40 replies to this topic

[checkymcfold]

i really don't understand why people claim that there is an agenda behind saying that the world is getting warmer and that we are playing a strong part in it. this seems to be a common response to people who take the "side of global warming," and i really don't understand why this is understood to be a valid point.

is the argument that people associated with the science behind global warming are somehow involved in some upstart clean energy companies?

i really don't get it. could someone pls explain the thrust of this argument to me?

[Livaso]

I imagine if an argument were to be made it would draw parallels with the Bird Flu and Anthrax etc. People tend to overreact and in the end people benefit from the over reactions.

That's the best I can come up with. I don't know if that's the actual argument being made.

Also I hope DN writes a new, controversial blog to replace all these same threads.

[checkymcfold]

I imagine if an argument were to be made it would draw parallels with the Bird Flu and Anthrax etc. People tend to overreact and in the end people benefit from the over reactions.

That's the best I can come up with. I don't know if that's the actual argument being made.

Also I hope DN writes a new, controversial blog to replace all these same threads.

who? why? how?

[MorphyATL]

Billions and billions of dollars per year given in grants to scientists who want to stay employed.

[checkymcfold]

Billions and billions of dollars per year given in grants to scientists who want to stay employed.

what companies exist that would benefit from fudged science?

you know, other than oil companies that don't want things to change.

(also, fyi, very very few americans have a clue how research grants work in either the theoretical or practical sciences. just sayin.)

[LongLiveYorke]

Are you kidding me? You obviously have no idea how scientific research works, so I'll let you in on the secret:

So, scientists get together and think of rich people. Then they think of what the rich people would like to hear or what would scare the rich people. They then go off making up stuff.

See, scientists get their grants from corporations or individuals who would not give them money unless their work had public interest. I mean, have you ever heard of a scientist studying something boring? Come on!

So, they take all this rich people money, use it to make up stuff, buy expensive equipment, make up more stuff, and then publish it all. After all that, they take their leftover grant money and pocket it. Yeah, scientists can do that. Then they go out and buy fast, expensive cars, pick up hot babes (usually hookers), and buy them lavish gifts.

What, you didn't know that.

[myenemy]

Are you kidding me? You obviously have no idea how scientific research works, so I'll let you in on the secret:

So, scientists get together and think of rich people. Then they think of what the rich people would like to hear or what would scare the rich people. They then go off making up stuff.

See, scientists get their grants from corporations or individuals who would not give them money unless their work had public interest. I mean, have you ever heard of a scientist studying something boring? Come on!

So, they take all this rich people money, use it to make up stuff, buy expensive equipment, make up more stuff, and then publish it all. After all that, they take their leftover grant money and pocket it. Yeah, scientists can do that. Then they go out and buy fast, expensive cars, pick up hot babes (usually hookers), and buy them lavish gifts.

What, you didn't know that.

A. I think you're oversimplifying things. Does it not make sense that without the preponderance of GW that many scientists and "clean air" type companies would be out of work? I think that is the only argument there, not a particularly strong one IMO.

B. I dont know that most people are saying that the scientists themselves are part of some hoax, maybe the pols. I think most critics just think those scientists are flat out wrong or are caught up in the craze.


I think one admission that everyone should make is that ANY set of data can be manipulated to support an argument.

[checkymcfold]

A. I think you're oversimplifying things. Does it not make sense that without the preponderance of GW that many scientists and "clean air" type companies would be out of work? I think that is the only argument there, not a particularly strong one IMO.

B. I dont know that most people are saying that the scientists themselves are part of some hoax, maybe the pols. I think most critics just think those scientists are flat out wrong or are caught up in the craze.
I think one admission that everyone should make is that ANY set of data can be manipulated to support an argument.

quite simply, no. that's what makes the whole global warming thing at once hilarious and totally, totally sad to me. the same scientific method that made your SUV is telling you not to drive it anymore. you can't say science is ok sometimes but not ok other times without sounding retarded.

a relativistic view of truth is useful for the right sometimes, i guess.

[BWToth]

A. I think you're oversimplifying things. Does it not make sense that without the preponderance of GW that many scientists and "clean air" type companies would be out of work? I think that is the only argument there, not a particularly strong one IMO.

B. I dont know that most people are saying that the scientists themselves are part of some hoax, maybe the pols. I think most critics just think those scientists are flat out wrong or are caught up in the craze.
I think one admission that everyone should make is that ANY set of data can be manipulated to support an argument.

What are you arguing?

That people should stop believing in global warming? And? then what? Ignore it?

If is has yet to be proven true, or false, should the best course of action be spend more time and money and effort to make a more accurate determination about it? regardless of which side of the fence that research falls on?

[myenemy]

What are you arguing?

That people should stop believing in global warming? And? then what? Ignore it?

If is has yet to be proven true, or false, should the best course of action be spend more time and money and effort to make a more accurate determination about it? regardless of which side of the fence that research falls on?

I wasn't actually arguing with or against GW, only what was said by Yorke. I believe that both sides of the argument need to give a little ground.

Global Warmists are very fond of saying that, "we are on an unalterable course". What then is the answer?

Im not quite sure my posts have a logical progression here but these are a few of the marbles rolling around in my head.

Thanks for keeping it civil.

[jmkiser]

I think the point being made is to just watch out before you start making conspiracy theories about scientists.

Scientists become scientists so they can seek out the world, make discoveries, etc.. And they are paid to do just that.

You will be very hard pressed to find too many "dirty" scientists, as I like to call them, that will screw with data.




Now, I'm not saying that you won't get politicians or other people with agendas just using information and data that they want to back up a one sided discussion. There are plenty of people that look at one side and not the other.

In the situation of the trend of the warming climate, though, there really isn't anyone who can doubt that. People do, for some reason.... but whether you think this warming climate is going to lead to our ultimate doom or is purely natural has nothing to do with the researchers.

Plus, many people here need to realize the difference between a stated fact or a stated opinion.

[Balloon guy]

A good question Checky


Her'es my not so good answer:

IF:
The people studying climate change come to the conclussion that for the most part things are okay let's just be careful.
Why should there be larger budgets for them?

If:

After studying global warming they conclude that they don't have enough data to suport either side...

Why should they get more money?




Now I agree that the fossil fuel businesses have a vested interest in there not being a problem, so they spend money on their people to confirm that there is no problem, if those people found out there was a problem, they would lose their funding if they came forward.

Both sides have an equal reason to continue their opinion for or against.


So it's not really a valid reason to prove for or against the science, but to conclude that one side is pure in their motives is not valid either.

[Loismustdie]

What are you arguing?

That people should stop believing in global warming? And? then what? Ignore it?

If is has yet to be proven true, or false, should the best course of action be spend more time and money and effort to make a more accurate determination about it? regardless of which side of the fence that research falls on?

Actually,the bigger question isn't if global warming is happening- it is- the question is the why,and the answer is debatable but I tend to agree with the side that says we have little to do with it and nothing that happens can be stopped,it is just the cycle of earth/life.

[Guero]

"I like to picture Ace as an Indian Chief in buttless chaps. I like to picture Gary with his body shaved and tennis ball shoved in his mouth."


The agenda? Doom and gloom. As the great Ari Gold said: "Of course he's not happy, nobody's happy in this town except for the losers. Look at me I'm miserable, that's why I'm rich!"

[checkymcfold]

"I like to picture Ace as an Indian Chief in buttless chaps. I like to picture Gary with his body shaved and tennis ball shoved in his mouth."
The agenda? Doom and gloom. As the great Ari Gold said: "Of course he's not happy, nobody's happy in this town except for the losers. Look at me I'm miserable, that's why I'm rich!"

this is nonsensical. besides, smarter people than us have already noted that the "omfg i'm so persecuted" sentiment is some mischanneled christian crap.

[Guero]

this is nonsensical. besides, smarter people than us have already noted that the "omfg i'm so persecuted" sentiment is some mischanneled christian crap.

Ermm...maybe not. It's all $$. News is an industry...doom & gloom sells. Turn on any of the 24 hour news channels and you'll see that 95% of the stories are negative (Regardless of libreal/conservative bias). The owners of these stations are turning coin.

Also...i wanted to quote Ari.

[LITTLEPOPPA]

Ermm...maybe not. It's all $$. News is an industry...doom & gloom sells. Turn on any of the 24 hour news channels and you'll see that 95% of the stories are negative (Regardless of libreal/conservative bias). The owners of these stations are turning coin.

Also...i wanted to quote Ari.

yes but i like the end of the news that has the piece on the squirrell that waterskis....it always makes me laugh

[checkymcfold]

A good question Checky
Her'es my not so good answer:

IF:
The people studying climate change come to the conclussion that for the most part things are okay let's just be careful.
Why should there be larger budgets for them?

well, that's partially what i'm confused with concerning the argument. they have studied it, they have concluded that we do contribute significantly to CO2 emissions, they have concluded that that hurts the environment in such a way that endangers our survival. that is something that was entirely correct about gore's movie. there are a few scientists who disagree, but they don't get anything published in anything reputable because they're crackpots. a lot of the conservative media, for whatever reason, presents global warming as a "debate" when it's just simply not. the rest of the world knows this. why the US does not pretty much baffles me.

If:

After studying global warming they conclude that they don't have enough data to suport either side...

Why should they get more money?
Now I agree that the fossil fuel businesses have a vested interest in there not being a problem, so they spend money on their people to confirm that there is no problem, if those people found out there was a problem, they would lose their funding if they came forward.

i understand this sentiment, but even if i were to grant you that it might be true (although i won't), to even bring this idea up does SO MUCH MORE harm to the side claiming that "there is no threat" (viz, oil execs funding "research" in numerous documented cases) that it would be a terrible idea for "that side" to bring it up.

Both sides have an equal reason to continue their opinion for or against.
So it's not really a valid reason to prove for or against the science, but to conclude that one side is pure in their motives is not valid either.

i'm not really "concluding" anything, though. that's the thing. all i'm saying is that there is an implicit trust in how scientists do their job by the general public, but in the case of global warming it seems to be taken away for a silly reason. i could tell you that scientists were very careful to not let the gas in your gas tank or the HUGE electric charge of your CRT tv set or computer monitor blow you up literally every day of your life, and you'd probably believe in them and the scientific method in that context. but then, when i say the same scientists and the same methods are showing you that we're melting glaciers and ice caps and making the world hotter, suddenly it's "just a debate," which sounds utterly retarded to me (sorry for putting it so bluntly, but it really does, lol). you can't trust science just when it's convenient. it's a method of getting after physical facts and the interpretations thereof. if it works when it's convenient, it also works when it's not. just the nature of the beast--deal with it.

i'm not trying to sound overly confrontational here, despite the fact that i know that i am. i really get fired up about this issue, since the lives of my yet-to-be-born kids and grandkids depend on it.

[checkymcfold]

Ermm...maybe not. It's all $$. News is an industry...doom & gloom sells. Turn on any of the 24 hour news channels and you'll see that 95% of the stories are negative (Regardless of libreal/conservative bias). The owners of these stations are turning coin.

Also...i wanted to quote Ari.

ok, but i still have no clue how this has any bearing on the present discussion. i never, ever see a piece on the news about global warming (unless i'm in canada, lol).

[LITTLEPOPPA]

ok, but i still have no clue how this has any bearing on the present discussion. i never, ever see a piece on the news about global warming (unless i'm in canada, lol).

bottom line is there is much more money to be made in the prevention of something than in the cure for someting


take cancer...if One company could come up with a cure, great...do u know how many companies make money from the possible prevention of cancer... if it gets cured, whole industries are totally screwed...foundations/funding/research...no one would eat a freaking vegetable if they didnt have to, no vitamins, antioxidants...everyone just eatin mcdonalds, cheetoes and drinkin grape soda...everyone else is screwed if cancer gets cured...

with the news.... it like a story of ur wife or spouse..when u walk in the office no one comes over and says, "u know my wife is great and we had such a nice night last night"..cause no one is interested in that ****...its not worth saying if it doesnt start..."wait till u hear what my wife did, or "my wife was so pissed at me"..cause nice stories arent what people want to hear...