968 replies to this topic

[Zealous Donkey]

ahosang, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

This won't slow the political class in championing AGW and it's spin-off projects...

Even if global warming was completely debunked, there would in short order be another grave matter in which massive wealth and power would need to be confiscated in the name of saving the planet. (see The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich)

[timwakefield]

Zealous Donkey, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 2:15 PM, said:

I will believe this when I see it.

You do realize that "science" and the common beliefs held by intelligent scientists change constantly, as new experiments, discoveries, theories, etc are seen and discussed and debated? That's like, the very basis of what science is. You keep on retesting shit (theories) and coming up with new ideas of what and how to test that shit, and if ever you get consistently repeatable results that go against your supposedly-proven theory, then that theory must be changed. Unless you're a bad scientist, in which case you cover up the data that doesn't help your theory, such as these guys did.I'm going to try and find this really great quote about a related point. I'll edit this, or post below if there's crazy discussion while I'm gone (unlikely).

[vbnautilus]

Zealous Donkey, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

I will believe this when I see it.

timwakefield, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

You do realize that "science" and the common beliefs held by intelligent scientists change constantly, as new experiments, discoveries, theories, etc are seen and discussed and debated? That's like, the very basis of what science is. You keep on retesting shit (theories) and coming up with new ideas of what and how to test that shit, and if ever you get consistently repeatable results that go against your supposedly-proven theory, then that theory must be changed. Unless you're a bad scientist, in which case you cover up the data that doesn't help your theory, such as these guys did.

Yeah, TW answered this pretty directly. If you've never seen a scientific theory change you just haven't been paying attention. They don't all need to change -- some of them are right!

[Zealous Donkey]

vbnautilus, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 3:06 PM, said:

Yeah, TW answered this pretty directly. If you've never seen a scientific theory change you just haven't been paying attention. They don't all need to change -- some of them are right!

Well, my point is that those involved in global warming/climate change aren't concerned with the science in the first place. I think they mostly fall into the catagory of the "bad Scientists" mentioned in TW post.

[SCYUKON]

LongLiveYorke, on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009, 1:33 PM, said:

Hazaaa:

This little fella does look a little rabid....

[vbnautilus]

Zealous Donkey, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 1:28 PM, said:

Well, my point is that those involved in global warming/climate change aren't concerned with the science in the first place. I think they mostly fall into the catagory of the "bad Scientists" mentioned in TW post.

I don't see how you or I could possibly be in a position to make that judgment.

[timwakefield]

Here's the quote I was thinking of. It's by Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker. He's talking about evolution, and I want to point out that it's not a direct parallel because global warming is nothing like Darwinian theory as far as how extensively proven and rationally understood it is, but I think the message is relevant to any scientific theory, well-proven or not."Whatever the motive, the consequence is that if a reputable scholar breathes so much as a hint of criticism of some detail of current Darwinian theory, the fact is eagerly seized on and blown up out of all proportion. So strong is this eagerness, it is as though there were a powerful amplifier, with a finely tuned microphone selectively listening out for anything that sounds the tiniest bit like opposition to Darwinism. This is most unfortunate, for serious argument and criticism is a vitally important part of any science, and it would be tragic if scholars felt the need to muzzle themselves because of the microphones. Needless to say the amplifier, though powerful, is not hi-fi: there is plenty of distortion! A scientist who cautiously whispers some slight misgiving about a current nuance of Darwinism is liable to hear his distorted and barely recognizable words booming and echoing out through the eagerly awaiting loudspeakers."

[nutzbuster]

LongLiveYorke, on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009, 1:33 PM, said:

Hazaaa:

[nutzbuster]

colonel Feathers, on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009, 2:57 PM, said:

With billions of dollars in the research stream, not to mention a couple of bogus nobel prizes, if the slies parted and God himself said it was bogus, GORE and his band of merry followers wouldnt be taken off message.

My new after the Holidays sig.Thank you sir.

[timwakefield]

nutzbuster, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 11:38 PM, said:

My new after the Holidays sig.Thank you sir.

It's kind of out of context if you don't include this part though:

colonel Feathers, on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009, 4:57 PM, said:

To be fair tho, if all the polar bears dropped dead, the ice caps melted, and las vegas became a beachfront town, we wouldnt be swayed either.

[Balloon guy]

Stupid polar bearsLink

[nutzzcase]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 12:08 AM, said:

Stupid polar bearsLink

Are polar bears allowed on Airplanes now?

[85suited]

http://www.canadafre...p/article/17183Obama's Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding "Climategate" scandal

[SCYUKON]

The more I read the better it gets:http://www.cbsnews.c...l?tag=mncol;txt

[Zealous Donkey]

timwakefield, on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Here's the quote I was thinking of. It's by Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker. He's talking about evolution, and I want to point out that it's not a direct parallel because global warming is nothing like Darwinian theory as far as how extensively proven and rationally understood it is, but I think the message is relevant to any scientific theory, well-proven or not."Whatever the motive, the consequence is that if a reputable scholar breathes so much as a hint of criticism of some detail of current Darwinian theory, the fact is eagerly seized on and blown up out of all proportion. So strong is this eagerness, it is as though there were a powerful amplifier, with a finely tuned microphone selectively listening out for anything that sounds the tiniest bit like opposition to Darwinism. This is most unfortunate, for serious argument and criticism is a vitally important part of any science, and it would be tragic if scholars felt the need to muzzle themselves because of the microphones. Needless to say the amplifier, though powerful, is not hi-fi: there is plenty of distortion! A scientist who cautiously whispers some slight misgiving about a current nuance of Darwinism is liable to hear his distorted and barely recognizable words booming and echoing out through the eagerly awaiting loudspeakers."

Huh?! so in the global warming debate which side are you accusing of distorting facts and blowing things out of proportion????

[strategy]

.

[Balloon guy]

strategy, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 7:44 AM, said:

I know I've said this before, but I'm still baffled that so many of you would rather armchair it with Internet research than listen to LLY on this one.

Because we would rather listen to Rush.

[85suited]

Do you think the AP will assign 11 reporters to fact check global warming?

[strategy's_touch]

85suited, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 1:33 PM, said:

Do you think the AP will assign 11 reporters to fact check global warming?

how lucky you are that dbagka showed up to make you seem reasonable

[85suited]

strategy's_touch, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 8:35 PM, said:

how lucky you are that dbagka showed up to make you seem reasonable

Reasonable meaning I would like reporters to investigate something important rather than picking apart a book by sarah palin...seems very reasonable doesnt it