By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - They myth that is man made global warming.

elprincipe on 01 July 2009
akuma587 said:
I just find it so funny that the people in this thread criticizing the majority's consensus in the global warming debate act as if they are so enlightened and as if there data is somehow less impeachable.

This is not how the scientific community works:

Majority consensus potentially has some problems

Opponents make alternate claims that have not been subject to mass peer review

Thus, opponents claims are correct.

It is those within the scientific community who challenge the majority consensus who should be viewed most skeptically, particularly when it is a recent challenge that has not been subjected to peer review. That is how the scientific community deals with new hypotheses. The previous majority consensus OFTEN CHANGES AND ADAPTS IN LIGHT OF NEW DATA but is nevertheless CORRECT. This happens over 90-95% of the time. For every new hypothesis that takes hold and is worth anything, there are hundreds of others that quickly disintegrate.

How many times do you think the "law of gravity" or the "theory of evolution" have been revised? Hundreds if not thousands of times. But have they ever been proved wrong? No, they have not.

The opponents of the majority consensus on climate change see something that challenges that majority consensus and latch onto it for dear life claiming that they are the enlightened ones when really they are just jumping on the next bandwagon. Its kind of like a self-fulfilling hypothesis. They believe it because they want to.

Mafoo, for instance, says he has never believed in human-caused global warming BUT NOW when some data finally comes out that could support it, he acts as if he has been correct all along. That's like a creationist who doesn't believe in evolution who latches onto intelligent design for dear life as soon as it gets a tiny bit of support in the scientific community. Its like people who don't like paying high taxes latching onto supply-side economics even if the underlying principles behind supply-side economics are questionable, and remain so. It verges on intellectual dishonesty.

1. All data should be questioned on all sides of any argument.

2. There is not a "consensus."  A consensus is when just about everyone agrees.  This is not the case with global warming.

3. Sure, some people jump on the bandwagon.  Myself, I feel there is not enough conclusive evidence to call this one either way.  It needs more and better study.  We are considering a very short period of time on a planet that has had massive changes in climate in its past.  It's very hard to argue a signal that is less than the margin of error for the modern equipment used to measure it, not to mention the equipment used in 1850.



In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!) 

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)

Around the Network
Sardauk on 02 July 2009

After 8 years of Bushism the US is finally waking up ?

The target is -17% in 2020 compared to the 2005 level ? That is pathetic already ...

Keep polluting guys... find silly excuses...finger crossed...

 

God Bless (old) America.



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

MontanaHatchet on 02 July 2009

Even though Sardauk is flamebaiting all over the place, I still find it refreshing for some reason. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, you have to agree that rampant releases of carbon dioxide and pollutants aren't going to do any good for the earth. If fear of Global Warming results in a cleaner earth, I couldn't give less of a shit whether any of it was true or not.



 

 

Sardauk on 02 July 2009
MontanaHatchet said:
Even though Sardauk is flamebaiting all over the place, I still find it refreshing for some reason. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, you have to agree that rampant releases of carbon dioxide and pollutants aren't going to do any good for the earth. If fear of Global Warming results in a cleaner earth, I couldn't give less of a shit whether any of it was true or not.

I'm flaming for my own personnal mental health.... I can't believe they are still deploying more energy to protect an old-fashion way of life rather than start improving their mentality...

USA should already have done something like 15 years ago... and we are still arguing on this !



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

TheRealMafoo on 02 July 2009
Sardauk said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Even though Sardauk is flamebaiting all over the place, I still find it refreshing for some reason. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, you have to agree that rampant releases of carbon dioxide and pollutants aren't going to do any good for the earth. If fear of Global Warming results in a cleaner earth, I couldn't give less of a shit whether any of it was true or not.

I'm flaming for my own personnal mental health.... I can't believe they are still deploying more energy to protect an old-fashion way of life rather than start improving their mentality...

USA should already have done something like 15 years ago... and we are still arguing on this !

The problem is if all we are doing is releasing .0001% of the CO2 that it takes to actually effect global warming, then what we are doing today is going to do more harm to people then less. Most of that harm, is going to happen to the poor.

Are you for sacrificing the poor to make a change that might not be needed for 500 years? Or, might not ever be needed.

At some point, through science, we are going to come up with a better source for energy then coal and gas. It might be 10 years down the road, it might be 200. If that time was going to come before we got to the point where releasing CO2 has any impact, then doing something to stop it now is not only pointless, but far worse then doing nothing at all.



Around the Network
Sardauk on 02 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Sardauk said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Even though Sardauk is flamebaiting all over the place, I still find it refreshing for some reason. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, you have to agree that rampant releases of carbon dioxide and pollutants aren't going to do any good for the earth. If fear of Global Warming results in a cleaner earth, I couldn't give less of a shit whether any of it was true or not.

I'm flaming for my own personnal mental health.... I can't believe they are still deploying more energy to protect an old-fashion way of life rather than start improving their mentality...

USA should already have done something like 15 years ago... and we are still arguing on this !

The problem is if all we are doing is releasing .0001% of the CO2 that it takes to actually effect global warming, then what we are doing today is going to do more harm to people then less. Most of that harm, is going to happen to the poor.

Are you for sacrificing the poor to make a change that might not be needed for 500 years? Or, might not ever be needed.

At some point, through science, we are going to come up with a better source for energy then coal and gas. It might be 10 years down the road, it might be 200. If that time was going to come before we got to the point where releasing CO2 has any impact, then doing something to stop it now is not only pointless, but far worse then doing nothing at all.

 

Nuclear cold fusion ? In 10 it might be too late, in 200 we won't be there anymore.. 

No it won't, not like that. Money and investment go were the economy requires them to go. Fossil fuels are still to cheap to really motivate the economy to do something about, without constraints of taxes and climate change.

Back in the seventies, during the first petrol crisis, governements (US included) had started some initatives to become less dependent of oil.

Those initative were ruined by the decision of the producing countries to severly lower their price so that the world economy would be addicted to it....

Now we are talking about the return of coal... this is madness...

And I don't believe any second that we are only responsible for .0000001% of the total emission... come on...

 

 



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

TheRealMafoo on 02 July 2009
Sardauk said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Sardauk said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Even though Sardauk is flamebaiting all over the place, I still find it refreshing for some reason. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, you have to agree that rampant releases of carbon dioxide and pollutants aren't going to do any good for the earth. If fear of Global Warming results in a cleaner earth, I couldn't give less of a shit whether any of it was true or not.

I'm flaming for my own personnal mental health.... I can't believe they are still deploying more energy to protect an old-fashion way of life rather than start improving their mentality...

USA should already have done something like 15 years ago... and we are still arguing on this !

The problem is if all we are doing is releasing .0001% of the CO2 that it takes to actually effect global warming, then what we are doing today is going to do more harm to people then less. Most of that harm, is going to happen to the poor.

Are you for sacrificing the poor to make a change that might not be needed for 500 years? Or, might not ever be needed.

At some point, through science, we are going to come up with a better source for energy then coal and gas. It might be 10 years down the road, it might be 200. If that time was going to come before we got to the point where releasing CO2 has any impact, then doing something to stop it now is not only pointless, but far worse then doing nothing at all.

 

Nuclear cold fusion ? In 10 it might be too late, in 200 we won't be there anymore.. 

No it won't, not like that. Money and investment go were the economy requires them to go. Fossil fuels are still to cheap to really motivate the economy to do something about, without constraints of taxes and climate change.

Back in the seventies, during the first petrol crisis, governements (US included) had started some initatives to become less dependent of oil.

Those initative were ruined by the decision of the producing countries to severly lower their price so that the world economy would be addicted to it....

Now we are talking about the return of coal... this is madness...

And I don't believe any second that we are only responsible for .0000001% of the total emission... come on...

 

 

10 year? yea right.

And I didn't say we are only responsible for for .0001% of emissions (I think the closest guess is about 3%). I said what if we need to release a thousand times more before it makes an impact. What if CO2 levels rose 10 fold. Would the earth heat up because of it at any measurable level?

We don't know. Maybe we should find that out before we spend trillions of dollars that everyone (including the poor) are going to have to pay equally.



HappySqurriel on 02 July 2009
Sardauk said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Sardauk said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Even though Sardauk is flamebaiting all over the place, I still find it refreshing for some reason. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, you have to agree that rampant releases of carbon dioxide and pollutants aren't going to do any good for the earth. If fear of Global Warming results in a cleaner earth, I couldn't give less of a shit whether any of it was true or not.

I'm flaming for my own personnal mental health.... I can't believe they are still deploying more energy to protect an old-fashion way of life rather than start improving their mentality...

USA should already have done something like 15 years ago... and we are still arguing on this !

The problem is if all we are doing is releasing .0001% of the CO2 that it takes to actually effect global warming, then what we are doing today is going to do more harm to people then less. Most of that harm, is going to happen to the poor.

Are you for sacrificing the poor to make a change that might not be needed for 500 years? Or, might not ever be needed.

At some point, through science, we are going to come up with a better source for energy then coal and gas. It might be 10 years down the road, it might be 200. If that time was going to come before we got to the point where releasing CO2 has any impact, then doing something to stop it now is not only pointless, but far worse then doing nothing at all.

 

Nuclear cold fusion ? In 10 it might be too late, in 200 we won't be there anymore..

No it won't, not like that. Money and investment go were the economy requires them to go. Fossil fuels are still to cheap to really motivate the economy to do something about, without constraints of taxes and climate change.

Back in the seventies, during the first petrol crisis, governements (US included) had started some initatives to become less dependent of oil.

Those initative were ruined by the decision of the producing countries to severly lower their price so that the world economy would be addicted to it....

Now we are talking about the return of coal... this is madness...

And I don't believe any second that we are only responsible for .0000001% of the total emission... come on...

 

 

Between 2000 and 2007 the oil and natural gas companies in the united states invested more than any other organization (over $100 Billion) on emerging energy technologies. What makes you think that the oil companies are trying to keep you "addicted" to oil, when they are the group that is spending the most money trying to develop alternative energy sources?

Most projections for our energy use make-up in 2030 has fossil fuels representing between 65% and 85% of total energy use because of how far alternative energy will have developed over the past 30 years since the energy crisis ... What makes you think that anyone had any ability to get "off of" oil in the 1980s when optimistic projections for the next 20 years have twice as much energy comming from fossil fuels than all other sources combined?



Sardauk on 02 July 2009

You guys are hopeless...

 

Mafoo, about the poor paying... the poor are already paying because nothing is done so.... enough with that argument...



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

nuninhuh on 02 July 2009

A good solution to reduce that manmade co2 (3% of the total emisions?) is replace oil/coal plants for Nuclear power, much less expensive than for example tidal power.

I don't know about the USA's oil reserves but europe must buy it from other countries and it is expensive in the long run. If they invest in Nuclear/eolic/solar in the long run i think is economical beneficial.

but this is just me saying from the top of my head...

@Sardauk, atleast the poors from the coastal regions who don't have money to migrate to upper places...