-
| Jimmy | 1999 M3 | 1986 325 ES | -
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -Alexis de TocquevilleOriginally posted by Fusion
The Desire to Save Humanity is Always a False Front for the Urge to Rule it- H. L. Mencken
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.
William Pitt-Comment
-
True. I'm reading this book by Buckminster Fuller, written in 1977. He talks about global warming and how it will be a major problem for us to deal with in the 21st century. That guy was so smart and ahead of his time, it's remarkable how validating many of his ideas in the 60's and 70's have become.
The global cooling theory that so many people like to refer to was a scant theory by a handful of scientists that never got very far in the scientific community, mainly because of lack of sufficient evidence, but did gain alot of media attention. The global warming discussion has been around since the late 1800s. Only climate scientists are in the position to analyze the evidence and determine if Global warming is manmade or not. Other "non-climate" scientists and the general public are not in the postition to analyze the evidence and make conclusions, no more so than having your dentist perform heart surgery.sigpicComment
-
Thank you!
All these internet people who've read a few articles suddenly know more than thousands of scientists across the world who have devoted their entire lives to studying it... it's laughable.
Hang on to your global conspiracy theories all you want, I'm sure the Illuminati will eventually return to debunk GW as a hoax and validate your opinions
Comment
-
its not about reading a few articles about the subject and feeling qualified to make a scientific judgementThank you!
All these internet people who've read a few articles suddenly know more than thousands of scientists across the world who have devoted their entire lives to studying it... it's laughable.
Hang on to your global conspiracy theories all you want, I'm sure the Illuminati will eventually return to debunk GW as a hoax and validate your opinions
its about reading opinions from both sides from the scientists that are qualified to opine
and further, its about the internets and instant access to information as it happens, not after its been washed by the media.
if you still think its a settled issue you been listening to only one side and you need to have the intellectual honesty to listen to those scientists that flat out refute the consensus (which, BTW, there is no consensus).
and then question the motives of the leading proponents on both sides
fat al gore is in it for the money, the IPCC is in it for political power at the UN“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston ChurchillComment
-
That's hilarious....
So make only those who are "qualified" make all the choices in the area of their "expertise" for everyone else. Kind of like how doctors know EVERYTHING about medicine right! Scientists are far worse than doctors. Everything they say should be looked at and analyzed with excruciating criticism.
Too many fools out there to not make money off of them though.Your signature picture has been removed since it contained the Photobucket "upgrade your account" image.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" Barack ObamaComment
-
If you think they're in it for the money...
Name 1 rich scientist. Go on, I dare you.
I can name a whole bunch of rich oil tycoons, energy barons, polluting corporations, etc. They have infinitely more to gain from the lack of action on GW than any scientist could ever dream of getting. No scientist ever goes in to research for money, because it doesn't exist. Scientists don't get paid $15M a year like the CEO of ExxonMobil does. Hell I bet most of them don't even crack 6 figures. I happen to know a few professors doing research in to GW in both the oceans and the antarctic; they aren't anywhere near 6 figures, let alone the 8 figures your 'GW truth heroes' in industry get.
So who really has the ulterior motives in this debate? There is overwhelming and concrete consensus about GW among scientists who study it. Z31Maniac pointed out 1 who doesn't believe in it, can you name another who isn't a total crackpot? I'm talking legitimate scientists with peer-reviewed and published research, not just some online nobody who has a college degree and suddenly decides that he/she is an expert on the subject and voices their opinions as fact.Comment
-
The whole notion of climate change seems to revolve around an unspoken idea that it was static at some point.
Really?
C'mon folks. Rivers change course, iron rusts. The earth is not a static environment.
Ich gehöre nicht zur Baader-Meinhof Gruppe
Originally posted by Top Gear
Every time you buy a car with DSC/ESC, Jesus kills a baby seal. With a kitten.
Comment
-
Do you mean that pollution from human industrialization is a natural event such as rivers changing course?
Sulfuric and nitric acids in the air turning into damaging rains. Probably very natural too. So is the acidification of oceans from pollution. Life on earth is a very fragile balance that took million of years to reach what it is now. 100 years of industrialization is making sure we fuck up that balance.
Global warming is only one controversial notion. Think pollution in general, and tell me it doesn't affect life on earth.Brake harder. Go faster. No shit.
massivebrakes.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Massiv...78417442267056
Comment
-
I wonder which method of analysis you would employ to analyze scientific data, perhaps the scientific method? When any theory is created, the entire goal of science and the scientific method is to disprove it. When it cannot be disproven with sufficient evidence, then the theory continues to become more validating. In many cases a theory can never become completely proven but it can continue to be not disproven. We can all agree that it is a fact that the sun is bigger than the earth. But you can't prove it, and it therefore remains a theory, even though it is accepted as fact. Global warming is not a faith or religion that one should believe in or not believe in. It's a collection of scientific observations and data. In times like this I think of how Copernicus and Galileo were treated for some of their "crazy" theories. None of this really matters. We're screwed no matter what.sigpicComment
-
When a volcano erupts, is the Earth damaging itself? :DComment
-
who funds the scientists that tell us man is responsible?
what do you think would happen if they actually came back and said they don't know, or cannot prove causation?
there is NO CONSENSUS
any scientist that tells you that is full of shit
god this gets so fucking old
there is no proof anywhere that CO2 causes GW
none
nada
non-existant
post up any you find“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston ChurchillComment
-
Maybe the dinosaurs caused their own extinction because due to their size, they must've had massive farts, I mean take a horse fart x200, and all the CO2 from dinosaur farts caused a humungous explosion across the whole earth.Comment
-
Thank you for completely dodging all my questions. It only further proves you have nothing to back up your claims.
I, however, have lots of evidence to back up what I'm saying. Apparently the thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed and published research papers don't exist in your world, so I'll leave these here for you to read:
"Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
"But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases –including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today"
"It is scientific fact that carbon dioxide concentrations are growing rapidly and accelerating. The observed concentration rise is through multiple lines of evidence directly attributable to the use of gas, oil and coal."
"Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified".
http://web.archive.org/web/200709260...pa20071880.pdf
"A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil... had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on"
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/t...ut-denial.html
"A new report details what it calls an "enormously successful" disinformation campaign by ExxonMobil that used tobacco-industry tactics to fund groups who cast doubts and deceive the public on the scientific consensus regarding global warming. The UCS report found that between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil has funnelled about $16 million to 43 advocacy groups and 16 individuals in an effort to "manufacture uncertainty" and ultimately stall government action that would require a mandatory cut in greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide."
Comment
-
Your signature picture has been removed since it contained the Photobucket "upgrade your account" image.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" Barack ObamaComment
Comment