Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Global Warming?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
Author
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 7:08pm
One of my very early stances for the paper. Not a column, as previously stated, rather, a stance.

It is kind of rough around the edges. I was not as good of a writer two years ago:

Caution needs to be taken to keep advances in environmental technology out of the political muck that surrounds the debate on global warming.

Scientists are jumping into the fray alongside politicians from both political parties. Corporations have their fingers in it as well. It seems everyone has a stake in the global warming issue somehow, and one side is just as guilty as the other in bogging down environmental progression.

The issue that is global warming has become a dark pit of political squabbling.

We are in an age when any attempt to truly care or do anything about the environment is almost a sentence of declared war. Someone who talks positively about advancements in green technology now must prepare for a long, drawn out battle of words and wits.

This debate undoubtedly will end in a series of charts demonstrating a whole slew of numbers that appear to be gibberish to anyone without a Ph.D. To counter, just as impressive looking charts can be shown to somehow refute what the first one said.

The entire mess has created quite the Academy Award-wining spectacle.

How fast is the global climate changing? Is this just Earth going through a normal climate cycle, or has human life altered it? What about the polar bears?

These are all very compelling questions, but don't think these questions should change anything. It shouldn't matter what stance any political figure takes on the issue, or what side of the issue a political party speaks about.

It does not matter if someone thinks that Earth will end the day after tomorrow, or that it will last until the sun burns out.

Sustainability of natural resources by moving toward a cleaner society should be the ultimate goal. We should do what we can to improve the quality of our environment now no matter what the current theory on global warming is.

It does not matter which political party you affiliate with, or if you are conservative or liberal. You still breathe the same air either way. The issue of environmental safety should not be used as a political chess piece, as it does nothing but stifle improvement and create apathy.

Luckily, UCF is doing its best to continue working forward.

Updates that can be seen around campus include solar panels for classroom buildings and the green roof for the Student Union. A modified 2007 Toyota Prius with the ability to run completely without gasoline combustion was recently added to UCF's fleet of vehicles. It converts 70 cents worth of electrical power into the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. Simply plug it in, let it charge and watch it go.

These ideas span the spectrum from being complex; converting a motor vehicle so that it plugs into the wall, to simple; planting a garden on the roof to save in energy costs.

However, these updates all share a common goal of creating a more environmentally friendly campus.

We should try and make our campus as environmentally friendly as we possibly can despite the great debates.

That is exactly what advancements such as solar panels and green roofs do. They are not giant leaps in technology, but they are small steps in which future generations can continue to build off of.

Introducing new environmental advances around campus keeps the movement living and breathing fresh air away from political jargon. What better place to demonstrate such steps than a university filled with students in fields such as engineering, who one day may be making even further inventions.

Steady steps towards making the campus more environmentally friendly will not happen instantly.

But we should continue doing what we can right now, and try hard not to step in muck.


"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 9:20pm
If and I say if, the financial aspect of this battle was not so convolutted with anti-american industrial sentiment I would not be such as questioned individual. We do lead the world in clean energy technologies, yet the greeners will not allow nuclear to replace coal, and other such alternativesso the answer is?

An example was the Peterbilt Electromotive Class 8 tractor. A small 150hp diesel engine turning an alternator charging batteries powering two electric motors on the rear axles. Physically saw the demo truck at the Walcott Truckers Jamboree. Same technology proven by railroad locomotives for years. Got 26 mpg as compared to the current 5-6 mpg, and the EPA would not allow it on the American highways. Why you ask, the batteries contained too much lithium, not even lead acid batteries, the same lithium batteries that electrocars use, but someone somewhere in the green movement was against the project, the battery boxes were damn near armor boxes, accidents would need to be catistrophic for any leakage. So the project died, yet Mercedes/DeutzeAlles is marketing the same system for european trucks and so far not a problem nor squeak heard from the greeners. Too many examples of good clean energy technology being over-ridden by greeners and certian financial interests, (Al Gore's "carbon credits") and a cap and trade economy subject to more regulation than foriegn markets.

Saw dust toilets, and candles, simply is not a viable alternative.

Edited by oldsoldier - 21 July 2009 at 9:22pm
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 9:36pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

If and I say if, the financial aspect of this battle was not so convolutted with anti-american industrial sentiment I would not be such as questioned individual.


Good thing it isn't, then.  It's pretty much a global deal.  Just because Hannity says that it is driven by anti-American sentiments doesn't make it so.

Quote We do lead the world in clean energy technologies


Really?  Which technologies are those?  The biggest wind turbine manufacturers are Danish and German - GE is now a big player also, after they bought up some German technology.

The biggest solar panel manufacturers are Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, with some Europeans thrown in.  Here also GE is a Johnny-come-lately, and has been catching up - by buying foreign companies and technologies.

In both wind and solar a very large proportion of the projects in the US were developed by foreign companies, because Americans couldn't be bothered.  The big shining exception here would be FPL Energy (now NextEra or some crap like that), which is the US leader in both markets.

In geothermal and hydro, the US just lags in general.  Very sad.  Sure, we have the biggest hydro facility in the world (Hoover Dam), but overall we lag.

The US is probably the fastest-growing market at the moment, but only because we have so far to go to catch up.

Liquid biofuels?  Lagging behind Europe again.

On most of the cutting-edge technologies we lag.  Wave, tidal, etc. - mostly European.  An exception here would be algae- and micro-organism-based research.  Here we have a good foothold.

Car mileage?  Here it is just embarrassing. 

Pray tell - in exactly which "clean technology" do we lead the world?

Quote .. yet the greeners will not allow nuclear to replace coal, and other such alternativesso the answer is?


Oh, you meant nuclear?  Well, we certainly don't lead the world there either.  We stopped building nukes in the 70s - the rest of the world didn't.  We have a long way to go to catch up here.

And while I will certainly agree that there has been lots of irrational opposition to nukes, this is changing.  More and more, the environmentalists are coming around.

Quote An example was the Peterbilt Electromotive Class 8 tractor. A small 150hp diesel engine turning an alternator charging batteries powering two electric motors on the rear axles. Physically saw the demo truck at the Walcott Truckers Jamboree. Same technology proven by railroad locomotives for years. Got 26 mpg as compared to the current 5-6 mpg, and the EPA would not allow it on the American highways. Why you ask, the batteries contained too much lithium, not even lead acid batteries, the same lithium batteries that electrocars use, but someone somewhere in the green movement was against the project, the battery boxes were damn near armor boxes, accidents would need to be catistrophic for any leakage. So the project died, yet Mercedes/DeutzeAlles is marketing the same system for european trucks and so far not a problem nor squeak heard from the greeners. Too many examples of good clean energy technology being over-ridden by greeners and certian financial interests, (Al Gore's "carbon credits") and a cap and trade economy subject to more regulation than foriegn markets.


I am not familiar with this particular engine - I will go do some reading.  But your general claim that the "greeners" are somehow keeping themselves down... well it doesn't make any sense.  That, and there is no support for it.  Your own anecdote doesn't even support it.

Quote Saw dust toilets, and candles, simply is not a viable alternative.


Good thing nobody is arguing in favor of that strawman either.




Edited by Peter Parker - 22 July 2009 at 10:32am

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 9:43pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:


Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Saw dust toilets, and candles, simply is not a viable alternative.
Good thing nobody is arguing in favor of that strawman either.



Haha, I laughed at that. Why think in such extremes....
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 9:59pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:


And while I will certainly agree that there has been lots of irrational opposition to nukes, this is changing.  More and more, the environmentalists are coming around.



If I recall correctly, Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of GreenPeace, is one of the former-anti now-pro supporters of nuclear as an alternative energy source.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 11:05pm
I really have only skimmed this thread, so what I am saying may already have been said.

To comment on Whale's post, I agree for the most part. I don't like how muddled in politics the issue has become, and I'm just as guilty as most people for being swayed by that.

The trouble is, climate change was introduced to the general public NOT by scientists, but by political groups.  Al Gore, Greenpeace and everyone else who jumped on the issue instantly made it a political issue.  AIT almost directly said the world is screwed by climate change because Gore lost the election.  Republicans didn't help the issue at all by immediately going on the defensive and questioning the science for political, rather then scientific reasons.  What should  have been a presentation of a potential threat to the current climate snowballed into one side yelling the Conservatives are going to burn down the world for money and the Liberals are lying.

The fact of the matter is the science is still not fully understood.  A lot more research needs to be done and more money should be going in climate change research without this political backdrop.  Fortunetely, that seems to be coming along.  Theres renewed interest in research from industry and with proper funding hopefully we can understand the issue better. Frankly I think Michael Chriction made a few good points in "State of Fear" about how we really need to do more research and understand the enviornment and the issue better before policy is made.

Science should never be made political, and it looks like we are finally starting to get out of the rut politics created.
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 12:41am
Nice column, Whale.  I pretty much agree.  And WTH is a "stance?"  You reporters are weird.
 
Darur, I thoroughly agree with this:  "The trouble is, climate change was introduced to the general public NOT by scientists, but by political groups.  Al Gore, Greenpeace and everyone else who jumped on the issue instantly made it a political issue," and similar points you made.
 
If I seem to imply that only the far right is guilty of the politicization on this matter, that is not my intent, for it is clearly not the case.  I hear all too many hippies jumping for joy because solar power is going to take down the corporations and bring us closer to the Earth, and BTW we should all eat organic foods and live in communes.  I can certainly see how that could get annoying very fast.
 
That said, I am not sure I agree with your assessment of the state of the science.  I am not a scientist myself (in a meaningful sense of the word), and certainly am not in a position to make substantive arguments on climatology, but I have been able to (painstakingly) confirm something important from Gore's movie:  the consensus.  When science develops and theories grow, there is always a frontier.  Research is always being done up and down the line, with people confirming (or poking holes in) old studies, filling in blanks, and so forth - but there is also the frontier, where the actual debate is ongoing, where the scientists can't really come up with conclusive proof.  And the frontier on climate change is NOT on WHETHER there is global warming, or WHETHER there is significant anthopogenic cause.  That was the frontier 15, 20, 30 years ago.  The frontier now is about the tipping point, about climate projections, about fixes, about required reductions, and so forth. 
 
That does NOT mean that nobody is doing research on WHETHER - it just means that this research doesn't cause the great debates anymore, because all the research keeps coming back with the same results.  Hard to have a lively debate when everybody's results come up the same.
 
And this dynamic (ascertainable through a review of abstracts of climatology articles) is pretty convincing.  Gore may have overstated it a tad in his movie (or not, depending on how you count), but I find the evidence overwhelmingly conclusive.  When scientists shift their debate, I pay attention.  Scientists love nothing more than proving their colleagues wrong - when they stop trying it means that they can't.
 
As for Mr. Crighton - I haven't read State of Fear, but you know it is fiction, right?  And Crighton was never shy about playing fast and loose with science in his novels.  See, for instance, ...  heck, all of them.
 
Not having read this particular book, I can't/won't comment specifically, but I do know that several writers have taken issue with Crighton's presentation of climate science in that book.  Here is a randomly chosen one:  http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm
 
 


Edited by Peter Parker - 22 July 2009 at 12:42am

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 1:02am
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

And WTH is a "stance?" 


Written and published by a silent (read, no byline) and collective (using the royal "we,") voice, meant to represent not just the opinions of one writer (If that were so, it would be a column written by a columnist) but rather stating the opinion of the entire staff of the newspaper.

In short, it is declaring the newspaper's stance on something — as an entity.

Even more short = The things on the opinion page with no byline. Where political endorsements and such go.



Edited by agentwhale007 - 22 July 2009 at 1:03am
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 1:53am

Friggin accidental refresh . . .

I'm not going to retype it as well as I originally did, but here it goes:

I think you misunderstood me in a few places.

I'm not accusing you of blaming the right for the current state of things, you're much fairer then I am in that respect :)

However, I do think that the general public is sliding towards that mindset, and worse I feel they are also taking the view Gore presented to heart: The sky is falling. Historically, panicking people about a threat, even a confirmed one, does nothing to help. Sadly, I think its a little too late to fix that perception.

I didn't mean to insinuate that the science is faulty, its not. We definitely know a great deal more about climate then we did 50 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Historically, however, whenever we think we know a lot about climate, we discover we know very little. I am saying that much much more research needs to be done on the impact of our involvement, and, more importantly, how our entire ecosystem affects climate. Until we understand how the environment works, we can't begin trying to affect climate change. Even cutting back CO2 emissions could have unforeseen results. Some scientists and historians believe that the Little Ice Age in Europe was due to the lack of Greenhouse gases after the plague (other explanations include sunspots and regional climate patterns, a prime example of how little we understand). We need to invest in understanding how each element in an ecosystem affects each other element, how each ecosystem affects another in each Biome, how each Biome affects each other in the Biosphere, and how the Biosphere and Atmosphere and Sun affect climate. We have a huge amount we have yet to learn, and much much more money needs to go into research in these areas.

My comment on Crichton was undoubtedly misreading if you haven't read the book. In the end is a chapter where Crichton effectively says what I said above, that we need to really invest in understanding the environment and the impact of climate change before we try to fix it. He certainly takes some creative license with the research, and backs up his views with papers whose conclusions say opposite of his, but he does manage to raise some valid points about policy, and highlight some misconceptions about climate science, albeit creating a few more. I would say on the whole, hes only a smidgen more misleading then AIT, but I'm not suggesting it qualifies as something to cite in a debate.



Edited by Darur - 22 July 2009 at 1:54am
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 2:34am


Clean energy works.

Not to mention the power requirements of actually building wind turbines, the damage they do to the fauna and the HAZMAT left over from broken solar pannels.

KBK
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:06am
 
 
 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:35am
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Friggin accidental refresh . . .

 
I hate that.  Reminds me of why KRL always typed his posts in Word and copied.

Quote However, I do think that the general public is sliding towards that mindset, and worse I feel they are also taking the view Gore presented to heart: The sky is falling. Historically, panicking people about a threat, even a confirmed one, does nothing to help. Sadly, I think its a little too late to fix that perception.

I didn't mean to insinuate that the science is faulty, its not. We definitely know a great deal more about climate then we did 50 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Historically, however, whenever we think we know a lot about climate, we discover we know very little. I am saying that much much more research needs to be done on the impact of our involvement, and, more importantly, how our entire ecosystem affects climate. Until we understand how the environment works, we can't begin trying to affect climate change. Even cutting back CO2 emissions could have unforeseen results. Some scientists and historians believe that the Little Ice Age in Europe was due to the lack of Greenhouse gases after the plague (other explanations include sunspots and regional climate patterns, a prime example of how little we understand). We need to invest in understanding how each element in an ecosystem affects each other element, how each ecosystem affects another in each Biome, how each Biome affects each other in the Biosphere, and how the Biosphere and Atmosphere and Sun affect climate. We have a huge amount we have yet to learn, and much much more money needs to go into research in these areas.

 
Re-reading your earlier post I see that I went off the deep end a bit.  I agree wholeheartedly with the above.
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:38am
Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:



Clean energy works.

Not to mention the power requirements of actually building wind turbines, the damage they do to the fauna and the HAZMAT left over from broken solar pannels.

KBK
 
Yep, clean energy does work.  It works very well.
 
But nobody ever said there was no environmental cost (nobody sane, anyway).  Similarly, nobody would ever compare the environmental cost from the occasional busted gearbox in a windmill to the environmental cost of fossil fuels (nobody sane, anyway).
 
And yes, windmills and solar panels have to be built, and there is a cost to that.  They do in fact not appear spontaneously like manna from heaven.  But neither do coal plants.  Apples to apples, there is no comparison.


Edited by Peter Parker - 22 July 2009 at 10:39am

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:47am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

[false propaganda]
 
Really, FE?  Really?  The Great Global Warming Swindle?  Really? 
 
You must really hate Google.  And Yahoo.  And Bing.  And Lycos.  And the public library. 
 
Seriously - really?

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:54am
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:56am
Ok, that's it.  I am not responding to any more FE posts that consist entirely of links.
 
I need some claim of fact, a statement of theory, an argument - something.  I read your linked article, FE, now tell me your point.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:59am
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Ok, that's it.  I am not responding to any more FE posts that consist entirely of links.
 
I need some claim of fact, a statement of theory, an argument - something.  I read your linked article, FE, now tell me your point.
AKA, nearly every post.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 11:42am

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml

 

 

So the "era" of transparency, actually means, "we look at facts that we like". Then ignore all others, while stifling them...

 

I don't bother with "debating" with you peter, as your debates are always the same. I just put out the facts that prove your opinion is so jaded that it is pretty much a religion for you. You have to believe, and anyone who speaks out against it, you claim must be a bumpkin with no intelligence. (really, find a new argument, that one is VERY stale).

 

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

but I find the evidence overwhelmingly conclusive.  When scientists shift their debate, I pay attention.  Scientists love nothing more than proving their colleagues wrong - when they stop trying it means that they can't.

 

 

 

Or it means they are being silenced... As my article that I posted clearly points out. As well as my other links that I posted, also pointing out the "blacklisting" of anyone who speaks out against the "global warming religion/ideology".

 

 

I also find funny your attacks on other groups, because you don’t like them…

 

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

  The real problem with CEI is the crap they spout.

But the main reason you should dismiss CEI, of course, is because they spout lies.

 

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Funding of any agenda based research from either side of the issue has credibility issues.


Absolutely true, and an extra skeptical read should always be applied when the conclusions align with funders' interests.

But not all interest-funded research is bad - most of it is good.  Scientists as a rule are actually looking for the truth - that's why they became research scientists.

More importantly, we cannot simply lump all claims of science together as "research."  The IPCC reports are scientific research projects.  What the CEI puts out is NOT science of any kind, but pure propaganda.

I will listen to scientists with a contrary view - in fact, I seek them out - regardless of their funding source.  But propaganda is just that.  It is not new knowledge, or even knowledge at all, but intentional spin.

So yes, consider the source of funding, but most of all consider the nature of the information being presented.

 

Nice statements, too bad you don’t follow them… If you truly were interested in looking at “science” then you would have a problem with gore spouting off about the 2,500 “scientists” that signed off on his “findings”…

 

When they all don’t actually agree…

 

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_12854537

 

I copy pasted the parts of the article that were interesting.

 

Tripp, a member of the IPCC since 2004, is listed as one of 450 IPCC "lead authors"

"It shows what the IPCC touts as a consensus is less than a consensus. Even within that group not everyone is in total agreement,"

He said there is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made. "It well may be, but we're not scientifically there yet."

He also criticized modeling schemes to evaluate global warming, but stopped short of commenting on climate modeling used by the IPCC, saying "I don't have the expertise."

But meteorologist Thomas Reichler did just that. He was involved in a University of Utah study that the IPCC models "are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on reversing global warming trends."

Neal Briggs, who farms nearly 300 acres in Syracuse, said he's comfortable that the Farm Bureau presents only one side of the climate debate because "the science behind it isn't sound. From what I've researched, we are not a large contributor to global warming."

 

 

Facts are, IPCC is representing government funded sciences, and based on your so called “skepticism” of following the money… Seems like you would be less likely to follow their “biased” science that is now wanting to tax us at a higher rate to pay for supposed “harm” that we caused… Which hasn’t been proven…

 

They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 11:46am
Oh, and don't read this... It will hurt the 2,500 number that is "fact" in our media...
 
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 July 2009 at 11:59am
Personally, I love global warming.  I hate snow, and I live in the mountains, global warming needs to speed it's ass up.  I start off every day the same way;  I wake up in the morning, grab two cans of hairspray, and spray them maliciously into the Ozone layer. 

Sometimes I leave my car running all day out in the drive way too.


Edited by usafpilot07 - 22 July 2009 at 12:00pm
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.