Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama promises Climate Change bill

Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:08:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
My apologies if this was brought up before.

So healthcare is behind us, and the Obama Administration is promising some global climate change (GCC) legislation. I believe the estimated "tipping point" for warming by the IPCC was about 2015, with a noticeable trend regarding the field as a whole- any problems we predict about GCC always end up being much worse, and happening at a much sooner rate, than we predicted. This would mean, as a minority of scientists suggest, that we are actually already past the tipping point.

Why is it so hard to convince the public that GCC is real, and needs to be abated? Why is it that experts, in general, are simply not trusted by the public anymore? 194 countries have ratified the FCCC and the science academies of 19 countries (apparently they all don't have them) have embraced the theory as completely valid. If you know anyone who is a scientist or in some kind of environmental field, the chances of them disagreeing with the theory are extremely low. WHO ELSE WOULD NEED TO JUMP ON-BOARD TO CONVINCE THE NON-BELIEVERS?

GCC has always been a cardinal enemy of economics. If we can pay $.03/kWh for coal-fired electricity, who is going to bite the bullet and install windfarms that produce it intermittently at $.08/kWh and higher? Photovoltaics and biodiesel are even more expensive.

I'm no scientist/engineer, but I study applied fields of science and one thing I have determined is that there is absolutely no magic bullet that is going to solve our energy/transportation needs. We have hit a sort of peak-technology point, where computers and genetics and certain other fields are still increasing rapidly but our abilities to produce energy and sustain ourselves are not making any appreciable jumps in efficiency. We should assume that we are going to be stuck with the technology we have right now for a long time, which means that we are going to have to make some major, and I mean major, cuts in energy expenditure (most notably in the form of personal transportation).

Are we strong enough, as Americans, to take the lead and make the major sacrifices? It's apparent that we must; as the world leader (in all the most important aspects, not the least of which is energy used per capita, average income per capita, and waste produced per capita) we cannot sit back and wait for everyone else to do it first.

Every day we wait, without curbing our energy usage and switching to renewables, forces the burdon onto our children and grandchildren 10 fold. It doesn't matter what political or religious ideology you are; the fact is that we are destroying our future on this planet. Are we going to go down in history as the generation that could have saved the world, but didn't?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:12:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Can you prove global warming?

I have not seen any real proof of it.
The globe changes temps all of the time. It has since the beginning. Some years it is cooler than others.

Scientist jumped the gun on it, with more research it shows that the globe has been doing this kind of thing since the beginning, nothing new.
We can not afford it right now. Let it go!
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:05:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
They just made a declaration that they will be "shifting their focus" to that area, there really is no actual bill to discuss. I can tell you though, that there is mounting concern from countries who are worried about being underwater soon, worried about rivers drying up, worried about a lot of the implications of GCC, that there is a lot of pressure and it is continuing to build. If you think that in 5 years we are just going to see this pass like a Y2K prediction, then I am afraid you will be sorely mistaken. Our rivers and lowlands in the United States are in some serious trouble if we don't act.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:06:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 10:05:19 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
They just made a declaration that they will be "shifting their focus" to that area, there really is no actual bill to discuss. I can tell you though, that there is mounting concern from countries who are worried about being underwater soon, worried about rivers drying up, worried about a lot of the implications of GCC, that there is a lot of pressure and it is continuing to build. If you think that in 5 years we are just going to see this pass like a Y2K prediction, then I am afraid you will be sorely mistaken. Our rivers and lowlands in the United States are in some serious trouble if we don't act.

I just hope cap and trade is off of the table.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:13:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Unfortunately, this isn't like the acid rain problem. We are not going to look outside and see Michaelangelo's masterpieces dissolving in the rain; we are not going to look up in 10 years after stopping use and see everything returning to normal like the ozone hole. What is going to happen is we are going to experience subtle changes very slowly. By the time we wait for the big changes, which will unify us on the subject, we will be past the "tipping point" in which all hell breaks loose.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:14:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I just hope cap and trade is off of the table.

I have some good news for you then: they have pretty much officially declared it will not be part of the new bill.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:27:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 10:14:11 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I just hope cap and trade is off of the table.

I have some good news for you then: they have pretty much officially declared it will not be part of the new bill.

Thanks. It is a relief.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:27:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
That would leave either command-and-control, market incentives, or corporate volunteerism as the leading ways to control it. I suppose carbon-tax would fit under the first one... Letting corporations take the lead on this is risky to a lot of us... The data is out on whether or not businesses, behind closed doors, have truly accepted environmentalism as profitable. If they have, then we're all saved, and the ideal situation is to let them loose with zero reg's and abolish the EPA entirely. But greenwashing is a big problem, a sort of market failure in and of itself. Its often cheaper to greenwash your image and fool the customer into thinking you are enviro friendly, without doing anything about it really. We could make standards for certain industries, but this has further difficulties. Because of the greenwashing, businesses are shaky about standardized reporting because they would be forced into disclosing some dirty things about themselves, while other companies are greenwashing (style v substance). So picture this: company a, who is submitting to some independantly verifiable entity to be publicly scrutinized for its environmental performance, is compared to company b who has a green logo, advertises about donations to relevant charities, has commercials with young attractive women in green parks on swingsets with birds chirping... You see the problem?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2010 7:44:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The concept of global warming aside, it's still imperative that we seek Green technology to preserve our resources and improve our environment. As a species, we rely on exploiting "natural habitats" including oceans and forests which have detrimental effects on other species that utilize those areas (and remember we're part of a chain, so this will have chain reactions). We rely on fossil fuels and non renewable resources meaning we're eventually going to run out and screw ourselves over. As Claude Martin said, "We are running up an ecological debt which we won't be able to pay off unless governments restore the balance between our consumption of natural resources and the earth's ability to renew them." I mean our use of fossil fuels like coal, gas, and oil increased by 700 percent in the last 40 years! How can that possibly be a good or hell even a neutral thing? Only a complete moron would suggest that this is not a problem. We should at the very least switch to energy-efficient technology, such as solar power to help minimalize the problem.

Now I don't know if the earth is really warming or not or if that's normal... to be honest, I don't really care enough to learn since all the data from both sides just seems to conflict with each other and I don't know what scientist to believe... but I do know that our current way isn't working and that it can, will and already does have detrimental effects. As such, I absolutely support environmental legislation. I mean Libertarians operate under the basis that one is free to do as they please so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others, correct? But I'm pretty sure that excessively polluting or ruining a world that belongs to all of us (not individual property - but the world/atmosphere as a whole) is infringing upon my right to live in a cleaner or more efficient world. Anyway, that's just how I see it.
President of DDO
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2010 5:57:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
that's pretty much exactly what I would have said about 2 years ago, but I have gotten more in depth in my studies of the science behind GCC and I can tell you that "what scientists to believe" is not an accurate statement; it is more like "whether or not to believe scientists." If your not going to believe the scientific community, fine, but please don't do it under the guise that educated minds disagree on the subject!
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2010 6:02:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've seen "evidence" for both sides. Admittedly I am not a 'science person' so the only resource I really have is Google. All of the research I've come across - either for or against - is written by guys with 'PhD' after their name so I'm not really sure what else to look for, etc. My girlfriend has done a lot more research on this then I have and she believes in global warming. Since she's not usually a sucker, I should probably believe her... however, I still don't feel comfortable having an opinion because I personally am so unfamiliar and uneducated on the subject that I would not want to come to hasty conclusions. Regardless, I believe in environment protection for the other reasons I've mentioned.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2010 6:57:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
... I should mention that my girlfriend keeps a picture of Al Gore hanging up on our refrigerator. NOT KIDDING. Hahaha <3
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2010 7:00:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/18/2010 6:57:06 PM, theLwerd wrote:
... I should mention that my girlfriend keeps a picture of Al Gore hanging up on our refrigerator. NOT KIDDING. Hahaha <3

..Eww.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2010 9:35:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Like I said, 194 countries have ratified the FCCC, and 97% of the scientists that write papers on the subject do not question the science. The only people who question the science behind GCC are people who are not scientists (although there will always be some at the margins claiming it is a hoax, and probably will appear on "Coast to Coast" with George Norrie at some point). People in my classes act like even the public is on board with GCC at this point, however I remind them that forums like this (and others) as well as talks with people in my personal life show me that no, the public is in fact still confused about GCC because there are so many public non-believers (Rush, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Levin, many other talk radio personalities, fox news, Republican politicians) that they are able to keep fueling the question mark.

A couple of explanations for the public's confusion:
1) confusing scientific terms- many people really don't know what they are talking about when they use terms out of physics, biology, etc. in everyday life. Terms like speed/velocity, weather/climate, theory/hypothesis are words that most people will not be able to tell the difference between, even though in science they are quite seperate things. When people hear "global climate change theory," they hear "weather change hypothesis." This allows for 2 opportunities for sleight of hand with Republicans: confusing the terms weather with climate, and saying "the weather here is warmer than its been in 10 years! How can global warming be true!" The climate of the Earth, which is much different than the weather, for example, today in Green Bay, is warming steadily and noticeably. The rate at which it is changing is unprecedented in history, with perhaps the only exceptions being one of the 6 major extinction events (i.e. asteroid hits Earth with the force of 1 x 10^9 hydrogen bombs).

People also don't realize what "theory" means. They think it is a guess; a hypothesis. It would probably surprise people that gravity is still a theory, yet physicists use values for gravity every day in engineering and design bridges and buildings using those values without fear that the theory will change. Even if GCC caused armagedon tomorrow, it would still be considered a theory because it would probably never fit the criteria for simplicity that a scientific law requires. The same goes for evolution, in this sense. When something reaches the point of being a scientific theory, it means it has stood the test of time, not that we are still divided on it!

2) distrust in experts- The public is weary about experts these days, when the experts in congress can't keep the banks from failing, the experts in engineering can't keep bridges from collapsing, and the experts in science are criticized daily in the media. 40 years ago, if the scientific community was this unified over an issue, there would have been no question from the public.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2010 6:04:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Fair enough, Rob. Like I said I tend to believe in global warming mostly because of common sense lol but as soon as I read more about the subject, I will probably have a firmer grasp or rather feel more comfortable saying so. I'd just like to do my own investigating is all. That said, even if I believed in global warming I'm not sure I would support a ton of govt. control being the slight nihilist I am ;) JayKay.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2010 6:08:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/18/2010 7:00:04 PM, Nags wrote:
At 4/18/2010 6:57:06 PM, theLwerd wrote:
... I should mention that my girlfriend keeps a picture of Al Gore hanging up on our refrigerator. NOT KIDDING. Hahaha <3

..Eww.

He looks very handsome in it actually :P
President of DDO
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 7:04:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/18/2010 6:57:06 PM, theLwerd wrote:
... I should mention that my girlfriend keeps a picture of Al Gore hanging up on our refrigerator. NOT KIDDING. Hahaha <3

Wow.
No wonder she believes in global warming.
It is easy to believe in, but it is just like jesus, no real proof.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 7:19:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 7:04:51 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/18/2010 6:57:06 PM, theLwerd wrote:
... I should mention that my girlfriend keeps a picture of Al Gore hanging up on our refrigerator. NOT KIDDING. Hahaha <3

Wow.
No wonder she believes in global warming.
It is easy to believe in, but it is just like jesus, no real proof.

lol
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 9:00:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:08:09 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Why is it so hard to convince the public that GCC is real, and needs to be abated? Why is it that experts, in general, are simply not trusted by the public anymore? 194 countries have ratified the FCCC and the science academies of 19 countries (apparently they all don't have them) have embraced the theory as completely valid.

My issue is that the global warming movement have conducted themselves in an unscientific manner, rejecting opposing theories out of hand and 'cooking' the data to support the argument. If global warming were a crime scene then all charges would be dropped because the forensics have been contaminated.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 12:05:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You have so many bad ideas it hard to know where to start.

CO2 theory was based upon temperatures rising from 1970 to 1995. The physics of CO2 only accounts for less than a third of global warming, so the theory hypothesized a multiplying factor. There had to be a multiplying factor because there was nothing else going on to affect climate: no solar activity, no ocean cycles, no volcanic activity. Since 1995, there has been no global warming. That is now admitted by virtually everyone. But there is still nothing else going on, according to CO2 theorists.

There is no experimental data to support the CO2 multiplier, and in fact there has been contrary evidence accumulating over the years. Local concentrations of CO2 do not show warming multiplied as the theory requires, and atmospheric simulations done at M.I.T. show no multiplier. Since the mid-90s a lot more has been discovered about ocean cycles. Arctic ice melts every 60 or 70 years. It melted recently, on schedule, and is now reforming on schedule.

The famed global warming Hockey Stick, which predicted our short-term doom, was proven to be completely bogus. It was the product of a true believer let loose with a statistical package.

The truth is that climate is the product of many factors. CO2 is one factor, and it causes warming. However, if left alone there is not enough CO2 warming to pose a looming crisis. We still cannot predict climate well enough to know if we are in for net warming or cooling. I think it is prudent to continue research until climate predictions are verified as accurate. But also there ought to be climate engineering research to develop technology to adjust temperatures up or down as required in the future.

So what would you like to debate? Would you like to defend the Hockey Stick? Would you like to claim that recent Arctic ice has diminished due to CO2 global warming? How about that the scientific consensus on CO2 crisis is so overwhelming it cannot be doubted? If you have read up on the science you should know both sides of all these issues. Let's get to a topic that we can debate.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 1:45:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
My issue is that the global warming movement have conducted themselves in an unscientific manner, rejecting opposing theories out of hand and 'cooking' the data to support the argument. If global warming were a crime scene then all charges would be dropped because the forensics have been contaminated.

That criticism is completely unfair. First off, the scientific community doesn't embrace opposing theories to gravity. There is only one scientifically supported theory: GCC.

As far as "cooking" the data, there was one scientist who did fudge some numbers. So let's throw 30-40 years of science out the window for one person's mistake? I think not. The only reason we're even discussing this is because it was jumped on by the media. Comparatively speaking, that would be like throwing out the theory of evolution because one scientist was shown to fudge some numbers in some university in 2010. This is just another Republican talking point to be logically defeated easily, just like the rest of them. sigh.

As far as your forensics argument, that's just a bad analogy. Law is more of a game, designed to protect civil rights. Science is about finding the truth. A "scientific" court-room would hypothetically only be concerned about whether the defendant is guilty or not; not whether or not the prosecutor has followed all the legal statutes.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 2:36:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:08:09 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
My apologies

Why is it so hard to convince the public that GCC is real, and needs to be abated? Why is it that experts, in general, are simply not trusted by the public anymore? 194 countries have ratified the FCCC and the science academies of 19 countries (apparently they all don't have them) have embraced the theory as completely valid. If you know anyone who is a scientist or in some kind of environmental field, the chances of them disagreeing with the theory are extremely low. WHO ELSE WOULD NEED TO JUMP ON-BOARD TO CONVINCE THE NON-BELIEVERS?

GCC has always been a cardinal enemy of economics. If we can pay $.03/kWh for coal-fired electricity, who is going to bite the bullet and install windfarms that produce it intermittently at $.08/kWh and higher? Photovoltaics and biodiesel are even more expensive.

I'm no scientist/engineer

Where to begin...So MIT scientists that disagree with the claims that man is capable of contributing to the alleged global warming issue (see "MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts data"). Oh there are scientists of note that do not agree with global warming as the hysterical proponents of the issue will not acknowlege. " Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening." - Sorry if these guys don't have the same scientific background as Al Gore. By the way, hasn't "An inconvenient truth" been deemed inappropriate in English schools? " Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'." http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

You want to know why there are skeptics? This sketchy scientific theory made by people with questionable motives ("deny the decline") are looking to use this theory to completely transform our economy. Now the really big issue i have is, these same people that are worried about the earth turning into a ball of fire in ten years, are the same people who have been against our way of conducting economic affairs for a long long time. Just a coincidence that they have found a vehicle (no pun intended) that will accomplish what they have been trying to do in every other possible avenue at their disposal.

The very intolerance of dissent within the scientific process, a process that never should end (consensus????????), is non scientific, or antiscientific. To non-believers of the theory, it does seem to look more faith based, than it does science based.

I don't share your faith, and i am pleased to question what is provided as dogma by political activists.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 10:03:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Roy, Inn: please give me a bit to post, the semester is winding down as you probably are aware! I want to research some of your claims before I respond.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 11:27:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 1:45:09 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
My issue is that the global warming movement have conducted themselves in an unscientific manner, rejecting opposing theories out of hand and 'cooking' the data to support the argument. If global warming were a crime scene then all charges would be dropped because the forensics have been contaminated.

That criticism is completely unfair. First off, the scientific community doesn't embrace opposing theories to gravity.

Well actually it does, gravity is not fully understood so it would do.

There is only one scientifically supported theory: GCC.

Science is open to constant challenge, it is not meant to embrace orthodoxy.

As far as "cooking" the data, there was one scientist who did fudge some numbers. So let's throw 30-40 years of science out the window for one person's mistake? I think not.

Actually it stretches back further than that, and so long as the extent of the damage can be measured and analysed its not a problem.


As far as your forensics argument, that's just a bad analogy. Law is more of a game, designed to protect civil rights. Science is about finding the truth. A "scientific" court-room would hypothetically only be concerned about whether the defendant is guilty or not; not whether or not the prosecutor has followed all the legal statutes.

I did not mention the law at all, do you not know what forensics is?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 7:28:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
My issue is that the global warming movement have conducted themselves in an unscientific manner, rejecting opposing theories out of hand and 'cooking' the data to support the argument. If global warming were a crime scene then all charges would be dropped because the forensics have been contaminated.

That criticism is completely unfair. First off, the scientific community doesn't embrace opposing theories to gravity.

Well actually it does, gravity is not fully understood so it would do.

This is precisely the kind of reasoning that starts this whole GCC debacle. Scientists call gravity a "theory," because yes, the graviton has not yet been discovered. This doesn't mean they are "embracing" different theories of gravity. Maybe in the extreme abstract, when it comes to different ideas about how the particle itself might exist, but not in the practical sense. In other words, we know the values of gravity. We use them in engineering every day. We design incredibly complex structures around the values of the theory of gravity and no one is proposing to change them. The theory of GCC and the theory of gravity are here to say, despite what people who don't understand how science works believe! Furthermore, letting politics interfere with GCC is nearly as bad as letting politics interfere with the theory of gravity.

There is only one scientifically supported theory: GCC.

Science is open to constant challenge, it is not meant to embrace orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy? This is circular reasoning. Using your logic, science can never know anything, because once it shows us how something works, it becomes "orthodoxy" and has to change its mind!

As far as "cooking" the data, there was one scientist who did fudge some numbers. So let's throw 30-40 years of science out the window for one person's mistake? I think not.

Actually it stretches back further than that, and so long as the extent of the damage can be measured and analysed its not a problem.

The first part of the statement is utter BS, and you won't be able to produce any meaningful evidence to support it. The second part is dangerous and illogical. Just because one can measure danger does not mean the danger is not a problem.

As far as your forensics argument, that's just a bad analogy. Law is more of a game, designed to protect civil rights. Science is about finding the truth. A "scientific" court-room would hypothetically only be concerned about whether the defendant is guilty or not; not whether or not the prosecutor has followed all the legal statutes.

I did not mention the law at all, do you not know what forensics is?

"all charges would be dropped"
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2010 7:32:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Roy: could you point me to some of these documents that talk about a "multiplier?" I can't find anything about that.

Innoman: The vast, vast majority of respectable scientists agree with GCC. Sure there may be a phD somewhere that doesn't agree, but they are certainly the exception. Claiming that there isn't a consensus does not mean that there isn't one...
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2010 12:33:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...

This wikipedia page has a picture to the right, which shows what countries have ratified kyoto/FCCC. Any comments?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2010 4:44:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/25/2010 7:28:31 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
My issue is that the global warming movement have conducted themselves in an unscientific manner, rejecting opposing theories out of hand and 'cooking' the data to support the argument. If global warming were a crime scene then all charges would be dropped because the forensics have been contaminated.

That criticism is completely unfair. First off, the scientific community doesn't embrace opposing theories to gravity.

Well actually it does, gravity is not fully understood so it would do.

This is precisely the kind of reasoning that starts this whole GCC debacle. Scientists call gravity a "theory," because yes, the graviton has not yet been discovered. This doesn't mean they are "embracing" different theories of gravity. Maybe in the extreme abstract,

Definantly in the extreme abstract. If a scientist is able to set up an experiment to see if an invisible pink unicorn is stealing their milk then they can do so. A stupid example I know, have you ever read the book Nightfall where the two scientists are discussing the 'laws' if planetary orbits and have the running inside joke of an invisible giant space dragon?

Furthermore, letting politics interfere with GCC is nearly as bad as letting politics interfere with the theory of gravity.

That is my issue.


There is only one scientifically supported theory: GCC.

Science is open to constant challenge, it is not meant to embrace orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy? This is circular reasoning. Using your logic, science can never know anything, because once it shows us how something works, it becomes "orthodoxy" and has to change its mind!

No not at all, just look the scientific method or talk to a scientist.


As far as "cooking" the data, there was one scientist who did fudge some numbers. So let's throw 30-40 years of science out the window for one person's mistake? I think not.

Actually it stretches back further than that, and so long as the extent of the damage can be measured and analysed its not a problem.



The first part of the statement is utter BS, and you won't be able to produce any meaningful evidence to support it. The second part is dangerous and illogical. Just because one can measure danger does not mean the danger is not a problem.

Well I can but I wont because you are incapable of a rational conversation on this topic. The second part is scientific logic. Your last sentence suggests you are taking my response out of context. The damage I was referring to was the damage to science as a result of falsified data.


As far as your forensics argument, that's just a bad analogy. Law is more of a game, designed to protect civil rights. Science is about finding the truth. A "scientific" court-room would hypothetically only be concerned about whether the defendant is guilty or not; not whether or not the prosecutor has followed all the legal statutes.

I did not mention the law at all, do you not know what forensics is?

"all charges would be dropped"

It would not even get to court, it is a scientific analogy.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.