Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Weather Channel founder wants to sue Al Gore
Oerdin:
--- Quote from: jhocking on 10 Aug 2008, 07:25 ---Just saw this on another forum, posted by a fellow who is clearly not a fan of Al Gore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKVkgY45eLU
I was struck by the part about there being 30,000 scientists, and supporting the scientists are 9,000 PHD researchers. Wait, so if only a fraction of the "scientists" have doctorates, what exactly is their definition of a scientist? I mean, is every tom-dick-and-harry with a vested interest in the global warming debate considered a scientist?
Given that bit of hand waving, I'm rather leery of the "9000 PHd researchers" bit too. I mean, I'm sure they really do have 9000 people with PHds lined up, but PHds in what?
--- End quote ---
Just more denialist junk the same as the creationists put out.
Jimmy the Squid:
I think the thing to remember is that if we're not careful, we could end up in a Waterworld situation. I don't think anyone wants that, do you?
Oli:
I think that's a double edged sword really. I mean, sure it'd be like we were starring in waterworld for eternity, but it would also mean that every copy of waterworld would have been destroyed.
Leonidas:
--- Quote from: dennis on 13 Aug 2008, 11:18 ---
No one is arguing that the earth doesn't undergo natural climate change. Geological and biological activity over geological time scales have changed the composition of the atmosphere to a great degree, causing warming and cooling, ice ages, etc. However, the scientific consensus on global warming is that it doesn't fit the pattern of past climate change. Also, consider that the data used to determine that the climate changed in the past is the same data that supports the theory of global warming.
--- End quote ---
Since when has it been scientific consensus? I've already stressed and explained that in no way is the theory of man made global warming a definate.
--- Quote from: dennis on 13 Aug 2008, 11:18 ---
Arguing that global warming is natural because the climate was different in the past is just a red herring.
--- End quote ---
No. It is in fact a precedent. Proof that the temperature has always changed and always will. Long before man had any influence over the world at all.
--- Quote from: dennis on 13 Aug 2008, 11:18 ---Also, there is evidence that there is much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than there was at the beginning of the industrial age, and that the increase in carbon dioxide is man-made because carbon from different sources has a different isotope profile.
--- End quote ---
Depends on where you get your sources. I've read in a bumber of places that man-made CO2 in the earths atmosphere accounts for somewhere between 1-3% of the total, the rest occurring naturally.
--- Quote from: dennis on 13 Aug 2008, 11:18 ---
If you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, then the increase in global average temperature over recent history supports the theory that global warming is man-made. Of course, this isn't proven, but it's what the evidence supports.
--- End quote ---
Again, what evidence? There is evidence that the global temperature of the earth has cooled (hence the need to use the term climate change now) in the past 12-24 months after a period where it did rise. There is also proof (that I have already shown a glimpse of) that the earths temperature has more to do with solar activity than anything man made.
--- Quote from: dennis ---
--- Quote from: Leonidas ---
--- Quote from: dennis ---You know this is a popular conspiracy theory, right? In league with fluoridated water mind-control and 9-11 being an inside job?
Also, the fact that governments are capitalizing on global warming hysteria to pass laws and increase taxes has absolutely nothing to do with the legitimacy of global warming. It speaks more to the fact that our government acts in its own interests rather than that of its people. It's fine to believe in an unpopular cause, but at least do it for a good reason.
--- End quote ---
Actually it has a lot to do with the legitimacy of global warming. I can't overly comment on the American or Canadian goverments as I'm in the UK. The the whole thing is as cynical as hell. Governments treat us like idiots and they are hardly beyond using any means possible to use any chance they can get to increase their level of intrusion into our lives and ring more money out of us. This Global Warming panic is an absolute God-send for big business and governments alike. Especially as anyone who dares question their motives and the legitimacy of the global warming argument is ignored and ridiculed as someone who would kill us all!!!!
--- End quote ---
Again, I say: So what? Setting aside the fact that you're not offering any evidence that the government is participating in a conspiracy to defraud the public and just appealing to cynicism, how exactly does this invalidate the science? I mean, if I take advantage of a downpour to gouge people on the price of my umbrellas for sale, does it change the fact that it's raining?
--- End quote ---
Well, what if it wasn't actually raining but you could convince people that it was, and also convince them that it was their own fault? You bombard them with so called sicentific proof and feel off their guilt and then go and introduce an umbrella tax of course.
--- Quote from: RedLion on 14 Aug 2008, 12:04 ---
Also, your graphs contradict themselves. Some show the world cooling now, some show it warming, but not by as much as most conventional graphs or temperature increases show. For example, your first one shows a sudden drop in temperature at the beginning of this year; your 5th one shows a skyrocketing heatwave, though not above the peak further back in the graph. Your data doesn't even correlate. Cardinal rule of science: you can't take one aspect of a graph or of research that corresponds and ignore the parts that contradict each other.
--- End quote ---
You're missing the point, which is of course that the argument about global warming/climate change is far from over and far from proven. The point is that there is so much so called evidence out there that contradicts other sources. And it's not my data. I didn't perform any scientific research with which to come to any conclusions.
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 14 Aug 2008, 12:57 ---Leonidas claims that the University of Alabama is more of an authority on global climate change than NASA.
--- End quote ---
I don't remember claiming anything of the sort. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make claims against myself which are untrue.
jhocking:
--- Quote from: Leonidas on 14 Aug 2008, 07:50 ---You might not take Penn and Teller to be the most scientific, and as everything and everyone there is a bias. Still, it's amusing.
--- End quote ---
Thank you for introducing me to this show, some of the other episodes are hilarious. The hippies in the dolphin episode were so ridiculous, and the bit in the immigration episode where they had illegal immigrants build a wall and then race to the other side was amazing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version