Joined
·
2,974 Posts
This one will piss off quite a few of you............
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
Nope, I'm not pissed off.Accept2 said:This one will piss off quite a few of you............
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
mandocaster said:Nope, I'm not pissed off.
But, as a refereed & peer reviewed scientist, I'm furious. The amount of CRAP these imposters call science is, well, frightening.
Sorry, I think you misunderstand me....traynor_garnet said:I almost have my PhD but I don't pretend I understand the science behind this. However, I know enough about methodology and research design to weed pseudo-science from real research and know this is just a PR campaign and media flak for big oil and industry.
TG
Don't speak too loudly, MC! Scientific pariahs may not be allowed to graduate!mandocaster said:Sorry, I think you misunderstand me....
Umm, I don't perscribe to the idea of Big Oil per se, and at the risk of being a scientific pariah, I did watch the whole program, and I am of the informed opinion that the pseudo-scientists are the ones ascribing significance to CO2 in the Earth's thermal budget.
Unfortunately, or fortunately (for me) I do have a good understanding of the physical science behind Global Smarming (or utter lack thereof), as it is a large component of my doctorate in Earth Science. The bandwagon effect has swept all good science (and critical thought) under the carpet as regards this issue. The issue of global warming has NOT undergone the rigorous scrutiny of science, because to do so is to practically guarantee banishment by the people holding vested interest in "proving" that it is a real threat. And nobody from "Big Oil" is paying me to say this. The physical facts simply do not support the theory. If someone were to present them as, for example, the contents of a doctoral dissertation (in the absence of the colossal political pressure associated with the issue), the dissertation would fail miserably. That is the point presented so well in this documentary.
....now back to my Super. I need to play some music to negate the aghast feeling I have every time I see some folk science pundit leaping onto the wagon. It sickens me, no, it terrifies me.
No, to get more of their money! Isn't that what Kyoto is really all about?coyoteblue said:And to dismiss the IPCC report because it's sponsored by the UN...please... what is their agenda by reporting that global warming is occuring? To destroy the gas guzzling nations of the world?
I stand corrected on Professor Lovelock's stand on climate change. I did find it interesting that he's a champion of nuclear power as a positive agent to resist global warming. Must drive a lot of the pack schizo as to how they feel about him...:wink:coyoteblue said:It's interesting to see how misinformation starts/continues. It was suggested that the scientist who create the Gaia theory was a skeptic. The opposite is true...here's the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5150816.stm
Accept2 said:The sky is falling! Were all gonna die! Send money through UN agents to Africa, and buy our wind power and all will be magically fixed.............
And yet here are two quotes from your previous posts in this thread:Wild Bill said:I still stand by my point that any one who argues in a shrill and strident ad hominem manner should be distrusted...
(i.e. Something Cannot be true simply because it was touched by the UN)"No, to get more of their money! Isn't that what Kyoto is really all about?"
(Directed at me, a supposed scientific pariah and therefore not worth listening too although, yes, you did borrow this term from another person's post]."Don't speak too loudly, MC! Scientific pariahs may not be allowed to graduate!"
Like or not, a person's publishing record is a large part of their credentials. Getting published in legit, mainstream, peer reviewed journals is hard.What are we supposed to do to judge the truth of a source, count how many articles someone has published? Science by concensus?!!
mandocaster said:Umm, I don't perscribe to the idea of Big Oil per se, . . .
Unfortunately, or fortunately (for me) I do have a good understanding of the physical science behind Global Smarming (or utter lack thereof), as it is a large component of my doctorate in Earth Science. The bandwagon effect has swept all good science (and critical thought) under the carpet as regards this issue. The issue of global warming has NOT undergone the rigorous scrutiny of science, because to do so is to practically guarantee banishment by the people holding vested interest in "proving" that it is a real threat. And nobody from "Big Oil" is paying me to say this. The physical facts simply do not support the theory. If someone were to present them as, for example, the contents of a doctoral dissertation (in the absence of the colossal political pressure associated with the issue), the dissertation would fail miserably. That is the point presented so well in this documentary.
e.
Wild Bill said:Exactly!
I still stand by my point that any one who argues in a shrill and strident ad hominem manner should be distrusted...
How can I tell, David? Many of them spout out their premises in an elitist arrogant manner and dismiss any criticism as coming from "climate change DENIERS!"david henman said:...even if they're right?
-dh
Libertarian, eh? Thought you might be. Libertarians tend to be quite rational in their arguments. Myself, I guess I'm similar but more like a classic Liberal. This of course is nothing like what calls itself a liberal today.Accept2 said:Not only do they attack people as being in bed with big business, they claim that anyone who disagrees with them is against the environment. I am a Libertarian. Libertarians dont believe in Kyoto. Libertarians dont buy into the whole climate change idea...We must simply be evil creatures who want to see the earth destroyed.......