when have i argued "against science"?


[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 1:07 PM. Reason : questioning findings is not "arguing against science"]

Quote :

" or when you label my bankroll based on my skepticism when i am NOT INDEED BANKROLLED BY THOSE PEOPLE"

umm. when did i do that? do you understand the meaning of the word "when"?

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 1:06:33 PM

you take a SCIENTIFIC ISSUE and make it a POLITICAL ISSUE

for example, you choose not to even address the SCIENTIFIC CONTENT of what HockeyRoman and I have been recently discussing, instead making some claim about Exxon and insinuating that the only skeptics have political reasons to act skeptical

you take a scientific issue and try to make it political, when we're talking about the scientific side

Quote :

"umm. when did i do that?"

right here, just now...are you high or something?

Quote :

"I think any scientist, when first presented the idea of global warmnig being something bad that humans are causing must have some thought of "could these changes just be natural fluctuations?" but for some reason it seems that innocent curiosity is often shot down while you are labelled someone on Exxon's payroll, just for daring to question the science [Edited on March 6, 2007 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .] 3/6/2007 12:55:02 PM sarijoul All American 5870 Posts user info edit post well when the people are on exxon's payroll. . . 3/6/2007 12:59:02 PM "

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 1:09 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 1:08:57 PM

no. i question findings when they are funded by people who have a direct stake in the findings. THAT IS ALL. it's not very difficult.

jesus. if someone is ON EXXON'S PAYROLL (or similarly biased businesses) their findings should be questioned.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 1:11 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 1:10:07 PM

so when an alternative solar power company provides funding...they dont have a direct stake in the findings?

you question findings based on your personal politics without any regard to the science

the problem with your entire premise in this thread and on this topic if you think its all political

3/6/2007 1:11:42 PM

why does anyone bother to discuss the issue with treetwista? its clear that he's the expert on the subject.

3/6/2007 1:12:09 PM

i don't. i think it's capitalistic.

^^c'mon. i've addressed science plenty. unlike some others


[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 1:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 1:12:15 PM

so you dont see the obvious financial ties when alternative energy companies fund research?

when oil companies fund research, its biased as shit...but when an ethanol or solar or wind company fund research, "its for the good of mankind"?

3/6/2007 1:14:40 PM

i never said that. i think the funding of research should always be looked at.

3/6/2007 1:15:17 PM

Quote :

"I don't see it as a free pass, but some certainly do"

Which is why you and I are able to have a rational discussion on this matter while the "others" make me question my stance on the legality of homocide.

3/6/2007 1:16:00 PM

^^Well maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt you're one to criticize any funding sources if they're not an oil/petrol company

^I just mostly dislike the stigma of being unsure about something...the public perception of anyone who is not completely sold on humans ruining the earth is some kind of redneck who works for Exxon...the issue is not as cut and dry as some would lead you to believe...just 7-8 years ago when I was in college it was a lot more balanced as far as explanations...you could spend a 90 minute class just bouncing ideas back and forth...now if you come from the skeptical side you seem to be painted as some kind of retard...oh well

3/6/2007 1:19:29 PM

i'm glad that you make completely unfounded personal conclusions about me.

3/6/2007 1:20:52 PM

wow you really add nothing productive to this thread do you

and i'd love to see where you've EVER dismissed a data source as biased because it was funded by an alternative fuel company...if that has ever happened, please cite it...if not, the conclusions arent that unfounded...cause you've criticized scientists and research dozens of times based on oil company funding...i cant ever recall you criticizing any scientists or research based on alternative fuel source company funding...if you've done it even once I would be shocked

which goes back to you arguing science with politics

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 1:30:54 PM

TreeTwista10

Quote :

"sarijoul i gave you some shit about "defending the gays" in one of those sports talk threads but overall and honestly, i respect you...even though we may disagree on many of the things we argue about, i respect the fact that you are capable and willing to actually discuss the issues instead of just resorting to personal attacks in an attempt to change the subject respect "

3/6/2007 1:35:17 PM

what happened to your willingness to actually discuss the issue? was i wrong about you in that quote or have you just proven me wrong so far in this thread in the last few posts?

3/6/2007 1:39:29 PM

i'm sorry maybe i was the one who brought up (and kept bringing up) gore's actions instead of talking about climate change.

3/6/2007 1:43:39 PM

alright well if you'd like to comment on the science of the 3% / 97% CO2 concentration topic, please feel free to do so

3/6/2007 3:13:20 PM

a minor change in the balance in our atmosphere can impact the world climate drastically.

maybe it won't be a huge problem. but i really don't see making changes just in case it does negatively impact our environment.

3/6/2007 3:16:35 PM

Quote :

"but i really don't see making changes just in case it does negatively impact our environment."

what do you mean?

3/6/2007 3:29:15 PM

for instance funding alt. energy, tightening emissions standards for vehicles, decreasing our use of coal plants, increasing nuke plants (given that there is due consideration for safety and disposal of waste), etc.

3/6/2007 3:48:24 PM

I don't have a problem with any of those suggestions as long as they are implemented in a way that is amenable to business and consumer interests.

3/6/2007 4:16:27 PM

Why are human economic ambitions more important than the rest of the world? (I can see it now. "Why is the rest of the world more important than human economic ambitions?") Blah.



[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 4:43 PM. Reason : t != n. ]

3/6/2007 4:18:50 PM

Quote :

"Why are human economic ambitions more important that the rest of the world? "

english, plz


If you are asking why human interests are more important than the interests of plants and animals, well, it's no use arguing with you then you damn hippy.

3/6/2007 4:26:33 PM

^^But that question assumes that the rest of the world will suffer if we dont do something

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 4:27 PM. Reason : ^^]

3/6/2007 4:27:21 PM

^^ Why not? And how do you gather that I am a "hippy"?

^Does it? Maybe I am not understanding what the something is that we should or should not be doing. I am not trying to be difficult just making sure that we don't talk past each other by accident.

3/6/2007 4:43:07 PM

When you ask about human economic ambitions being more important than the rest of the world, that implies that human economic ambitions cant be strong without hurting the rest of the world...over the last 100 years or so they have been both able to coexist to some extent...now granted something like the economic ambition that seeks cheap labor could outsource but we havent had any huge environmental disasters since the Valdez spill that I can recall

I guess I'm hopeful that people can continue to grow society and have a strong economy without trashing the earth

3/6/2007 4:49:37 PM

Quote :

"I guess I'm hopeful that people can continue to grow society and have a strong economy without trashing the earth"

Indeed. But when you come right out and say Environment > Humans they call you a misanthropic anit-capitalist. Or "hippy".

3/6/2007 4:53:34 PM

well in one sense humans are a part of the environment

but at the same time, would you rather have a bunch of humans on a crappy planet, or a beautiful planet with all humans dead

because the earth is going to be here long after people are

Its just tough to prioritize anything over your life and the lives of your loved ones, however a "environment>humans" argument is interpreted

3/6/2007 4:57:50 PM

Quote :

"when you come right out and say Environment > Humans they call you a misanthropic anit-capitalist. Or "hippy". "

And rightly so. That's some crazy shit right there, saying that the environment is more important than human life.

Go hug a tree.

3/6/2007 5:01:43 PM

Quote :

"That's some crazy shit right there, saying that the environment is more important than human life."

As I find it equally crazy to say the converse. What does hugging trees accomplish?

3/6/2007 5:08:55 PM

You tell me. You love the environment so much.

Does it love you back?

3/6/2007 5:11:03 PM

HockeyRoman...regardless of how much you value the environment...dont you think personal/human survival is the most basic instinct? I mean that goes deep into every human's core...nobody wants to die

3/6/2007 5:11:23 PM

the health and survival of humans (and their ancestors) is potentially in danger from environmental change.

3/6/2007 5:33:58 PM

how is the survival of anyone's ancestors in danger?

is that like the joke if a plane crashed on the US/Canada border, where would they bury the survivors?

3/6/2007 5:34:59 PM

oh. oops. wrong word. "descendants" is what i meant

3/6/2007 5:37:15 PM

Quote :

"the health and survival of humans (and their descendents) is potentially in danger from environmental change."

the health and survival of humans (and their descendants) is potentially in danger from humans attempts to prevent this so called climate change

arguing potentials isnt going to do anything

3/6/2007 5:41:31 PM

Quote :

"a minor change in the balance in our atmosphere can impact the world climate drastically."

I'd like to see some indisputable facts to back that up please.

3/6/2007 6:28:53 PM

I'd like to see you disprove it.

3/6/2007 6:32:39 PM

Arguing doesn't work like that. If somebody is gonna make a statement, they need to back it up. You don't have to disprove a baseless assertion.

3/6/2007 6:34:06 PM

Sure it does, others have been doing for the duration of this thread. I'm not going to write a long, well thought out and researched response so some idiot like Twista can some in here and give a one sentence response that doesn't address anything. I put the burden of proof on TKE-Teg.

3/6/2007 6:45:52 PM

Quote :

"I'd like to see some indisputable facts to back that up please."

did you even bother to read the next sentence? or my following two posts?

3/6/2007 7:04:29 PM

Quote :

"dont you think personal/human survival is the most basic instinct?"

Sure but we both know that survival or even living comfortably is different than simply exploiting resourses in the name of material gain.

Quote :

"Does it love you back?"

I am not sure if kami "love" in the sense that we think of it.

Quote :

"I'd like to see some indisputable facts to back that up please."

The last Ice Age was only 5-8° C cooler. So it doesn't take much.

3/6/2007 8:01:08 PM

^so you're saying the last Ice Age was caused by a varying level of C02 in the atmosphere. Interesting...

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 8:16 PM. Reason : k]

3/6/2007 8:12:50 PM

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 8:29 PM. Reason : nm]

3/6/2007 8:28:54 PM

Quote :

"To what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995-2005) a simpilar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the twentieth century (1920-1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentratino of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for a period of warming to arise. the observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate"

Peter Chylek, "Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005," Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L11707, June 13, 2006.

Thats all I could dig up for right now in regards to your comment. I know its not an end all fact.

3/6/2007 8:29:12 PM

fwiw, "letters" of a particular journal are generally not reviewed in the same way that articles are

3/6/2007 8:40:09 PM

While the Greenland thing is a good start, remember that analyzing one location is not representative of the entire planet. I'm sure the drought and dust bowl conditions in the 1930's were probably not caused by global warming either but that doesn't mean much, as it was of a relatively small spatial extent.

3/6/2007 9:10:37 PM

I just saw this movie. there were some parts that were clear jabs at republicans, but other than that, it was pretty good. the science he presented obviously was dumbed down a LOT for the typical american, but it did a good job with that.

3/6/2007 9:13:16 PM

^^agreed. But that just proves one of my points. One of Gore's main points is that the "90s was the hottest decade ever". Only problem with that is that a large majority of the data points used in previous data have been unavailable since the early 90s (1000s of USSR weather stations went offline). And in case you were wondering, Gore didn't use any satellite data for his "documentary".

^

Quote :

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are."

~Al Gore, Grist magaizine, May 9, 2006.

Look, he even admits he exaggerated in his movie.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 11:15 PM. Reason : k]

3/6/2007 11:12:45 PM

Lets see, in his movie Gore:

-says the increased hurricane activity is due to global warming. Any hurricane expert will disagree, citing that hurricanes are following their normal 40-50 year cycles of activity

-says that glaciers are melting all over the world. Indeed, many are, well many others are growing

-says that the poles are heating up. However, they're getting colder and the ice is getting thicker

-says that Kilimanjaro's snow is fading away. It is, and has been for over a hundred years (b/c of a decrease in moisure in the air)

-states that 2005 was the hottest year since measurements began in the late 1970s. However, NASA satellite data will show that 1998 was, and that temperatures have been stable since 2001. (http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=291)

-states that increased CO2 causing warming. However, many notable scientists disagree. For example, Carleton Univ paleoclimatologist professor Tim Patterson states that "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

Its a wonder anyone thinks of Gore as credible.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 11:38 PM. Reason : wrong link]

3/6/2007 11:34:25 PM

What he effectively said is that people are going to go into the movie skeptically. Hes basically saying that its not a super intuitive process, and had to focus heavily on establishing credibility with his audience on the validity of the problem so that they would be receptive to the solution.

He didn't make the movie to silence critics or engage the scientific community. He did it to raise awareness to everyday Joe Sixpacks. I think there could have been much more extreme examples he could have used, such as how shifting climate patterns could render Americas breadbasket a permanent dustbowl.

3/6/2007 11:35:14 PM