Thread: The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Originally Posted by stroller

^

I find what is often being confused is the actual science, which I find difficult to follow, and the popular interpretations, often done with a political agenda.

It's true that the science is difficult and it doesn't worry me too much
that most of us, including me, find it hard to follow. What really P's me
off is that people seem incapable of recognising that there are political
agendas and then reading the popular interpretations in that light. I also don't
understand why some people are so happy to accept their opinions
second-hand from people who, quite often, know nothing about the
subject, and that applies to a huge range of subjects - from science
to politics to religion to what colour shoes to wear with a brown suit.

I guess I just don't understand why so many people are so effin' gullible.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I also don't understand why some people are so happy to accept their opinions second-hand from people who, quite often, know nothing about the subject, and that applies to a huge range of subjects

Well that's just human nature and the reality of our world today. The information that we have access to is too vast for us to be able to rely on our personal experience. The newsreader has never been to Iraq buthe tells me it's dangerous - I'm inclined to agree even though I have never been there either. Lots of people have told me that Koh Samui is overcrowded and not worth visiting, whether I believe them or not I am bound to be influenced by their opinions.

Actually to talk to someone who has no opinion of anything outside their own personal experience try a conversation with a rural Thai rice farmer.

Anyway, back on topic.

Originally Posted by Dougal

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I also don't understand why some people are so happy to accept their opinions second-hand from people who, quite often, know nothing about the subject, and that applies to a huge range of subjects

Well that's just human nature and the reality of our world today. The information that we have access to is too vast for us to be able to rely on our personal experience. The newsreader has never been to Iraq buthe tells me it's dangerous - I'm inclined to agree even though I have never been there either. Lots of people have told me that Koh Samui is overcrowded and not worth visiting, whether I believe them or not I am bound to be influenced by their opinions.

Fair enough, really I should have said "understanding of facts" rather
than "opinions". Still, I could point you to lots of sources who say the
Earth is flat or that the moon is hollow but I doubt you'd accept what
they said on faith alone.

The topic is about Global Warming, that's not a matter of opinion -
it's a matter of interpreting (currently available) facts. Whether or
not Baghdad is dangerous or Samui is crowded is a matter of opinion,
If you're a pleb in Sadr City Baghdad is pretty dangerous, if you're sitting
in an office in the Green Zone it's probably safer than being in London or
New York. Same with crowding, one mans crowd is another mans party.

Having opinions is fine but opinion is not a valid way to reach a
scientific conclusion.

Originally Posted by Dougal

I can see I need to read the whole thread to bring myself up to speed and I'm a bit pressed for time.

I will leave you in the meanwhile with the fact that scientists have proved that bumblebees are too heavy to fly and that basking sharks starve to death because they can't eat enough relative to their body size.

In Victorian times scientists proved that you could identify criminals from their facial features. And doubtless many more that have fortunately gone the way of the Dodo.

Science has done a lot for us but just as we look back now at some of the bumblings of previous centuries and laugh so will future generations look back at some of today's 'incontrovertible facts' with equal amusement.

I never mentioned 'incontrovertible facts'. Science has no use for such
things. I said "interpreting (currently available) facts" and that's
a whole different thing.

Your statements above show that you don't know what proof means in
a scientific context, it's a scientific jargon word and does not have the
same meaning as the legal jargon word. The examples above are
a mixture of failed hypotheses and scientific in-jokes and a perfect
example of why it's so easy to con people with bad science and so
difficult to get them to appreciate the real thing.

Definition of Scientific Proof/The Scientific Method
A scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific
investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical
evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose
explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions
from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns
out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent
enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way.

Going Against the Green

Anyone who questions this newly fashionable faith is regarded as a dangerous heretic to be cast into the outer darkness. A minister in the British government suggested to the BBC that it should not allow air time to any scientists who doubted ‘‘global warming’’ (a minority of scientists but a distinguished group). Other high priests of the creed have called for “Nuremberg trials” of “climate change deniers.”
...
The idea underlying the EU proposals and the British climate change bill is that governments will both impose binding limits on the carbon emissions that industries emit and instruct them to use low-carbon fuels such as wind and solar power. In other words, the EU and Britain are embracing a new form of central planning based on energy-use quotas rather than output quotas. But central planning is a synonym for economic inefficiency and waste.
...
Almost all the European countries have already failed to meet much lower carbon emission targets under Kyoto than the new targets they adopted 10 days ago.
...
The British economy accounts for only 2 percent of global carbon emissions. If it were to close down entirely, it would have little or no impact on the world’s total carbon output — and even less impact on the willingness of the Indian and Chinese governments to cut back on building power stations that they consider essential to their nation’s prosperity but that are now the main drivers of increased carbon usage.

In other words... it's a massive circle jerk to impose social controls not control pollution.

As a great admirer of Boon Mee's technique of linking to some
nutjob's website in order to kill some time before the bars open
I'd like to offer this take on global warming from an often
neglected but highly reputable source;

Global warming - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Evidence of Global Warming


2005, a satellite picture of hurricanes photo-shopped by Al Gore

The decrease in the number of pirates has been cited as proof that humans are irreversibly raping our planet, thus giving it syphilus. This does not mean anything though, as temperatures have been known to bounce around constantly and reached record highs since the hottest period of mankind, the Ice Age. New York will be underwater, but why would anyone not want that to happen? Some insist that the melting polar ice caps will permit antediluvian diseases to thrive. There is some evidence that religious fanatics across America may be jumping on the environmental bandwagon, not including the coward leader George W. Bush who is helping end it by waging War in Iraq, to kill anti-pirate terrorists. The largest evidence for global warming, of course, is the fact that the planet is hotter today than it was last night.

How Global Warming Started

Global warming is said to be caused by C02, but do we really know were it started? The answer to this question is kitten huffing. It all started in the year 2000 with the ever-growing flock of flying grues. They are a vicious bunch, and their communistic and kitten huffing-ic ideas have begun to poison the minds of the many weather stations. The first weatherman who started this trend was named Ron Burgundy. He had a serious problem with his addiction to kitten huffing, and as he was dying of OD on kitten huffing, he told the grues to continue his plan of snowball swarming. But because they had no ears, they thought he said "global warming" and that is how it all started.

How Global Warming Really Started

This might be how global warming started. Global warming was actually caused by Chuck Norris, after the battle with Bruce Lee which he shamefully lost (Lee might have been cheating). Chuck returned to the dragon once more. The dragon was not happy with Bruce Lee, and killed Bruce Lee when he was 32. The fire was so intense, it heated the Earth. Poor intelligence about global warming would later start the War on Terra, prompting more senior citizens to drop dead from heat. But some scientists dispute this theory, and instead point to the fact that Chuck Norris once round-house kicked the dark side of our planet, driving it closer to our Sun.

If we kill Al Gore and all the liberal hippies that believe in global warming, it will reduce the amount of CO2 and methane being put into the atmosphere. As a side-effect all illicit drug dealers will go out of business due to the lack of sales.