EVE Search - Global Warming: pseudoscientific fraud?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Global Warming: pseudoscientific fraud?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce	Posted - 2010.10.11 22:59:00 - [31] Originally by: baltec1 Originally by: Grimpak that's my point. due to how science can be specific and focussed in a single point, isn't it right to assume that there is a probability of we're missing the grand scale of things? Well if we look at the facts: 1. We are pumping a lot of crap into the air. 2. Its getting warmer. 3. We know we can ** up the planet. Stands to reason that we can be having a very bad impact upon the planet and its better to act and be wrong than to not act at all and be right. thing is, I do believe we're ing up the planet. what I don't think we really know atm is how much are we ing it up. if we're just rushing the next "warm" period or even the next "ice age", and whatever we do we'll be just delaying or if we're actually "creating" one. or if this is just a big load of BS for politicians to create more taxes. so yes, while I do firmly believe we're ing up the planet, the question of "how much?" is still unanswered. --- Quote:** The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Falcus Hadron	Posted - 2010.10.11 23:01:00 - [32] Edited by: Falcus Hadron on 11/10/2010 23:05:14 Originally by: Professor Tarantula You're trying to dismiss what he said because of who he is. That is an ad hominem. If you can't argue anything he said then just be quiet. Credibility of sources is everything for this discussion. For example i can say global warming is caused by invisible fairy **** undetectable by science, but you wouldn't waste time attempting to refute a non-falsifiable claim.Since I am not a credible source. This is especially since he's presenting not a scientific case but a conspiracy theory. Furthermore the article presents a grand total of ZERO facts reguarding Global Warming or lack there of, since it's entirely focused on an alleged cover up. Ironically, consisting more or less entirely of the hated Ad Hominen.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.10.11 23:07:00 - [33] Originally by: Grimpak thing is, I do believe we're **ing up the planet. what I don't think we really know atm is how much are we ing it up. if we're just rushing the next "warm" period or even the next "ice age", and whatever we do we'll be just delaying or if we're actually "creating" one. or if this is just a big load of BS for politicians to create more taxes. so yes, while I do firmly believe we're **ing up the planet, the question of "how much?" is still unanswered. Personaly I think it is too late now and all we can do is damage control. The next 40 years is going to be an intersting time and I would not advise buying a house in florida.
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2010.10.11 23:12:00 - [34] Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 11/10/2010 23:18:22 Bah, now i remember why i stopped trying to have serious discussions in any old forum. Won't be responding anymore. Hope some of you appreciated the info. My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq.
Falcus Hadron	Posted - 2010.10.11 23:16:00 - [35] Originally by: Professor Tarantula It's allegedly caused by CFCs which are particles, and something i'd trust a particle physicist to explain over a climateologist anyday. Enough of this. Again, refute my eve is magnets on a server argument and I'll walk away. CFC are part of a far larger system including the interaction of solar activity, ocean temperature and evaporation, wind, storm cycles, everything else I haven't brought up. Are we to expect he knows all of those and how they interact, just because he knows how CFCs work? Would you believe him over someone who has devoted his entire academic career to the study of the field? And also, I would like to see his argument, it's not on the page.
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2010.10.11 23:20:00 - [36] Bah, now i remember why i stopped trying to have serious discussions in any old forum. Won't be responding anymore. Hope some of you appreciated the info. My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq.
Lashana Wu Amarr	Posted - 2010.10.11 23:56:00 - [37] Originally by: Professor Tarantula Bah, now i remember why i stopped trying to have serious discussions in any old forum. Did you leave without actually refuting any arguments there, too?
Herzog Wolfhammer Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2010.10.12 00:32:00 - [38] Originally by: Intense Thinker Edited by: Intense Thinker on 11/10/2010 18:22:30 Originally by: Professor Tarantula it's the greatest travesty of science he has ever witnessed in his long life Apparently someone has never been to the Vatican... Stands back to watch the flames Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails i am not afraid of manbearpig lol x Ha! Actually, the world thinks it has progressed (especially if you ask the people who call themselves progressives). But the only thing managed so far is that people stopped killing in the name of God, and instead kill for the state or money.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce	Posted - 2010.10.12 01:22:00 - [39] Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer But the only thing managed so far is that people stopped killing in the name of God, and instead kill for the state or money. at least it's something more tangible. either way, it is of my humble opinion that, even if we manage to conquer the entire galaxy, we would still bicker and quarrel like yon olde days. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Lu Hsun Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2010.10.12 01:36:00 - [40] Originally by: Grimpak either way, it is of my humble opinion that, even if we manage to conquer the entire galaxy, we would still bicker and quarrel like yon olde days. No we wouldn't! We'd have grid fire cannons instead of clubs! Big difference there.
Zions Child Caldari Carthage Industries Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2010.10.12 01:58:00 - [41] As a Physicist, I know for a fact that I am not entirely capable of commenting on Climatology. Indeed, I do have some knowledge about it, based on my own reading, but the way particles interact in chemistry and climatology is not really in the purview of Physics. A particle physicist deals with accelerating particles to .999999c and smashing them together, and observing what happens afterwards. Unless someone were blaming Global Warming on UHECR, (Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic Rays) I do not believe the man you're claiming to have "debunked Global Warming" is qualified to offer the argument he has. Don't confuse the broad knowledge a Physics PhD imparts with the considerably more specific knowledge imparted by a degree in another field. Physics deals with the most minute and specific things in the universe, and the most grand and general. These give us the very basic laws which pervade all aspects of science. That being said, although the laws of electromagnetism, gravitation, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force, are all involved in climatology, they do not affect it in a measurable way. It is not the basis of that field, and it is not the basis of knowledge in that field. (Also, CFC's are not particles, they are molecules, aka a combination of atoms. This means a chemist would be FAR more qualified to describe a CFC's reactions in the atmosphere than a Physicist would. Also, this is particle in the physicist sense, not the broad definition of the term.) In my opinion, even if GW is a hoax, we should really go through the effort of finding clean, renewable energy. Hell, the Middle Eastern nations have been heavily investing in Solar Energy, because they know they'll be running out of oil soon. Originally by: CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.10.12 03:48:00 - [42] Originally by: Zions Child As a Physicist, I know for a fact that I am not entirely capable of commenting on Climatology. Indeed, I do have some knowledge about it, based on my own reading, but the way particles interact in chemistry and climatology is not really in the purview of Physics. A particle physicist deals with accelerating particles to .999999c and smashing them together, and observing what happens afterwards. Unless someone were blaming Global Warming on UHECR, (Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic Rays) I do not believe the man you're claiming to have "debunked Global Warming" is qualified to offer the argument he has. Don't confuse the broad knowledge a Physics PhD imparts with the considerably more specific knowledge imparted by a degree in another field. Physics deals with the most minute and specific things in the universe, and the most grand and general. These give us the very basic laws which pervade all aspects of science. That being said, although the laws of electromagnetism, gravitation, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force, are all involved in climatology, they do not affect it in a measurable way. It is not the basis of that field, and it is not the basis of knowledge in that field. (Also, CFC's are not particles, they are molecules, aka a combination of atoms. This means a chemist would be FAR more qualified to describe a CFC's reactions in the atmosphere than a Physicist would. Also, this is particle in the physicist sense, not the broad definition of the term.) In my opinion, even if GW is a hoax, we should really go through the effort of finding clean, renewable energy. Hell, the Middle Eastern nations have been heavily investing in Solar Energy, because they know they'll be running out of oil soon. tl;dr not cross-eye inducing version? Air is good? Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist
Zions Child Caldari Carthage Industries Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2010.10.12 04:06:00 - [43] Originally by: Intense Thinker tl;dr not cross-eye inducing version? Air is good? Soz, my screen is 10 inches diagonally, so it looked fine to me but that may not be true for others :-/ And no comments about what else might or might not be 10 inches. Originally by: CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.10.12 04:22:00 - [44] Originally by: Zions Child Originally by: Intense Thinker tl;dr not cross-eye inducing version? Air is good? Soz, my screen is 10 inches diagonally, so it looked fine to me but that may not be true for others :-/ And no comments about what else might or might not be 10 inches. I'm guessing the latter Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist
Zions Child Caldari Carthage Industries Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2010.10.12 04:39:00 - [45] Originally by: Intense Thinker Originally by: Zions Child Originally by: Intense Thinker tl;dr not cross-eye inducing version? Air is good? Soz, my screen is 10 inches diagonally, so it looked fine to me but that may not be true for others :-/ And no comments about what else might or might not be 10 inches. I'm guessing the latter Damnit! I said no discussions, and no, its not unfortunately... Of course, 10 inches would be a lot... Originally by: CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.10.12 04:41:00 - [46] Originally by: Zions Child Originally by: Intense Thinker Originally by: Zions Child Originally by: Intense Thinker tl;dr not cross-eye inducing version? Air is good? Soz, my screen is 10 inches diagonally, so it looked fine to me but that may not be true for others :-/ And no comments about what else might or might not be 10 inches. I'm guessing the latter Damnit! I said no discussions, and no, its not unfortunately... Of course, 10 inches would be a lot... A lot of women I've talked too said that too big is just as bad as too small... ok, what the hell am I doing? I'm so not talking to you about this Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist
Zions Child Caldari Carthage Industries Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2010.10.12 04:51:00 - [47] Edited by: Zions Child on 12/10/2010 04:52:59 Originally by: Intense Thinker A lot of women I've talked too said that too big is just as bad as too small... ok, what the hell am I doing? I'm so not talking to you about this I don't know about you, sir, but I am clearly talking about the length of my wireless battery powered telecommunications device, and was thinking about how a 10 inch screen would be nice, but difficult to fit in ones pocket EDIT: Epic thread derail for a moment right there. Now if only the others would catch on :-/ Originally by: CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.10.12 05:04:00 - [48] Originally by: Zions Child Edited by: Zions Child on 12/10/2010 04:52:59 Originally by: Intense Thinker A lot of women I've talked too said that too big is just as bad as too small... ok, what the hell am I doing? I'm so not talking to you about this I don't know about you, sir, but I am clearly talking about the length of my wireless battery powered telecommunications device, and was thinking about how a 10 inch screen would be nice, but difficult to fit in ones pocket EDIT: Epic thread derail for a moment right there. Now if only the others would catch on :-/ Of course, women hate lugging around a wireless battery powered telecommunications device that's too big and awkward. Likewise with one that is too small that she can't see it clearly. What else would we be talking about here? Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist
Zions Child Caldari Carthage Industries Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2010.10.12 05:06:00 - [49] Originally by: Intense Thinker Of course, women hate lugging around a wireless battery powered telecommunications device that's too big and awkward. Likewise with one that is too small that she can't see it clearly. What else would we be talking about here? Quite. Forgive my earlier trespass. Originally by: CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2010.10.12 05:10:00 - [50] Originally by: Zions Child Originally by: Intense Thinker Of course, women hate lugging around a wireless battery powered telecommunications device that's too big and awkward. Likewise with one that is too small that she can't see it clearly. What else would we be talking about here? Quite. Forgive my earlier trespass. It ok, this thread can get back on topic now... whatever that might be Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist
alittlebirdy	Posted - 2010.10.12 06:22:00 - [51] Originally by: baltec1 Well if we look at the facts.... Ya cept only 1 is a fact, the rest is yet to be seen. It is a money grab, plain and simple. Tax is not the way to do it. My god damn eletric is enough, I do not need a huge tax on coal plants making it go up 2-3x.
Daxel Magmalloy	Posted - 2010.10.12 07:08:00 - [52] Originally by: alittlebirdy Originally by: baltec1 Well if we look at the facts.... Ya cept only 1 is a fact, the rest is yet to be seen. It is a money grab, plain and simple. Tax is not the way to do it. My god damn eletric is enough, I do not need a huge tax on coal plants making it go up 2-3x. Whether you want to hear this or not, that really is blatant rationalisation for myopic self-interest. The evidence is there all you have to do is find it and look at it intelligently. Simply put 'evidence climate change' into google. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ It's not that difficult.
Sergeant Spot Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.12 07:22:00 - [53] Prior to the Hockey stick graph, I believed in the scam of Human Caused Global Climate Change. But I'm a history major. When the hockey stick graph came out, I took one look, then another look, then looked again.... wtf, where is the medieval warming period and little Ice Age??? Turns out they try to deny it ever existed. Then they tried to claim it was just Europe. To this day, I have YET here a good explination for the Hockey stick graph. Its NOT just that it was wrong. It was that it was GLARINGLY wrong, and to this day, susposedly educated people try and defend it. I still believe in Human caused environmental impact, just like all sceptics do. Just not in Al Gore and his fraud. Play nice while you butcher each other.
Orange Lagomorph	Posted - 2010.10.12 07:36:00 - [54] If global warming is as bad as some claim, might as well stop worrying about it right now. Emissions won't be reduced for decades to come. The industrialization of the East and the United States' love of gigantic SUVs (driven by one person with no other passengers or cargo 90% of the time) will see to that. The most we can do, quite literally, is slow down the rise of emissions. In other words, if a global disaster is forthcoming due to emissions, it's going to happen no matter what. We use oil for everything. So... it doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong. Actually, I'm hoping the oil company shills are right.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.10.12 09:03:00 - [55] Reducing oil consumption isnt going to change anything significantly anyway. Lets say we now run in 60 years out of (most) oil. Now we greatly reduce oil consumption and we run out in 100 years. So after 100 years the CO2 levels due to oil consumption would still be exactly equal.
Vak'ran	Posted - 2010.10.12 09:07:00 - [56] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Vak'ran Its a hugely complex and gigantic system, operating on timescales that dwarf humanity as a whole. No wonder its something of a challenge to wrap one's head around it that's my point. due to how science can be specific and focussed in a single point, isn't it right to assume that there is a probability of we're missing the grand scale of things? The scientific community is quite well on its way to provide insight in the systems involved. It is single statements and bitesize explanations which press and politics love so dearly that skew the picture. This is not a thing I believe one can avoid, as you will find very few in press and politics willing and capable to review the whole picture, and a great many that are involved in calling the shots. Even in the scientific community many are only open to their own field of study, which doesn't do the the whole thing much good as it crosses multiple disciplines. Add a dash of political and economic interests and you quickly come to a skewed vision that even the general public will start doubting due to the major generalizations that crop up... I don't think this is something that is easily avoided, as there are a great many people involved in calling the shots, a great many people with a great many different interests. This is also true for the scientific community tasked with 'solving the problem'. In the end it seems to me that it comes down to it that we humans are simply not wired (yet) to handle global processes, which is a shame as we are a rather global process ourselves Vak'Ran is your local official non-dedicated part-time advocate of reading comprehension and proliferation of intelligence on the EVE Online Forum
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.10.12 09:11:00 - [57] Originally by: alittlebirdy Originally by: baltec1 Well if we look at the facts.... Ya cept only 1 is a fact, the rest is yet to be seen. It is a money grab, plain and simple. Tax is not the way to do it. My god damn eletric is enough, I do not need a huge tax on coal plants making it go up 2-3x. Care to go into details a bit more? We do pump a lot of crap into the air, world temperatures have gone up in recent history and we did punch a hole into the o-zone layer. Climate change is happening, the question is just how much impact are we having in this change.
Riedle Minmatar Wayne's TV and Appliances	Posted - 2010.10.12 13:07:00 - [58] Edited by: Riedle on 12/10/2010 13:10:05 Edited by: Riedle on 12/10/2010 13:09:32 Originally by: Sergeant Spot Prior to the Hockey stick graph, I believed in the scam of Human Caused Global Climate Change. But I'm a history major. When the hockey stick graph came out, I took one look, then another look, then looked again.... wtf, where is the medieval warming period and little Ice Age??? Turns out they try to deny it ever existed. Then they tried to claim it was just Europe. To this day, I have YET here a good explination for the Hockey stick graph. Its NOT just that it was wrong. It was that it was GLARINGLY wrong, and to this day, susposedly educated people try and defend it. I still believe in Human caused environmental impact, just like all sceptics do. Just not in Al Gore and his fraud. yeah, exactly. The earth has been warming for what, 3 decades? it was cooling in the 70's.. Alot of the momentum of the Anthropogenic Greenhouse warming is simply political correctness infecting the scientific community. It is politically correct to accept AGW and it has compromised WAY too many scientific principles along the way. That's what this guy is getting at. Co2 may or may not be the big bad pollutant that people are saying that it is (personally I think Co2 is NOT a pollutant, but plant food, but whatever) but let the science find out and not be hostile to other possible explanations such as a waeker ozone layeer, the urban heat island effect etc etc etc. It's always a tragedy when the principles of science are perverted and everyone, pro or anti AGW should be concerned about it. click here
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.12 13:26:00 - [59] The problem here comes straight down to issues of consumption. Those in power need those not in power to consume more and more to keep them in 'control', therefore those in power need to also consume to produce what is required for the populace to consume. One vicious circle that has lead to over population and over consumption. Yes, CO2 is plant food, but we have destroyed much vegetation and in turn released ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere that is not being reconsumed by the natural recyclers of the CO2. Is this the cause of global warming? I do not think that really matters at this point. Whether or not this process has had significant and direct impact on global climate change does not really change the facts that there are way too many humans on this planet consuming way too much. The real problem will arise when those resources truly become stressed to 'all' who live in this system. That is when some real tough decisions will have to be made; decisions that should be made now. That is if mother earth lets us get that far The world would benefit from an shift in the global attitude to minimalist mentality. Our resources should be targeted at the stars not at out entertainment pleasure centers. Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.10.12 14:52:00 - [60] Originally by: Riedle Edited by: Riedle on 12/10/2010 13:10:05 Edited by: Riedle on 12/10/2010 13:09:32 Originally by: Sergeant Spot Prior to the Hockey stick graph, I believed in the scam of Human Caused Global Climate Change. But I'm a history major. When the hockey stick graph came out, I took one look, then another look, then looked again.... wtf, where is the medieval warming period and little Ice Age??? Turns out they try to deny it ever existed. Then they tried to claim it was just Europe. To this day, I have YET here a good explination for the Hockey stick graph. Its NOT just that it was wrong. It was that it was GLARINGLY wrong, and to this day, susposedly educated people try and defend it. I still believe in Human caused environmental impact, just like all sceptics do. Just not in Al Gore and his fraud. yeah, exactly. The earth has been warming for what, 3 decades? it was cooling in the 70's.. Alot of the momentum of the Anthropogenic Greenhouse warming is simply political correctness infecting the scientific community. It is politically correct to accept AGW and it has compromised WAY too many scientific principles along the way. That's what this guy is getting at. Co2 may or may not be the big bad pollutant that people are saying that it is (personally I think Co2 is NOT a pollutant, but plant food, but whatever) but let the science find out and not be hostile to other possible explanations such as a waeker ozone layeer, the urban heat island effect etc etc etc. It's always a tragedy when the principles of science are perverted and everyone, pro or anti AGW should be concerned about it. I remember there being worries back in the 70's, in another ice age coming our way. The earth warms, Co2 levels rise. It's a reaction not a cause. Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.