Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

There must be more to life than football?
doz_magic_man
Valued squad member
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:24 pm

Re:

Post by doz_magic_man » Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:38 pm

Rover the Top wrote:Well there's the difference. I listen to both sides, consider the various points without prejudice, and then think for myself.


So do I when there are a broad range of various opinions, but when there are a few lone dissenting voices with an air with conspiracy-theorist surrounding them I tend to listen to the majority.
Hmm, I'm sure anyone who claims to have experienced the presence of god in some way would disagree with you there.


A person who claims to have been abducted by aliens would also disagree with me when I say that it's highly improbable, but that doesn't mean it's not a load of shit.

The fact is that we can now explain a lot of things that we previously couldn't because our brains have evolved and our observations of things have led to logical conclusions. There will always be things we can't explain, e.g. what's at the edge of the Universe, but there are also things we can all but rule out.

At the end of the day, even if there was only the remotest evidence that human activity is accelerating global warming, is it worth the risk of sitting back and doing nothing??
Rover the Moon wrote:Strange Doz that the con side of GW also have proof that the world isn't warming any higher than it would naturally and definately no to the levels that would cause the mass hysteria the the pro-gw side are showing

Then again there are lies, damn lies and statistical evidence with a biased slant


Why are the majority biased? They are obviously biased towards their beliefs, which anybody would be, but there is no other ulterior motive for the majority scientists in mooting such a theory.

Rover the Moon
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:34 am

Re:

Post by Rover the Moon » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:26 pm

doz_magic_man wrote:They are obviously biased towards their beliefs, which anybody would be, but there is no other ulterior motive for the majority scientists in mooting such a theory.
Staking your reputation so much on something that may be debunked can make people too vociferous and in turn become blind to the contrary arguement

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13598
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re:

Post by Ethiaa » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:29 pm

Rover the Moon wrote:Up the tax burden? the bastards screw us until June 1st then piss ut up the wall as it is.
Going back to the Norway example, we pay a pathetic amount of tax in comparsion.

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9725
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re:

Post by theadore » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:40 pm

ethiaa wrote:
Rover the Moon wrote:Up the tax burden? the bastards screw us until June 1st then piss ut up the wall as it is.
Going back to the Norway example, we pay a pathetic amount of tax in comparsion.
and then complain about the quality of our public services.... :whistle:

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27155
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:53 pm

So scientists who are funded specifically to find evidence of global warming have no ulterior motive? Hmm... (no need to point out that the argument works for both sides, theadore... ;)) And I think there must be more in the minority than you must realise...

It's very easy to say we may as well do something 'just in case', but in practice, you have to consider the cost. The one thing I've ever agreed with George W Bush on was when he didn't sign the Kyoto agreement because it wasn't in the USA's interests. Suppose we do change all our fuel sources, who is to say what damage that might cause to the planet?

Rover the Moon
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:34 am

Re:

Post by Rover the Moon » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:33 pm

theadore wrote:
ethiaa wrote:
Rover the Moon wrote:Up the tax burden? the bastards screw us until June 1st then piss ut up the wall as it is.
Going back to the Norway example, we pay a pathetic amount of tax in comparsion.
and then complain about the quality of our public services.... :whistle:
No Theo I complain about the gargantuan WASTE of Tax

doz_magic_man
Valued squad member
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:24 pm

Re:

Post by doz_magic_man » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:52 pm

Rover the Moon wrote:Staking your reputation so much on something that may be debunked can make people too vociferous and in turn become blind to the contrary arguement


Hence why they'd ensure that they were pretty accurate before sticking their necks on the line.
Rover The Top wrote:So scientists who are funded specifically to find evidence of global warming have no ulterior motive?


The ones who originally raised concerns weren't specifically funded to find evidence of global warning, surely they just observed it. Obviously if you're paid to find something you'll have added incentive...

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27155
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re:

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:42 pm

doz_magic_man wrote:
Rover The Top wrote:So scientists who are funded specifically to find evidence of global warming have no ulterior motive?


The ones who originally raised concerns weren't specifically funded to find evidence of global warning, surely they just observed it. Obviously if you're paid to find something you'll have added incentive...
But then you go back to the point I made earlier... it only became the majority view after it was made a political issue. We've moved on from a few ideas suggesting there might be a trend towards global warming. We've discovered that the initial predictions were wrong, hence why 'global warming' has been renamed 'climate change'. 10 years or so ago, there wasn't the same conviction that warming was happening, never mind that we were the main causes of it. It's only since it's become a useful tool for gaining and exercising power, that scientists seem to have shaken off their doubts. I don't think you can ignore scientists who suggest the sun could be the overriding influence on temperatures, I don't think you can ignore scientists who provide data showing Co2 follows temperature change, not the other way round. And I don't think you can ignore the role of politics in the rise in popularity of the theories.

Warren
New signing
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:40 pm
Contact:

Post by Warren » Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:42 pm

Whats te point in talking about it we'll all be dead soon :-D

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9725
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re:

Post by theadore » Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:48 am

Warren wrote:Whats te point in talking about it we'll all be dead soon :-D
helpful... like it

Warren
New signing
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:40 pm
Contact:

Post by Warren » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:21 am

Thanks mate, i do what i can x

Rover the Moon
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:34 am

Post by Rover the Moon » Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:28 am

Quality not quanitity? :-?

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27155
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Post by Rover the Top » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:03 am

Scientist claims to dispel sun theories...

Adds some strength to the 'human cause' argument, whilst also highlighting Moon's point about the BBC's biased reporting... :scratch:

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9725
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Post by theadore » Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:32 am

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
so his findings were not at all clouded by his own personal agenda then?

:roll:

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27155
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re:

Post by Rover the Top » Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:26 pm

theadore wrote:
Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
so his findings were not at all clouded by his own personal agenda then?

:roll:
No, the clouds were burned away by the sun... :whistle:

I think the article neatly sums up a lot of what we've said - firstly, it gives a possible argument against the counter arguments. It also neatly shows that scientists don't always look at things objectively - whilst it doesn't mean the guy is wrong, it does damage the credibility of his findings. And most of all, it shows the complete bias of the BBC. ;)

Post Reply