Global warming...
-
Please don't do that again!! :) ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
LOL. Seriously, every attempt at discussion you meet with 'so you think all scientists are liars ?'. That's not how to discuss something, that's irrational hyperbole. Christian Graus
I have not said once "so you think all scientists are liars". I have repeatedly asked if people think then that the scientists are mistaken. Thats a bit different from calling them liars no? So I repeat once more: Do you then think that all those scientists are wrong?
-
Wow! That's impressive. I read and understand your points but they do not actually answer my simple question: When many many many of the top scientists in the world from many nations all agree that we are heading towards some very bad things because of our behaviour surely it is prudent to listen to them no? Or (as I originally asked) do you think they have all got it wrong? And yes I have made my choices and face ridicule daily for it in this country. Of course that bothers me not at all. I laugh at it because in the end it matters not whether people believe the scientific opinions or not. The scenarios they predict will inevitably come to pass and the lifestyle changes they recommend will become mandatory. For example, when gas costs $5+ per gallon (as it does in Europe already) you will see all those giant SUVs slowly disappear from the roads. Evidence? GM laying off 25000 jobs over the next few years. Reason? Sales of SUVs are down drastically. This will continue. America (and parts of Europe) will be dragged kicking and screaming into behaving more responsibly. We all know of the global economy and we respect its rules. We now have to understand that our actions have global consequences and start behaving like good global citizens. Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate the logical reasoned discussion. :)
fakefur wrote: When many many many of the top scientists in the world from many nations all agree that we are heading towards some very bad things because of our behaviour surely it is prudent to listen to them no? Or (as I originally asked) do you think they have all got it wrong? There are a very large number of scientists that call global warming bunk. Who is right? Don't believe the sky is falling because it gets all the media attention/hype.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
I have not said once "so you think all scientists are liars". I have repeatedly asked if people think then that the scientists are mistaken. Thats a bit different from calling them liars no? So I repeat once more: Do you then think that all those scientists are wrong?
fakefur wrote: Do you then think that all those scientists are wrong? No, I think that 'all the scientists' equates to 'all the scientists who hold the same view'. I know some people who are involved in this exact area, really smart, scientific people, who study this for a living. They say the world gets warmer, it gets colder. There is no evidence that any of this is anything to alarm us. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
fakefur wrote: Do you then think that all those scientists are wrong? No, I think that 'all the scientists' equates to 'all the scientists who hold the same view'. I know some people who are involved in this exact area, really smart, scientific people, who study this for a living. They say the world gets warmer, it gets colder. There is no evidence that any of this is anything to alarm us. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
So the fact that they have all signed a common statement (including the scientists in america) does not change your opinion in the slightest? The fact that a whitehouse staffer changed reports does not bother you? [edit] Can you show me links to documents / news stories where all the scientists you talk about can be read about? I would like to see the stories. [/edit]
-
So the fact that they have all signed a common statement (including the scientists in america) does not change your opinion in the slightest? The fact that a whitehouse staffer changed reports does not bother you? [edit] Can you show me links to documents / news stories where all the scientists you talk about can be read about? I would like to see the stories. [/edit]
fakefur wrote: The fact that a whitehouse staffer changed reports does not bother you? I wouldn't necessarily believe it, just because people who hold a point of view that would be strengthened by such an event claims it. fakefur wrote: So the fact that they have all signed a common statement (including the scientists in america) does not change your opinion in the slightest? Here's a thought. If every racist scientist in the world signed a petition stating why they scientifically support their racism, would you say 'all scientists are racist' ? You're saying 'does the fact that all the scientists who hold a different view got together and signed something not prove to you that all scientists hold this view'. No, I don't have any links offhand. Try reading hte last Michael Crichton book, I think he had a lot of references at the end, and it's about exactly this. How much money the environmental groups make out of spreading fear. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
OK. So you don't actually have an answer to the allegation you made. I didn't think you would but I wanted to give you the chance to answer. Maybe if you don't actually have anything worth saying you shouldn't say things just to make a noise no?
fakefur wrote: OK. So you don't actually have an answer to the allegation you made. If you can't figure it out that explains how you are so easily dooped into the 'Global Warming' bunk. fakefur wrote: Maybe if you don't actually have anything worth saying you shouldn't say things just to make a noise no? The other thing I've noticed in reading many of your posts is that you are undoubtedly one of the rudest. Following your responses to the arguments you have no ability to join a good heated debate in any reasonable manner. I don't mind going back and forth with someone with some wit, sense and knowledge but you aren't exibiting either. If you want to argue 'Global Warming' in the future take it to the SoapBox where it is supposed to be. Don't pollute the lounge. ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
fakefur wrote: The fact that a whitehouse staffer changed reports does not bother you? I wouldn't necessarily believe it, just because people who hold a point of view that would be strengthened by such an event claims it. fakefur wrote: So the fact that they have all signed a common statement (including the scientists in america) does not change your opinion in the slightest? Here's a thought. If every racist scientist in the world signed a petition stating why they scientifically support their racism, would you say 'all scientists are racist' ? You're saying 'does the fact that all the scientists who hold a different view got together and signed something not prove to you that all scientists hold this view'. No, I don't have any links offhand. Try reading hte last Michael Crichton book, I think he had a lot of references at the end, and it's about exactly this. How much money the environmental groups make out of spreading fear. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
But they haven't all signed a document saying racism is OK. The people who claim the documents were changed are the Ney York Times, The Times, CNN, The Guardian, etc etc. In other words, most of the major media sources in the world. Michael Crichtons book may be a good read but it isn't a current scientific document signed by most of the world's climate scientists. You cannot give links to any equivalent documents countering the claims made by the scientists therefore I must assume you don't have any and therefore I must assume you are speaking from a personal perspective, which is fine. It just isn't a basis for disputing a scientific document. How do the scientists stand to profit from this report exactly?
-
fakefur wrote: When many many many of the top scientists in the world from many nations all agree that we are heading towards some very bad things because of our behaviour surely it is prudent to listen to them no? Or (as I originally asked) do you think they have all got it wrong? There are a very large number of scientists that call global warming bunk. Who is right? Don't believe the sky is falling because it gets all the media attention/hype.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
But they haven't all signed a document saying racism is OK. The people who claim the documents were changed are the Ney York Times, The Times, CNN, The Guardian, etc etc. In other words, most of the major media sources in the world. Michael Crichtons book may be a good read but it isn't a current scientific document signed by most of the world's climate scientists. You cannot give links to any equivalent documents countering the claims made by the scientists therefore I must assume you don't have any and therefore I must assume you are speaking from a personal perspective, which is fine. It just isn't a basis for disputing a scientific document. How do the scientists stand to profit from this report exactly?
fakefur wrote: But they haven't all signed a document saying racism is OK But the ones who would, would be racists. Like the ones signing your document are ones who believe that the sky is falling. fakefur wrote: In other words, most of the major media sources in the world. But does this prove that the sky is falling ? I have no doubt that there is a vested interest on one side in minimising reporting of global warming and it's effects. The question is, do you accept that the other side has a vested interest in exaggerating it ? fakefur wrote: Michael Crichtons book may be a good read but it isn't a current scientific document signed by most of the world's climate scientists. I've not looked yet, are you saying that a significant majority of the thousands of climate scientests have signed this thing ? Is there a central register so you can check those numbers ? Michael Crichtons books all have their basis in science, and contain extensive bibliographies to provide further reading, from credibile scientific sources, backing up the science around which he builds his stories. That's why I said to read the bibliography, not the book. fakefur wrote: You cannot give links to any equivalent documents countering the claims made by the scientists therefore I must assume you don't have any and therefore I must assume you are speaking from a personal perspective, which is fine. It just isn't a basis for disputing a scientific document. I have no links, because the credible scientists I know, I know in person. I don't read much beyond that, although I read some of the Crichton stuff. Just because I have no online sources, doesn't mean I have no sources, or that I'm basing my comments on personal opinion only. fakefur wrote: How do the scientists stand to profit from this report exactly? I didn't say that they didn't believe it, only that you're only looking at one side of the coin. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ P.S. I've read your links, and you seem to have missed a point. No-one is arguing that global warming is happening, as such. The issues are: are we causing it, will it continue, will it cause us harm, and is there anything we can do about it ? Here's one quick link, took me seconds to find it: http://www.sciencedaily.com/release
-
fakefur wrote: OK. So you don't actually have an answer to the allegation you made. If you can't figure it out that explains how you are so easily dooped into the 'Global Warming' bunk. fakefur wrote: Maybe if you don't actually have anything worth saying you shouldn't say things just to make a noise no? The other thing I've noticed in reading many of your posts is that you are undoubtedly one of the rudest. Following your responses to the arguments you have no ability to join a good heated debate in any reasonable manner. I don't mind going back and forth with someone with some wit, sense and knowledge but you aren't exibiting either. If you want to argue 'Global Warming' in the future take it to the SoapBox where it is supposed to be. Don't pollute the lounge. ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
fakefur wrote: But they haven't all signed a document saying racism is OK But the ones who would, would be racists. Like the ones signing your document are ones who believe that the sky is falling. fakefur wrote: In other words, most of the major media sources in the world. But does this prove that the sky is falling ? I have no doubt that there is a vested interest on one side in minimising reporting of global warming and it's effects. The question is, do you accept that the other side has a vested interest in exaggerating it ? fakefur wrote: Michael Crichtons book may be a good read but it isn't a current scientific document signed by most of the world's climate scientists. I've not looked yet, are you saying that a significant majority of the thousands of climate scientests have signed this thing ? Is there a central register so you can check those numbers ? Michael Crichtons books all have their basis in science, and contain extensive bibliographies to provide further reading, from credibile scientific sources, backing up the science around which he builds his stories. That's why I said to read the bibliography, not the book. fakefur wrote: You cannot give links to any equivalent documents countering the claims made by the scientists therefore I must assume you don't have any and therefore I must assume you are speaking from a personal perspective, which is fine. It just isn't a basis for disputing a scientific document. I have no links, because the credible scientists I know, I know in person. I don't read much beyond that, although I read some of the Crichton stuff. Just because I have no online sources, doesn't mean I have no sources, or that I'm basing my comments on personal opinion only. fakefur wrote: How do the scientists stand to profit from this report exactly? I didn't say that they didn't believe it, only that you're only looking at one side of the coin. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ P.S. I've read your links, and you seem to have missed a point. No-one is arguing that global warming is happening, as such. The issues are: are we causing it, will it continue, will it cause us harm, and is there anything we can do about it ? Here's one quick link, took me seconds to find it: http://www.sciencedaily.com/release
"But the ones who would". Are we basing this on pure supposition then? If there is such an easy to find rebuttal of the report issued then please show me links to it. I expect the abuse and ridicule I am getting here. It amuses me to see such intelligent people so distressed at being unable to answer simple questions. Very funny.
-
Oh please don't hurt my feelings any more! ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
Oh please don't hurt my feelings any more! ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
"But the ones who would". Are we basing this on pure supposition then? If there is such an easy to find rebuttal of the report issued then please show me links to it. I expect the abuse and ridicule I am getting here. It amuses me to see such intelligent people so distressed at being unable to answer simple questions. Very funny.
fakefur wrote: "But the ones who would". Are we basing this on pure supposition then? You are. A group of scientists who believe that global warming is a problem have signed a petition saying so. In your eyes, this proves everything you want it to. In my eyes, it proves that some scientists believe the available data about global warming is a sign of impending catastrophe, but as I said from my experience, and showed with a link, some scientists disagree. Most scientists believed in eugenics, including some really bright people, about 100 years ago. Should we revive that belief ? fakefur wrote: If there is such an easy to find rebuttal of the report issued then please show me links to it. I'm tempted to repost my link. What's wrong with you ? Are you illiterate ? 'I expect abuse and ridicule' means that the second anyone disagrees with you, you refuse to listen, and play the pariah. Here it is AGAIN in simple terms. The world is currently getting warmer Although some ice caps are growing in size, and the effect is not happening everywhere Nevertheless, the overall effect is one of warming, and some people make a lot of money lobbying for changes to things like our rate of fossil fuel consumption, because they believe this is a man made effect, and that it endangers life on this planet However, the warming was being recorded before we started burning fossil fuels to any great degree And it is a natural state of affairs for our planet to warm and cool Many scientists realise this, but their findings are drowned out by a media that would prefer to claim the sky is falling, as that sort of news attracts more viewers/sells more papers/generates more hits Many people find it easy to demonise big business ( which I agree isn't going to act in all our interests ), and to assume that unless something is done, our planet will be left a smoking ruin. This is very unlikely to happen. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
fakefur wrote: "But the ones who would". Are we basing this on pure supposition then? You are. A group of scientists who believe that global warming is a problem have signed a petition saying so. In your eyes, this proves everything you want it to. In my eyes, it proves that some scientists believe the available data about global warming is a sign of impending catastrophe, but as I said from my experience, and showed with a link, some scientists disagree. Most scientists believed in eugenics, including some really bright people, about 100 years ago. Should we revive that belief ? fakefur wrote: If there is such an easy to find rebuttal of the report issued then please show me links to it. I'm tempted to repost my link. What's wrong with you ? Are you illiterate ? 'I expect abuse and ridicule' means that the second anyone disagrees with you, you refuse to listen, and play the pariah. Here it is AGAIN in simple terms. The world is currently getting warmer Although some ice caps are growing in size, and the effect is not happening everywhere Nevertheless, the overall effect is one of warming, and some people make a lot of money lobbying for changes to things like our rate of fossil fuel consumption, because they believe this is a man made effect, and that it endangers life on this planet However, the warming was being recorded before we started burning fossil fuels to any great degree And it is a natural state of affairs for our planet to warm and cool Many scientists realise this, but their findings are drowned out by a media that would prefer to claim the sky is falling, as that sort of news attracts more viewers/sells more papers/generates more hits Many people find it easy to demonise big business ( which I agree isn't going to act in all our interests ), and to assume that unless something is done, our planet will be left a smoking ruin. This is very unlikely to happen. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Clearly neither you nor the rest of the people who responded to my post even read the links I supplied. If you had this conversation would not have happened. You are quite content to respond to what you thought I said and have a nice discussion all by yourselves. Go right ahead. Like I said before - belief is not necessary for facts to be facts. They simply are. Carry on with the rest fiddling while Rome burns. You all deserve what happens anyways I guess. Now this conversation has become tedious in the extreme.
-
No, he's saying that you should look beyond the hype, and investigate the facts. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
What, and ruin a good rant? :rolleyes:
Firefox? CodeProject? GreaseMonkey? A better Life?
-
Clearly neither you nor the rest of the people who responded to my post even read the links I supplied. If you had this conversation would not have happened. You are quite content to respond to what you thought I said and have a nice discussion all by yourselves. Go right ahead. Like I said before - belief is not necessary for facts to be facts. They simply are. Carry on with the rest fiddling while Rome burns. You all deserve what happens anyways I guess. Now this conversation has become tedious in the extreme.
I read your links. This is the sort of crap that shows you to be beyond reason. Anyone with a dissenting view is 'fiddling while Rome burns'. You hypocrite. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Huh? Does that mean you have no comment except trying to imply that I'm not being rational? Is that your idea of reasoned discussion? :confused:
You, sir, are trying your hardest to get a flame war going with anyone and everyone who'll reply. You'd have better luck if you tried to make this a bit less obvious. :|
Ave Shog9, CP-addicti te salutant! - K(arl), The Soapbox
-
As I asked Christian below - Can you give me links to a document or news story or report where many of the worlds top climate scientists have disagreed with the current risks of global warming?
It's late and I haven't read through these, but after a quick google search here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy[^] http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-20-04.html[^] http://www.junkscience.com/[^] The wikipedia one seems to be unbias upon a quick glance.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog