that all scientific studies are questionable, so I don't think it's something that can be said lightly.

[rlpw]

Originally Posted by Jayel

Aj_ is right in saying that all science is theories. You can't prove scientific theories (but you can prove mathematical theorems, which is an entirely different class of studies). All we've got are theories that can be either supported by evidence or disproven. "It's just a theory" argument suggest that all scientific studies are questionable, so I don't think it's something that can be said lightly.

Thank you Jayel. I was just saying that to make a point that I probably didn't elarobrate on in another thread where I was talking about String Theory. Their is no way to outright prove String Theory so you just have to have FAITH that it's true to use it and trust the outcome. It was a religious argument.

[undeaf]

Whatever happened to that whole hole in the ozone layer scare? Ever wonder why you don't hear about it anymore? The whole notion that sunlight is bad for us, they've been hammering it into our heads for so long, they no longer need an excuse.

[rlpw]

The ozone hole is almost closed up about this time of year, just like it does every year. Just another scare tactic.
Ozone hole plotting
Southern Hemisphere ozone analysis June 2007

[jacog]

Hole or not, sunburn is no laughing matter and neither is skin cancer. You need only live in a place like this to truly understand. Dermatologist city.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

[Spiwak]

Ah, the old Pascal's wager.

Makes a convincing argument.

[undeaf]

We've been getting sun exposure for ages, for so long that we've become dependant on it - when we've moved up north, we very rapidly reevolved to lower our resistance to the effects of sunlight. Drenching ourselves with untested mystery chemicals everytime we go out into the sun is not prudent or safe.