discovery channel has 2 hour special tonight on the global warming debate.

[samayam]

stevieD-i have bumped one of my previous posts, which may be the one that SixFive is talking about. Also, I have included the links at the end of this post for your viewing pleasure. I mean not to say that global warming is BS, rather that the alarmist scientists who say humans are changing earths climate so extremely that we will have to change our lives to accomidate it-are overstating the point. the earth has warmed and cooled since it began and will continue to do so no matter what.
my favorite global warming alarmist quotation is one i have read time and time again. "The earth hasnt been this warm for 400 years". This may be true, but 400 years ago the earth was this warm, and i dont recall any cars and factories and airplanes clogging our atmosphere.
my point is this: we need some honest debate on the subject and that is exactly what we arent getting. mixing politics with atmospheric science (and that is exactly what is happening Note that Al Gore is now the spokesman for the GW growd) is like mixing oil and water.
anyways, check out the links and consider the fact that much more money is going INTO PROVING global warming for a host of reasons than the amount of money going into DISPROVING its effects. skepticism remains my priority.

http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/global-warming-religion-or-science

http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/...d-by-global-warming-but-political-hot-air-is-

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/index.html

 

[Jabberwocky]

Sam...you really might want to expand your sources beyond the Dallas, TX based "think tank" known as the "NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS". Remember all the "scientists" that Phillip Morris brought out to argue against the cancer causing effects of cigs? Kind of an eery similarity really, but I digress...Do you really want me to list all of the legimate scientific institutions that fundamentally disagree with your Exxon sponsored collection of idiotic sell-outs?


"consider the fact that much more money is going INTO PROVING global warming for a host of reasons than the amount of money going into DISPROVING its effects. skepticism remains my priority."

I disagree with your assertion about the money flow and the motivation therein. I have no facts to back it up though.

I do agree that skepticism is always called for and I will grant that when I was a kid I heard global warming alarmist affirmations that we would all be dead by now. I do not know what the timetable is, and I do not know what is just a natural cycle and what is man made. I do, however, accept that we are in the midst of such a cycle and there is solid science saying that we are having a significant effect. Regardless of any global warming disagreements, can't we all agree that getting off of foriegn oil and developing self-sustaining, renewable energy sources is a good idea for alot of reasons? I do not like the fact that every time I am at the pump I am at some level working for the Saudis and the Iranians and paying for the bullets and the guns that are ultimately aimed at us.

 

[samayam]

in 1998 15,000 scientists signed a petition to urge the US to not sign Kyoto. It isnt just me, and a bunch of other idiotic sell-outs. im not too sure what scientists saying that cigs dont cause cancer has to do with the discussion, but im sure every "legimate scientific instutition" you list can be countered by another one who disagrees. i dont want to get into a pissing contest with you, id rather know why you are so sold on the issue and have you engage me in discussion instead of you critizing me and my sources with brash generalizations.

 

[Jabberwocky]

"i dont want to get into a pissing contest with you, id rather know why you are so sold on the issue and have you engage me in discussion instead of you critizing me and my sources with brash generalizations."

very good point Sam...I am searching for your 15,000 and will get back to you, but I agree. Lets engage in a real conversation. I aplologize for my caustic approach. The relevance of my Phillip Morris analogy is that for a very long time Phillip Morris was successfull in obfuscating the science on cigs and now Exxon and others are attempting the same with global warming science. Again, no offense.

 

[samayam]

I just read you edited version of the post, and I am in total agreement with you about the oil. There is no reason, other than greed and political power, for not getting off of foregin oil. Look at Brazil for Gods sake, they are now 80-90% running on an ethenol mixture and completly free of dependency on foregin oil. There is no reason why we couldnt make that happen here in the US.
After your addition to the post, i think that we are fundamentally in aggrement, you just think humans have more to do with it than I do. Dialouge serves much better ends than does bashing and generalizations.

 

[Jabberwocky]

indeed Sam..its what this forum is all about. Sorry again, look forward to your posts in the future. peace out

 

[ImFeklhr]

It's too bad Brazil being off foreign oil hasn't lowered the price a bit. Either they weren't consuming much to begin with, or the price of oil has little to do with actual demand. Curious.

 

[StevieD]

stevieD-i have bumped one of my previous posts, which may be the one that SixFive is talking about.my point is this: we need some honest debate on the subject and that is exactly what we arent getting. mixing politics with atmospheric science (and that is exactly what is happening Note that Al Gore is now the spokesman for the GW growd) is like mixing oil and water.
anyways, check out the links and consider the fact that much more money is going INTO PROVING global warming for a host of reasons than the amount of money going into DISPROVING its effects. skepticism remains my priority.

http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/global-warming-religion-or-science

http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/...d-by-global-warming-but-political-hot-air-is-

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/index.html

Good post Sam. That is what we need. Not just some blow hard coming out and calling everybody names because they think it might cost them a few cents. I can't agree more with your last line "skepticism remains my priority." On everything political that should be the golden rule.

 

[Axle]

Sam the man...good post.

 

[Happy Hippo]

why would a guy who has dedicated his entire professional career to a cause be in any way objective?

Precisely because they have dedicated their lives to science. They are SCIENTISTS not POLITICIANS. They want to prove their scientific theories correct. That's why there are international collaborations with all these scientists - across political lines they all agree.

And the burden of proof does lie with the doubters in this case, because the majority of scientists and facts link human activities to global warming.

In the case of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, the burden of proof would lie with those who want to prove he/she exists, so it is not a good analogy.

 

[dr. freeze]

Precisely because they have dedicated their lives to science. They are SCIENTISTS not POLITICIANS. They want to prove their scientific theories correct. That's why there are international collaborations with all these scientists - across political lines they all agree.

And the burden of proof does lie with the doubters in this case, because the majority of scientists and facts link human activities to global warming.

In the case of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, the burden of proof would lie with those who want to prove he/she exists, so it is not a good analogy.

actually, they are storytellers not science as scientific evidence and the method MUST be falsifiable

this whole global warming scare has nothign to do with science nor the scientific method

unfortunately, for laypersons such as yourself, who have little to no background in science, you are quickly mislead by these storytellers seeking government funding and job security

 

[Jabberwocky]

So the whole global warming hoax is a massive conspiracy organized by scientists all over the world who are perpetuating this myth in order to receive government funding and job security.... :142smilie

ummm...ok.

what discipline is your PHD in freeze?

 

[Happy Hippo]

actually, they are storytellers not science as scientific evidence and the method MUST be falsifiable

this whole global warming scare has nothign to do with science nor the scientific method

unfortunately, for laypersons such as yourself, who have little to no background in science, you are quickly mislead by these storytellers seeking government funding and job security

Are you a scientist Dr. Freeze?

I love how you just assume I am a "layperson" with no background in science, when the fact of the matter is that I work in one of the top scientific communities in the world at the University of Colorado.

And guess what - the government tells us what projects they want done, and then we apply for funding. That is how it works. So although we do seek government funding and job security, it is dictated by what scientific projects the government wants done.

I have said it before, but I will say it again. Immediately after Bush was re-elected he cut our renewable energy research budget through DOE by 2/3. Now if we are trying to wean off of foreign oil and reduce greenhouse emissions, this would be a good budget to fund. But our government doesn't believe there is a problem yet, or doesn't want to act. Bush has been notorious for ignoring the opinions of scientists during his term.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/19/scientists.bush.ap/

I'm done with this thread now - it is obvious you have made up your mind and won't even consider the facts and opinions of respected scientists.

 

[kosar]

Are you a scientist Dr. Freeze?

I love how you just assume I am a "layperson" with no background in science, when the fact of the matter is that I work in one of the top scientific communities in the world at the University of Colorado.

No, but Freeze did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[freelancc]

No, but Freeze did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

:lol: :lol:

 

[Jabberwocky]

"unfortunately, for laypersons such as yourself, who have little to no background in science, you are quickly mislead by these storytellers seeking government funding and job security"

:142smilie :142smilie :142smilie :142smilie

after Hippo torched freeze, that condecsending, patronizing, idiotic response kills me even more.

 

[dr. freeze]

freeze is a published scientist, so yes

he also uses established scientific methods which include testing hypotheses and coming up with results which either support or do not support an initial proposal

this gives such theories meaning supported by evidence

these "climateologists" or whatever they call themselves find themselves a limited amount of inherently biased data and draw any conclusion they want from such

this is not science, it is story telling

unfortunately, even with detailed explanations, minions such as yourselves cannot be taken off the wrong path with a little bit of guidance so carry on

 

[Chadman]

Please, PLEASE...all of you, stay the Hell out of Freeze's yard.

Seriously, good doctor, why do you waste your time here with underling minions? You seem so frustrated with everything...maybe this isn't the best place for a high-brow such as yourself. And some here have the gall to call the left-wing idealists that post here "elitists."

 

[blgstocks]

I'm done with this thread now - it is obvious you have made up your mind and won't even consider the facts and opinions of respected scientists.

First off, Kosar that was hilarious
Secondly, I think it is obvious that alot of us have made up our minds on the issue, including you Hippo.
Thirdyly, I was just commenting that this scare tactic "documentary" with a bunch of computer graphics showing new york underwater isnt what we "need to know about global warming"
What we need is a debate between scientist who believe in it and those who don't. Despite what many on here have said, there are plenty on both sides. I do not give much weight to one-sided arguments, yes all "facts" are one sided, but there was very little in fact giving and much more in "well this could happen".

I think Dennis Miller said it best for me, (This is paraphrased.) "What do you guys think about global warming? Me, I don't know about it. Yeah I believe it, but i dont know how much of it I believe. It sounds like earths temperature has risen by about 1 degree over the last hundred years. But excuse me for not buying into the idea that we had a firm grasp on reading the temperature of the earth's magma a hundred years ago.We were still shitting in a hole in the ground"

And one more thing, when the scientist dug up that block of ice with the co2 samples in it that were supposed to show us how hot the earth was 600,000 years ago. Why didnt it look like a very low line and then a dramatic rise(if it is all mans fault) it looked more like a 5 year run of microsoft. Up and down severe up and down in the middle of the chart too, which i am geussing is 300,000 years ago?

Either way, I was reading about it a lil bit and I read that Al Gore gave a speech saying GBush was a coward, and how global warming is rapidly heating our earth up. The funny thing about it was he was giving the speech to a group of new yorkers that were standing in 18degree weather and it was 1 degree off of setting a record low for the city that had not been broken in 47 years. Not that this says anything about global warming, just thought some might find it funny. I know i did.

 

[Jabberwocky]

freeze also likes to talk about himself in the third person...what publications of yours can I check out?