Lamron
Benevolent Dictator
Posts: 5,214
|
Post by Lamron on Apr 27, 2008 15:45:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vinsanity on Apr 27, 2008 15:51:54 GMT -5
The illustration does not piss me off, but I do not agree with the connection that they are trying to make. It is ridiculous to me to compare a world war with climate change. I am not in the majority here that believes that global warming is a hoax, but the comparison is poor at best.
|
|
Death's Shadow
LPmember
I have become Death. The destroyer of worlds.
Posts: 3,184
|
Post by Death's Shadow on Apr 27, 2008 23:21:11 GMT -5
Yep Lam I saw that same magazine laying in the doctors office the other day.. It pissed me off then and it pisses me off now.
These are the left over 60's yuppies that are still trying to protest something so they get the attention mommy never gave them. If they were to be honest and look at hard scientific data, then they would have to admit that their pet THEORY is flawed and unfounded. That would be too big a blow too their egos.
To be clear... I do believe we should be good stewards of the land. But this does not mean we can not be and live a modern life also.
|
|
|
Post by Urumii-Previously ThePresident on Apr 27, 2008 23:31:46 GMT -5
Can you show me a link where a respectable group af scientists has found that hard and scientific data? Something like the AAAS, who aren't biased and have a very large group of researchers. In otherwords, credible?
I have yet to see someone show me such a source.
I've seen individual studies, but information can be twisted to whatever you'd like. I want a truly unbiased group to actually be persuaded otherwise. And it will be hard to find a group as credible, large and unbiased as the AAAS.
EDIT: I do agree though, that magazine cover is over the top. There are much more creative, and less disrespectful pictures and headlines than that. Now they just pissed off the people they are trying to convince ever more than they already were.
|
|
Death's Shadow
LPmember
I have become Death. The destroyer of worlds.
Posts: 3,184
|
Post by Death's Shadow on Apr 27, 2008 23:48:06 GMT -5
Show me credible links to unbiased proof of global warming. And while you are doing that, I will search out your request also.
But keep in mind, some were there is a power plant chugging out CO and CO2 to keep your computer running as you type.
|
|
Death's Shadow
LPmember
I have become Death. The destroyer of worlds.
Posts: 3,184
|
Post by Death's Shadow on Apr 27, 2008 23:58:17 GMT -5
I am just scanning though their web site, and doing a search on global warming brings up 97 hits. Not a one of them calling it a theory but touting it as fact..
This is biased.. Global warming is still a theory. It has not been proven so it is not a fact, if you want to use the scientific method. Hypothesis, theory, fact, are the 3 steps.
|
|
|
Post by Urumii-Previously ThePresident on Apr 28, 2008 0:02:58 GMT -5
EDIT: COMBINED 4 POSTS INTO ONEwww.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0616climate.shtmlThis is a news release from June 2004 from the AAAS, there are several others on their site. And many other articles about global warming. There are also many articles in the "Science" journal. Which is the largest peer-reviewed science journal, which is published by AAAS. These are the people we refer to as "They". When we say, "they say this, they say that". This is "they". "They" say the world orbits the sun, "they" say the earth rotates every 23.768??? whatever hours. These are the people who research and decide these things. Keep in mind, these same people have satellites in space looking to DISPROVE gravity. It is looking to find where gravity is not acting like newton said it does. So they don't form an answer and move on, they constantly are looking to disprove it in favor of a better answer. ------------ Science is never fact. It is the best answer they can come up with, given the information they have. By that statement, it is theory that the earth moves around the sun, not fact. But I'm sure you, like most everybody else, accepts this as fact and would say that it is true if anyone disagreed. Go outside tomorrow and stand in a rememberable spot and point to the sun (don't look at it LOL). In a few hours go to that same spot and point at the sun again. Clearly it is the sun that moves around the earth, correct? So why do you believe it is in fact the earth moving around the sun? Because science has said that this is so. Using all of the information they have as of today, that is the conclusion they have come to. The same goes for global warming. They have looked at all the facts, all their studies and findings and connections and come to the conclusion that it is in fact a big problem, and that problem is caused by humans. It is as much a theory as any other scientific "fact" you believe in. ------------------ Not a one of them calling it a theory but touting it as fact.. That was the point in telling you about the AAAS, to show you that the biggest science community in the world says it is fact, not theory. With the information they have, it has been proven, as of today, as fact. ------------------- But keep in mind, some were there is a power plant chugging out CO and CO2 to keep your computer running as you type. That is why all my lights are fluorescent, I keep the heat down in the winter, keep it up in the summer. And use blankets and fans respectively. I have a car that gets 36 mpg, the best I could find for $1000 which is what I had to spend on a car. I try my best to buy glass and cardboard containers of food. Use paper bags... I am not unaware of my impacts by using the things I do. I am doing much more than most people I know, and many many people in america and around the world. And if everyone did the same, we would be a little better off. And by everyone doing those things because it is better for the envoronment, there will be more global acceptance of global warming, and therefore even more action to try and slow the effects, and prepare for what is going to happen. I don't know if that was a cheap shot or not. But believe me, I do know the impact of the things I do. And I can still have a very comfortable life while still doing many things to save energy, and in turn also save money. I do not have the money to go buy a hybrid, or make my house greener. But most of the people who do, don't. I drive by car dealerships and can't even see the cars because there are so many trucks. The majority of people don't need a truck everyday. If they do need one, they can be rented from a number of places for cheap. But people don't need to drive to work in their 15mpg truck alone, without hauling anything 90% of the time. I am completely fine with using a truck for things like contractor work, or farming, etc. But the average person can get by with a normal car.
|
|
|
Post by vinsanity on Apr 28, 2008 8:22:45 GMT -5
excellent post!
|
|
Pvt._Michaels
LPmember
AMERICA......it was nice while it lasted.
Posts: 365
|
Post by Pvt._Michaels on Apr 28, 2008 9:28:09 GMT -5
Time is ,of course, in the tank for Liberal causes as usual..no surprise.
In the quest for power the left seems to have adopted selective scientific principles. Disinformation and omission are tools they use (with a willing and eager Media) to distort the truth on this NON issue. For example Did anyone know that the UN report done a few years back on "global warming" actually created a firestorm of protest amongst legitimate scientists and REAL climatologists?
They actually organized a letter writing campaign against the report. They collected 19,000 letters of protest from across the world on the bad science used in the UN report! Did it get any attention....? Nope. "Inconvenient" to the new religion of the left, I guess. It makes me puke to see Newt and Pelosi on the latest Al Gore financed TV ad campaign.
To your excellent point on conservation and "real" science. Conservation has always been a cornerstone trait of real conservatives. Period. If climate changes (warmer/colder/wetter/dryer) in your neighborhood....then all the more reason to conserve. Makes sense.
Regarding basic principles of scientific research.... These seem to have gone out the window in an effort to twist public opinion, get grants, and win oscars.
Whatever happened to what every 8th grade science student knows the scientific process:
1.) Observation 2.) Hypothesis 3.) Test 4.) Theory 5.) Test some more 6.) Fact
The hoax of global warming has "conveniently" only used certain myopic observations; Then, fabricating elaborate Hypothesis around these hand picked "observations". Where's the science? How did we get to step 6, when we haven't even even figured out how to do step one? How does one observe an infinitely huge and diverse, changing mass of molecules called the atmosphere (CO2 being 0.036% of the atmosphere) with today's technology? According to Al and the rest of the gang...it is beyond discussion....!
Didn't TIME also publish the famous photo of the poor polar bear swimming in "open" water of the Arctic? Then, the original picture (no cropping or Photoshop) was published only to reveal that the bear was actually in the water happily hunting seals with a vast Arctic habitat behind him..... Ooops.... inconvenient indeed!
The Pvt.
|
|
|
Post by Urumii-Previously ThePresident on Apr 28, 2008 11:36:48 GMT -5
While I try and find the actual science, the actual studies done, can you find a link that is as credible as mine proving global warming is a hoax? As I've already said, I still haven't had anyone show me such a source. The people do not have the ability to decide whether global warming is fact or theory. We do not have the equipment, the computers, the software, or even the understanding to even start debating it as theory or fact. If your doctor said you have high cholesterol, which in turn is causing high blood pressure and an increased heart rate. You don't ask them to show you the proof, and the science behind it. You accept it and do the things they tell you to do. Eat better, take a few pills, etc. But if you really need the scientific proof, I will get that for you. ------------------------- While I am looking for that, I came across the Science Journal website, which is published by the AAAS. Here is an article from it, I quoted an interesting piece from it. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
|
|
|
Post by vinsanity on Apr 28, 2008 11:44:08 GMT -5
The data obtained from ice cores cannot be ignored. The fact is that without a doubt these records/tests prove what was in the atmosphere at different times in history.
|
|
|
Post by Urumii-Previously ThePresident on Apr 28, 2008 12:03:43 GMT -5
Here is a link which has many reports stating Temperature increase, sea level increase, ice shelf decrease, etc. www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/I already had found 4 links from just this page with scientific information regarding climate change. If you really want the actual studies, with the raw data, I'm sure I can get that for you. But I honestly don't think that will help anything, because the average person would not even have the time to read such a thing. They are very long and detailed.
|
|
RedRock
LPmember
Never ask what kind of computer a person uses--if it's a Mac, he'll say; if not, why embarrass him?
Posts: 4,968
|
Post by RedRock on Apr 28, 2008 13:19:54 GMT -5
The key thing here, Pres, which you missing and are being deceived about by the backers of this theory and their willing accomplices in the mainstream liberal media, is that the global warming stuff (now called climate change, in case it cools instead of warms) is not science, but opinion. How do we know that? Because, as your quote about the review of the papers states, it is all CONSENSUS.
Science is not about consensus, it is about the scientific method and fact. When science proves something, or argues through the scientific method convincingly for it to the exclusion of all other likely explanations, we don't need to take an opinion poll and see which is the majority opinion (= consensus), the science stands for itself! Thus, when the consensus among "scientists" was that bad air caused the parasitic blood disease malaria, or that the world was flat, or that the sun rotated around the earth, or that tuberculosis could be cured by firing a loaded pistol next to the sick person's head to dispel the evil black bile, that did not make it so! Likewise with global warming!
So if even one unbiased and credible scientist could actually prove that man's lifestyle is affecting global climate to any significant degree at all, it would stand against all the consensus of all the other scientists. But they can't prove it, and they know it!
Instead, they say, well, even if it isn't true, it's too important not to try to fix it, and shouldn't we live greener, cleaner, cheaper, etc.? Exactly as you are saying/doing.
But in the bottom line, it really isn't about the environment, it's about destroying capitalism and progress, about moving us to a dark ages mentality and punishing successful innovation and wealth, and dragging the USA down to the poverty/disease/suffering level of the rest of the world, while allowing a privileged few inner-circle "believers" to do as they wish. Find out about Algore's Nashville home energy usage, his many jet trips, his investments in companies (he's spoken of them openly!) that will make $$$$ from trying to stop global warming damage through his bogus carbon footprints idea and other technologies/products, etc., and then try to convince me there's scientific validity in these issues! This is all POLITICS, the liberals versus the conservative American way of life.
Try this: read Dr. Michael Crichton's book about ecoterrorism, "State of Fear," an unbiased review of the data disguised as a novel, and you will see how the data has been skewed and misrepresented by biased "environmental" researchers who want to match the consensus to get more funding and professional recognition and create a world to their personal preferences while attacking American big business. Be sure to look at and read some of Crichton's Bibliography of sources, for example,
|
|
Death's Shadow
LPmember
I have become Death. The destroyer of worlds.
Posts: 3,184
|
Post by Death's Shadow on Apr 28, 2008 13:34:09 GMT -5
solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtmlOn this site you will find the source of the "supposed" global warming. It has a chart that clearly shows the sun cools and heats in a 11 year cycle. I meant no disrespect or dig. I was trying to point out that a lot of the "experts" of global warming do not practice what they preach. I did not mean you specifically. I should have stated that I apologize. However in your statement you mention using paper, glass, and florescent bulbs. These things are not "green" as you may have been told. Paper, Somewhere there is a tree being cut down to supply you that paper bag, adding to deforesting that has been blamed as part of the cause of global warming. Also the fossil fuels to cut, transport, and produce the paper bag. Glass, Is made from silica sand, and a few additives. The mix is run through a blast furnace for several hours to produce the glass, not to mention the furnace that keeps the lead pool hot that they float the molten glass on to produce a flawless flat sheet. The furnaces pump out massive amounts of CO2. Do not forget that somewhere heavy machinery running on diesel scooped,moved, and transported the sand to the glass plant. Florescent light bulbs. Same problem as glass, plus the uses of heavy metals like Mercury. And take longer to manufacture meaning that the plant uses more fossil fuels to produce one bulb than a standard bulb. The "green" organizations fail to tell the people these facts. Or inform the public about the law of diminishing returns as applied to the "green" products they wish you to use. Global warming is the current "sexy" topic for the climatologists. They receive huge grants of our tax money every year to do their "research". Stats can be twisted any way you wish, even to keep the money coming in.
|
|
RedRock
LPmember
Never ask what kind of computer a person uses--if it's a Mac, he'll say; if not, why embarrass him?
Posts: 4,968
|
Post by RedRock on Apr 28, 2008 13:45:53 GMT -5
PS, I bet you think the AMA is a credible resource for healthcare and doctor issues, too, right?
In fact, it is a lobbying organization for doctors that less than 1/3 of American doctors will agree to be members of, due to its very liberal agenda of pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-capital punishment, etc. stances.
Similarly, from the AAAS 2006 Annual Report, "Policy and Society" section:
Not quite the unbiased "scientific" stalwart you thought it was, huh? It's all politics.
|
|