More global warming/climate change FRAUD!
- Thread starter NoDrama
- Start date
crackerboy
Active Member
lets hear the reasons you've got for so vehemently opposing any transition, at all, into alternative renewable energy sources.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
there is no valid argument against cleaner renewable energy other than the fat cats want to get fatter.
there is no valid argument against cleaner renewable energy other than the fat cats want to get fatter.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
holy shit! 3 or more errors out of how many hundreds or thousands of measurements?
this is definitive proof of a worldwide conspiracy.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
didn't i just say the exact opposite? can you possibly be more obtuse? a series of different groups coming together for disparate reasons toward a common goal is not a conspiracy. if two men find your door unlocked and each, entering separately, burglarizes your home, is it a conspiracy? there may be separate conspiracies within the whole, but agw is not some massive conspiracy. it is just another convenient excuse for a variety of groups to exercise their avarice and extend their agendas.
yup, science sure is a wonderful thing. it's given us ever more convenient ways to kill each other. provided us with the means to destroy ourselves and everything around us. thanks to science, my great grandfather could maintain a 48 hour erection if he was still alive.
science does not do anything, it is a tool to be used by men for whatever end they may choose. that tool is as fallible as the men that use it. we may revere the intelligence of men of science, but that doesn't make them infallible. science does not provide us with morality. it does nothing more than tell us how things may be done, not whether they should. your blind faith in the omnipotence of science is as touchingly naive as the nightly prayers of a child.
as our tools advance, so does our capacity to observe and science is all about observation. we may extrapolate from what we observe, but the chance of error increases with the distance from that which we may directly experience. science once told us that the world was flat, that the heavens circled earth and that elemental humours were the causes of sickness and health. religions have been built on the fallacies of science and logic has led us into beliefs that are undeniably incorrect. today's tools tell us that those primitive sciences were wrong, but they were state of the art at the time.
so the inanity continues. why do such fools insist that anyone who opposes abandoning oil is against more sustainable technologies? look around your neighborhood and try to count the number of things that depend on oil. i'd love to believe that we could give the stuff up tomorrow, but only an idiot would believe such a thing could be true. alternate technologies are expensive and unreliable, we just aren't ready for the transition. that we should continue to research sustainable energy is undeniable, but we have far to go before we can rid ourselves of our dependence on fossil fuels. making that leap too soon can only spell disaster and it is the poor that would be hardest hit. a forced transition would increase the price of almost every commodity, transportation would become unreliable at best and the massive portions of our economy that depend on oil based products would collapse.
the virtues of patience and caution may be costly and exasperating, but rash change has never been in the best interests of anyone.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
it is the first step in the politics of science.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Construct Hypothesis - How do you manipulate constructing a hypothesis?
Test with an Experiment - Yes, you can manipulate an experiment to come up with preconceived results, but if you go public with your idea, you're then put to the test, other scientists conduct the same experiments you did and when they come up with different results because your experiment was contaminated from the start, then people start asking questions. That's why piltdown man isn't science. That's why bigfoot or the loch ness monster isn't science. That's why ghosts aren't science.
What do you base this on? Show me some evidence to support the claim you just made.
Science is responsible for that extra 40 years you can expect to live, for that meal you ate tonight for dinner, for the vitamins and medicine you give to your family, to the house you live in and the vehicle you drive. It's because of science you're not walking around naked right now, and it's because of science that you know why. It's funny and sad in a sense when people, especially as they type on a keyboard, yet another product of terrible science, take it for granted.
Science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
It isn't science's job to provide you with morality.
And you still don't appreciate it.
ROFL! I have evidence to support the things I believe.
"The chance of error increases with the distance from that which we may directly experience." Kinda like saying "as we age, our bodies constantly get older."...
The "chance of error" of course increases, but that doesn't mean we can't trust or can't get an accurate measurement of things, just because they're extremely old or extremely far away. Science, again, has devised ways to get around those issues. Dating methods and mathematics have helped enormously in the fields of astronomy and paleontology. We can measure things we can't even see directly, and the measurements are accurate to within a few degrees.
No, science did not tell us the world was flat. The church told us that and then Nicolaus Copernicus came along and discovered the world, and most planetary bodies, are spheres.
Geocentricsm - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentrism
Never heard of elemental humours...
Do some more research because that simply isn't the case. Governments all over the world right now operate on a system that keeps this cycle going. Without oil, and without other resources to exploit, the way the current operation runs wouldn't work. We wouldn't be producing multi-billionaires while the global economy crumbles or paying out gold parachute packages to CEO's who bankrupt their companies and ruin thousands of people financially. That is the system that I'm talking about.
We don't get away from it, which is clearly the most beneficial move for the majority at this point because the people in charge of making that decision, making the transition to alternative renewable energy sources, know that it would compete for profits from current energy producers, and those very same people coincidentally happen to be in the pocket of energy corporations.
Go to this website; http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
Check out where the funding comes from, who gets the most from oil companies, energy corporations, then go check that guys voting record regarding energy matters or his opinion on the wars in the middle east, widely seen as Americas attempt at securing oil reserves... The pieces fit into place perfectly... You wanna start talking about conspiracies... Start there.
Spanishfly
Well-Known Member
Not Copernicus, Padawan - Eratosthenes actually measured the circumference of the earth in 200 BC. And got a result only a couple of % off of today´s value.
But it is true that scientists are expected to produce hypotheses that are experimentally verifiable by their peers.
Remember Cold Fusion back in the 1980s - turned out to be a con by surprisingly respected scientists - nobody else could reproduce their supposed results.
But it is true that scientists are expected to produce hypotheses that are experimentally verifiable by their peers.
Remember Cold Fusion back in the 1980s - turned out to be a con by surprisingly respected scientists - nobody else could reproduce their supposed results.
doc111
Well-Known Member
I don't think he could be any more obtuse UTI. lol! It's this stubborn, know-it-all attitude that makes me not even want to debate with him (Pad) anymore at all.
Have fun arguing with yourself there Pad. I'm out!
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I don't think he could be any more obtuse UTI. lol! It's this stubborn, know-it-all attitude that makes me not even want to debate with him (Pad) anymore at all.
Have fun arguing with yourself there Pad. I'm out!
Doc, I'm one of the only people on these boards who consistently posts without insults or personal attacks. I post substance to think about or questions to ask people. You simply can't answer the questions I ask otherwise you would.
Grow the fuck up, this is the INTERNET, remember?
doc111
Well-Known Member
You keep putting words in my mouth bro. I've been around long enough to know you should always look before you leap. You are advocating that we should all just blindly listen to these scientists because they are the "greatest minds on the planet" or whatever nonsense you posted. They've also had their credibility come into question because of their creative data manipulation. You constantly say that science is perfect and this and that but you keep ignoring the fact that anything created by man simply cannot be perfect. Like UTI said, it's a tool, nothing more, and like any tool you can use it to build or destroy. It all depends on the person wielding said tool. I never said you attack but you do insult people (BTW, telling me to grow the fuck up is pretty insulting). I'm the one who needs to grow up? Ok dude, I'm gonna go work on that right now. In the meantime you can dazzle everyone with your infinite knowledge on this subject.
BTW, what question did you ask?
Definition of credibility: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/credibility
dontexist21
Well-Known Member
I am sick and tired of people using the ONE instance of data manipulation to discredit the entire theory. One piece of bad data does not discredit everything in science. There has been bad data used in evolution, but that sure as hell does not discredit the entire theory. Even if you are against the global warming theory what is wrong with switching to renewable energy. I feel we are concentrating on the one part of the issue. We NEED to find alternative energy, society does not have much of a choice because A) We are running out of oil B)Coal burning is bad, unless you like sulfuric rain.
doc111
Well-Known Member
Evidently you haven't been paying attention to the news. This is the second issue of data manipulation, completely unrelated to the first issue. Two seperate issues of data manipulation. I don't see anybody saying we shouldn't switch to renewables, in fact most are saying quite the opposite. What some of us don't like is that this issue is being used politically in order to scare us into this new tax (cap & trade) which will make life very expensive for some of us, especially when we can ill afford it. Wanting our scientists to act in an ethical and responsible manner isn't asking too much is it?
dontexist21
Well-Known Member
This still does not discredit the entire theory, until I find out that all of the scientist that have concluded the similar results through the use of independent test and data analysisgot together before there research to fake everything. I don't think I will be going against their results.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the first 'issue of data manipulation' was exonerated. do you not pay attention?Evidently you haven't been paying attention to the news. This is the second issue of data manipulation, completely unrelated to the first issue. Two seperate issues of data manipulation. I don't see anybody saying we shouldn't switch to renewables, in fact most are saying quite the opposite. What some of us don't like is that this issue is being used politically in order to scare us into this new tax (cap & trade) which will make life very expensive for some of us, especially when we can ill afford it. Wanting our scientists to act in an ethical and responsible manner isn't asking too much is it?
cap & trade legislation was dropped by the dems weeks or months ago. again, do you not pay attention?
doc111
Well-Known Member
Indeed I do pay attention and I am aware of their exoneration but that doesn't mean that they didn't do it. I used OJ as an example earlier in the thread. I will spare you that one because you know where I am going with it. I am a hardcore skeptic. Anybody who knows me knows that I accept nothing at face value and question everything. Everybody here would be wise to do the same.
doc111
Well-Known Member
Does everybody know the definition of the word? Can everybody read? Go back and read my posts. I will repeat it again for all you lazy stoners who can't be bothered to read people's entire post; Whether anthropogenic climate change is real or imagined, I believe the danger of not acting is too great. Therefore we should be making the move to more sustainable means but this will only become a practical matter when oil becomes more expensive than solar, wind, etc. It's all about the $$, like it or not. Always has been, always will be.
dontexist21
Well-Known Member
The highest category a scientific hypothesis can take is a THEORY. In the scientific community a theory is considered as fact until its dis proven. I understand where you are coming from with cap and trade will only raise prices for everyone else. C&T is not a new concept, when dealing with any type of pollution this sort of policy has been in effect for a few decades, I don't support C&T. It solves nothing since being corporations have enough money where it will not effect them. Oil to me is already impractical, the luckly fuel cells are only a few years from being viable and we have enough natural gas to power them for a good amount of time.Does everybody know the definition of the word? Can everybody read? Go back and read my posts. I will repeat it again for all you lazy stoners who can't be bothered to read people's entire post; Whether anthropogenic climate change is real or imagined, I believe the danger of not acting is too great. Therefore we should be making the move to more sustainable means but this will only become a practical matter when oil becomes more expensive than solar, wind, etc. It's all about the $$, like it or not. Always has been, always will be.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
as far as your last post, looks like we share the same thoughts on the issue. as oil becomes more scarce, it will get more expensive and conversion to alternative fuels will be the natural thing to do. no need to make it happen artificially by raising the price of oil. at most i would support using some public funds to leverage private sector funds such as tax breaks for energy efficient appliances that will save the average consumer money anyway, incentives for converting to sustainable energies, etc.Indeed I do pay attention and I am aware of their exoneration but that doesn't mean that they didn't do it. I used OJ as an example earlier in the thread. I will spare you that one because you know where I am going with it. I am a hardcore skeptic. Anybody who knows me knows that I accept nothing at face value and question everything. Everybody here would be wise to do the same.
as far as this one goes, how many questionable studies have you acc skeptics found? how many tens of thousands of studies have there been on the issue? you get where i am going with this...
Patrick Bateman
Active Member
Cap and Trade instituted in its current form would make businesses operating in regions enforcing those policies much less competitive
Burning of fossil fuels, aerosols, industrial farming are a few examples of man's role in climate change
No scientist is claiming that humans are the solely responsible for climate change
However the impact we have had on the Earth and her ecosystems are undeniable
We absolutely have to start living within our means and showing more respect for our environment
Burning of fossil fuels, aerosols, industrial farming are a few examples of man's role in climate change
No scientist is claiming that humans are the solely responsible for climate change
However the impact we have had on the Earth and her ecosystems are undeniable
We absolutely have to start living within our means and showing more respect for our environment