Global Warming: The Greatest Hoax in the History of Science

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by madanthonywayne, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. Cifo Day destroys the night, Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    685
    According to the link:
    3 scientists (7%) say — GW definitely not real
    4 scientists (10%) say — IPCC's forecasts are questionable
    24 scientists (59%) say — GW real but mostly natural
    7 scientists (17%) say — GW real but cause is unknown
    3 scientists (7%) say — GW real but won't really affect us

    The first two groups (total 17%) are at odds with the others above, including the pro-GW scientists. And the last two groups (total 24%) disagree with the third group (59%).

    Although GW (and the whoopla over it) affects everyone, and everyone should consider all expert opinions, very few of the earth's inhabitants have the time, the means and/or the intelligence to do so.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kernl Sandrs Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    645
    I don't think it matters, really. Well, it does a little, but in the long run things are going to get worse for life on this planet, and whether it's our fault or a naturally occurring process, we need to what we can to slow it down, or have some sort of "Noah's Ark" plan ready for when big climate changes do happen.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    What are you doing with the percents? You added up the number off dissident scientists listed on the page and then found out of the total number of dissident scientists what percent were in which sub category of dissident scientist?

    What is the point of that?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,365
    Fucksake, is that right? So scientists who say that climate is driven by CO2 levels AND solar activity are having a bet each way?

    Oh, those scientists, what do you do, huh?
     
  8. Cifo Day destroys the night, Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    685
    The numbers put the "plenty of scientists" in perspective, and the percentages shows that the proportion of dissenters who dissent with each other. Basically a relatively small number of scientists who do not form a solid coalition.
     
  9. 3.14159265358979323 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    120
    What irony? The poster was a liar, and it was obvious.

    What's observed here:

    Warmist tactic 1: Claim that everyone who disagrees with you is part of an imaginary conspiracy theory and works for "Big Oil".

    Warmist tactic 2: Apply a weak ad hominem label, "denier". Vilify anyone who disagrees with you, force them to walk away in shame, and claim victory!
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2010
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,944
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2010
  11. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    lemme guess - you're either american, or you listen to a lot of alannis morisette, or both
     
  12. raptorttail Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    There may or may not be global warming....may or may not be a human element.

    As a geologist, I don't have a clue

    What I do know, however, is that I have never witnessed a bigger perversion of 'science' than that of the global warming groupies. Science and agenda should not mix but the science (or non-science) called 'climatology' has become a farce....a disgrace to the word 'science'.

    We've had a couple of these 'surveys' float around the Geological Survey. Why does my opinion matter? I haven't studied a carbon-based molecule since university 30 years a go...let alone have any understanding of the myriad of variables acting on that molecule to increase or decrease the temperature of the Earth. If I want to know what the weather is like, I stick my head out of the window.


    'Climatology' needs to go into some type of rehab. Back to basic scientific methodology. Back to physical experimentation with controlled variables and published results based on evidence of those controlled variables.
     
  13. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,365
    What climate science needs is more funding.
    The disgrace is that, given the pathetic amounts of data they have collected, advances in understanding proxy data collection and so on, the incontrovertible evidence is ignored.

    What they need is a good nerdometer. But of course, only dorks use nerdometers.
     
  14. 3.14159265358979323 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    120
    Here, we see Warmist tactic 1, yet again: Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is part of an imaginary conspiracy and is working for "Big Oil".
     
  15. 3.14159265358979323 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    120
    Warmist tactic 2: Villify the enemy, apply a weak ad hominem label, and claim victory afterwards. This is just too predictable.

    What does being American have to do with anything? This is the perfect example of an ad hominem attack!
     
  16. 3.14159265358979323 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    120
    Couldn't agree more.

    The global warming fainters, however, don't like disagreement, so they usually name-call.
     
  17. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160
    .

    we may a hand in making it faster in this age, but, global warming, also global colding (if it exist) happening since millions of years, once earth was hooter than today, and once was cooler, also that depends on the sun activities, and aslo it's, kina an earth cycle, also global warming is happening on planet mars, and other planets on our solar system, anyway, deserts were once forests, and forests once deserts, etc... for example, in our age, wich it will diffeently keep increasing intill it reach 6 degrees+, if 2 degrees are added, there's no way to stop the warming more, and when it reach 6+ degrees, west u.s.a, will be all deserts, the arabian deserts will be back as it was millions of years ago, rainy lands and etc.. (includes north african deserts and middle east deserts) and for soem of western centrale africa,it will be turned into deserts, canada will be the most fertile land on earth, green land and antartica, will be naked of ice, and places like greenland and others like siberia, may turn into touristic countries, kinda like tropical areas, as for the tropical countries, hmm, it wan't be soo good, now that was the weather wast for this century, by shadow1

    i watched that in a documentary," 6 degrees plus" or something like that.
     
  18. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160
    .

    one more thing the amazon forests, will be deserts too.
     
  19. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,944
    Not anyone, just most of them.

    Denier tactic #1: Projection.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,445
    Yes you have.

    Just sticking with your example of opinion polls among scientists: You've witnessed the misuse of such opinion polls

    - at the poll level, in which the polling data were deliberately misrepresented (if you are on this forum, you have seen that in several threads),

    - at the analysis level, where the poll results were presented as evidence one way or the other of the physical realities of the situation

    - and at the propaganda or 'bullshit" level, where the polls are used as weapons of political agenda without regard to their informational content.

    All of these misuses are overwhelmingly found in the postings here, and in the public discourse of the mainstream media, and in the writings or enactments of effective political power, among those who believe that the possibility of AGW should be ignored - maintly: rightwing "conservative" and corporate interests.

    Cool. So can we apply that approach to matters of geology - those of us who are not geologists?

    Example: Hydrology is a subspecialty of geology, IIRC. There may or may not be limited aquifers such as the Oglalla, may or may not be a human element in their subsidence, as a non-geologist I don't have a clue: so we should send all those hydrologists who are being so alarmist about the water supply in the American Southwest back to scientific rehab, demand that they shut up until they have produced controlled experiments with comparable aquifers and real "scientific " data, and proceed with public policy as if their warnings were merely panic-mongering with a big-government political agenda?
     
  21. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    I'm merely pointing out that like most americans, and alanis morisette in her song "Ironic" - you have no understanding of irony
     
  22. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,760
    IMO,when politicians start demanding I pay for the water I pump out of the ground, I will say yes, the geologists can shut up without decent real world evidence that A) it's actually happening at an "un-natural" rate, B) It's "our" fault, and C) "We" can actually change the effect by paying politicians more taxes for water usage.

    Even if they prove A and B, item C is going to slow them down a bit.
     
  23. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,760
    Yes that song, isn't about irony. Isn't it ironic? That is, if it's a coincidence,of course.
    Not that coincidence should be mislabeled irony...Unless you're Alanis Morisette,of course.
     

Share This Page