Is Man Made Global Warming A Hoax Now?

LOL, Flawed philosophy. Everybody seems to believe plants are our saviors.

The biggest contribution to the Greenhouse effect is water vapor. These fuckin' scientists never take it into account, but either way cloud formation and the likes is why our 'large CO2' emission' makes our climate so temperamental.

I believe we are living beyond our means yes, but the science is so thick. We should cut back to save pollution sure, but it is as eminent as they are making out.

I hate the tree hugger input on the whole thing.

 

You actually think that scientists don't take into account water vapor!!! You have a ridiculous view of science. What makes you think you're more knowledgeable than scientists? You are incredibly arrogant and sophomoric.

If I am wrong, please state your scientific credentials.

 

If they did then the results would be different. Everybody knows the results they hand you are flawed.

 

So, now you are stating that "everybody" is more knowledgeable than scientists? You are so ignorant that you don't even know that you are ignorant.

 

You are being a little rude mate, but whatever.

But no i'm simply saying why is it they the average tom, dick and Harry only knows that CO2 is killing our planet, and that we should be wary of our consumption, yet something like water Vapor may enhance these effects. They let people believe everything that is occurring is down to simply Carbon emissions, which is nonsensical.

They will obviously take into account Water Vapor, but they are happy to put a sense of fear in the average person, after all I have yet to hear 'Your Carbon Footprint, Take a Green Step Forward' <disclaimer> however, temperature can fluctuate depending on clouds. Yes, clouds. So, results may vary>

If you are telling me you believe every Government statistic you read, or put blind faith in an organization simply because they claim they have scientific superiority- then I feel for you. Sometimes common sense prevails my friend, and I have it and like to utilize it. I like nothing more than to do my own thinking, and not let someone else do that for me.

Again, I reiterate that greenhouse gas emissions are a worry. And they probably exaggerate it for good cause, but I equally think spoon feeding such results will not be fruitful in the long run for the average consumer/tax payer/whatever.

End of the day, unless you have a 'Little Mr Play Doctor''s laboratory in your basement- anything that you can offer me is nothing more than my own- opinion and speculation. I am entitled to an opinion on a free speech forum, so thank you sir.

 

Just an update. Finally looked at some stats.

Other sources can claim up to 95% of greenhouse gas effect is contributed by water vapor. So although not a scientist, I would say considering the findings with or without the inclusion of water vapor, the results would be catastrophically different.

So if a mere 95% is water vapor, and that is included in these real stats- why would anyone care to change their ways regarding consumption.

For the record, I barely believe that statistic. It's all a little ambivalent, but it is very simply for somebody to lie.

 

TIB appears to believe in reverse education; the more you study a subject, the less you know about it.

Maybe it worked that way at his high school.

Opinion? Yes. Your own set of "facts"? No. You are essentially rebutting the Scientific Method, which would cause any well-educated person to laugh you out of the room. You are pitting your own intellect against thousands of man-years of study and research. No individual is ever going to win that battle. It's not humanly possible.

 

Are you saying I am not well educated?

And I know I am pitting myself against the normality, but I am hardly claiming any set of facts. In fact I give up.

They are right, always right. Fuck it, send me to room 101, el prompto

Also, maybe arguing CO2 emissions in a hippy website is simply a bad idea on my part. Duly noted.

 

Let me give you a different idea about scientists. I know a little about this, since I have a degree from MIT.

Most scientists do not work for the government. Most work for universities, many work for private corporations. To be a scientist, you don't deal in bullshit, unlike politicians and radio hosts. Scientists only publish results when their research has been put through the very highest standards of evidence and analysis and objective observation. And then those results are peer-reviewed to see if any other scientists can find problems in their methodology.

If you want the truth, you ask a scientist. Now, I realize that every truth is a tentative truth that may only be a part of a better theory. For instance, Newtonian mechanics is an excellent theory, but later Einstein figured out that there's more to the story when velocities approach the speed of light. That didn't make Newton wrong, it's just that a better, more useful theory came along. And common sense tells you that Einstein is wrong, but Einstein has been proven right.

The value of scientific theory is its ability to predict things.

So, if you read a scientific report in a reputable publication that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, that is as close to the "truth" as you're going to get. Common sense doesn't cut it. If you are trying to figure out the implications of public policy, it had better be based on science or you will make the wrong decisions.

So, what I object to in your writings is your complete ignorance of the scientific method. It is not just opinion. And often common sense is wrong.

 

Ha. Remember when the mainstream scientific community was supporting eugenics, lending it enough credence to justify the involuntary sterilization of over 60,000 Americans?

Degree from MIT or not (congratulations there, by the way; you should feel very important), you're completely ignoring all the politics that go along with science these days. Science on its own, true scientific method (which I do know something about and have a lot of respect for), is the best way of finding the truth that we've got. But science today is not just science, but Science. Science these days is an edifice. It's a huge structure, an 'international scientific community,' and it's very political. Some things are safe, some aren't; questioning the major body of knowledge in any area is never met with much enthusiasm. No one wants to see decades or centuries of work thrown out the window and have to start over again. This is just an example of the politics of science. If you truly do have a degree from MIT (in sciences and higher than a BSc) you definitely know this.

 

Look, I am going to leave it after this, I am getting bored and hungry.

I will say one last time. I understand the science of global warming, it makes perfect sense. The scientific theory is not wrong, fossil fuels being being burnt will equal a large degree of Carbon Dioxide emission. This emission will cause a flux in greenhouse gases settling in the atmosphere. So, on that note, I do not disagree with you whatsoever.

I am just saying there's a degree of half truths.

Let me finish with this. The Copenhagen summit is presently occurring, let's pray they make some valiant changes. The common sense I believe that can equally prevail however, tells me this:

If the planet is in such dire straits, why are we having such a hard time cutting our emission? In a world where to simply poke another is a court dealing for GBH, I find it remarkable people are just watching as the planet slowly kills itself. I mean, we only have 50 years to live! (That is sarcasm, I fear people are not grasping a lot of this, clutching at their pedantic straws so often).

And don't answer that question. It's fair enough you have a degree from MIT but I equally have an (hons) in Business Management and Economics, so I really don't need anyone explaining why we cannot just cease industrialization, and CO2 burning in general.

Maybe the world is a world of double standards, but people are quite as incessantly changing their ways and means to cut our consumption, regardless of the frightening results we are presented.

Yet again, I do understand simple global warming. Just don't agree it's fair to presume everything is quite as severe as they say. But let's just hope that the copenhagen summit does more than the Koyoto, you know, for the sake of man kind.

Nice talking folks, I like a good old debate.

 

There's a little bit of truth to that, but not as much as you think.

I think what's really going on is that we have rigid political ideologies that are very much like religious fundamentalists that will not accept any evidence that they might be wrong about something.

So, if science indicates that we had better cut way way back on fossil fuel burning or else the sea levels will rise 3 feet, the Republicans, for instance, will push back strongly because that indicates that the "blessed American way of life" (quote from Bush's press secretary) might not be worth protecting. And part of that push-back is to try very hard to discredit the science with emotional arguments and fear-mongering, and a lot of poorly educated voters will believe it.

 

Oh, I forgot: you're 'one of them.' Democrats good, Republicans bad, etc. I don't think our viewpoints are reconcilable, so there's probably not much point discussing the issue further.

 

You're talking about Republicans. There are little to no other people anywhere on this planet as uneducated.

I am not American, maybe that's a testament to my opinion. We don't have to consider the emotional sensibility of the average red-neck, and our 'emotional arguments' are as I have suggested, based on the belief of good health and prosperity of a human race.

That's not a dig, just the 'blessed way of American life', according to Bush and his indigenes is just a pile of rubbish.

 

I'm not a Democrat. I'm an anti-Republican.

 

Still an oversimplification from my point of view.

 

Yes, don't get me started on what I think of Republicans.

 

(Can't help myself)

According to a new Washington Post-ABC poll, "About 58 percent of Republicans now put little or no faith in scientists on the subject of the environment, double the number saying so in April 2007."

New Republican slogan: "As dumb as I wanna be!"

 

News: there's just been an agreement in Copenhagen. Very weak, tho.

 

it doesn't matter if man-made global warming may be false . it is true that pollution is not good . the trouble is industrial people's belief in energy entitlement . they don't want to feel poor even tho such a feeling is an illusionary one . it's nice they hope for a better technology to sustain them in the manner to which they've become accustomed . to not pollute is good - but mostly the conditions are not acceptable - seems they have advanced beyond human and are willing to die for being so glorious .