they'll tell you that oil will run out one day. as if.
its just a ruse to shove the prices up.
Global warming Page 2
Yes, and I've heard that they're going to say that oxygen is running out, just so that they can peddle us cans of 'fresh highland air'.
i heard that too. apparently they have opened an "oxygen bar".
Oxygen? Sounds expensive.
Quote: johnny roulette @ December 6, 2007, 7:58 PMi heard that too. apparently they have opened an "oxygen bar".
Apparently the sun will explode one day, but it's just a ruse in order to sell more cardigans.
that's another good one. sun exploding? i'm not even sure it exists.
Sun wont explode it'll boil out, we'll be fie though electric heaters will go up in price though so plan ahead
Quote: ajp29 @ December 6, 2007, 7:24 PM
Sure you got an unbiased opinion on that one Aaron
Why would I be biased? Not like I had anything to do with it.
Quote: johnny roulette @ December 6, 2007, 7:52 PMthey'll tell you that oil will run out one day. as if.
its just a ruse to shove the prices up.
This has got to be a joke.
Quote: Cinnamon @ December 6, 2007, 3:54 PMHow is distmantling or reconfiguring industries fulfilling 'short-term political aims'? The proposals of the environmental campaign will greatly impair politicans and academics alike. Yes, they may be mistaken but let's not peddle sinister conspiracy theories or we'll drag ourselves back through the enlightenment.
No conspiracy. My main point is that global warming as the media and pressure groups present it is not a true picture. The world has always survived despite the varying quantities of fixed or free carbon. The short-term political goals I was picturing as the imposition of green taxes that do nothing to make the world greener but simply act as a new source of government income. Long-term goals are development of renewables and less reliance on fossil fuels, which will not imo lead to a new dark age but rather the opposite - a cleaner world free from the influence of the OPEC monopoly.
Quote: Cinnamon @ December 6, 2007, 3:54 PMUnfortunately their 'belief system' is empirical evidence.
The same unbiased and empirical evidence that said BOTH smoking was harmful and smoking was not harmful? The same that says there is global warming and there isn't global warming? It's the same empirical evidence that they base the findings on BUT it is the interpretation of the evidence that differs. And interpretation is not fact, it is based on personal opinion, agenda, preference. Interpretation is dependant upon the individual human's belief system.
The same empirical evidence that based "Ontology recapitulates phylology" on faked diagrams, because Haekel had a theory and he needed the proof. He admitted to the forgery but his theory was still propounded for decades despite the proponents knowing it was all faked. Easier to teach a lie than teach the truth.
Another example is the famous peppered moth. It was a great idea but unfortunately to prove their point the scientists pinned DEAD moths to trees that the moths never even visited in their normal habitat. Why? Because when proof wasn't available to back what they expected, proof was created.
I can rattle off many more examples that are trumpeted in the media and then decades later quietly announced as 'over-enthusiatic manipulation of the data'. And these aren't piffling little 'tweaks' of the truth. Whole theories have been hung on fabricated evidence.
This is not the actions of men seeking truth, but men proving a point despite the truth. One man's empirical evidence is another man's dodgy sample, rigged result, threatened budget, and blind faith. Yep, even scientists are capable of that one.
Industry and government know that if you don't get scientific findings to back your case, you just go hire a scientist who will back it. Ergo, the tobacco debacle, the phalydomide horror. Science serves its paymaster.
Quote: Cinnamon @ December 6, 2007, 3:54 PMit's just generally accepted that if you want somebody to talk about science then you go to a scientist. I don't imagine that your doctor is perfect, but if you had a stomach complaint then you wouldn't go to an electrician.
No, but going to a BAD doctor is just as dangerous as going to an electrician, and maybe in that instance the electrician is a little safer.
If you believe Science to be a cold impassionate slave to truth then you haven't factored in the human need to prove our own pet theories, to be seen to be right. We all want to be right and when reputations and careers hang on it then you want to be right a whole lot more.
But your original point was that scientists were pursuing a dogmatic 'belief system'. It's always been accepted that different scientists have different opinions and different aims - some are fools and, as in the moth case, some are charlatans. You are perfectly correct that the conclusions of one scientist cannot be verified until they are studied by others; all accepted theories have been tested time and time again. The sensationalist media stories that you have given are perfect examples of one academics studies being treated as fact before greater research could be applied to it. Whole theories have been based on fallacious evidence, and they have been quickly disproved.
However, the vast majority of scientists accept the reality of greenhouse gases leading to extreme climate changes, these are not just controversial studies. Indeed, it is from the side of the deniers that the wilder individual speculations spring from, as evidenced by a wonderful hoax paper, 'Carbon dioxide production by benthic bacteria: the death of manmade global warming theory?', which was touted by climate sceptics as incisive proof before it was revealed to be feverish gibberish.
The 'Green Taxes' theory appears suspect. The Government could financially benefit from snubbing the scientists and reaping the rewards of good ol' cheap oil plants.
Quote: SlagA @ December 6, 2007, 9:54 PMIf you believe Science to be a cold impassionate slave to truth then you haven't factored in the human need to prove our own pet theories, to be seen to be right. We all want to be right and when reputations and careers hang on it then you want to be right a whole lot more.
Without scienctific study I wouldn't be tapping away at a computer, I wouldn't be warm and healthy and, doggone it, I'd probably be dead. We can't accept innovation and advancement and then castigate the practice when it throws something up that makes us feel uncomfortable.
Cinnamon - please read this as my shorthand - I tend to type fast and concise and sometimes it sounds a lot ruder than I intend it to be - so apols in advance.
Quote: Cinnamon @ December 6, 2007, 10:17 PMBut your original point was that scientists were persuing a dogmatic 'belief system'. It's always been accepted that different scientists have different opinions and different aims
I see where we misunderstand. When I say science is a 'belief system' I don't mean that every scientist sticks rigidly to exactly the same (and maybe implied though not intended, secret) global dogma. Every one of us has a very individual belief system of the way the world operates etc, scientists are no different. So when you say scientists vary in their opinions I see no problem with that. They, like me, are seeking proofs to justify their individual belief system.
Quote: Cinnamon @ December 6, 2007, 10:17 PMsome are fools and, as in the moth case, some are charlatans.
The charlatan in question was a highly-regarded Cambridge University academic and his team.
Quote: Cinnamon @ December 6, 2007, 10:17 PMall accepted theories have been tested time and time again. The sensationalist media stories are perfect examples of one academics studies being treated as fact before greater research could be applied to it. Whole theories have been based on fallacious evidence, and they have been quickly disproved.
In the case of Haekel, it was taught for DECADES after it was known to have been forged. Repetitions of the experiment disproved the theory but were ignored. Time and again, convenient lies are taught, inconvenient truths are squashed. It isn't a case of isolated rogue mavericks, it is very often a rampant disregard for truth.
I was once in a classroom of OU students. Our task was to pull the legs of grasshoppers. I choose to sit it out despite the threat that I'd lose marks if I didn't get involved. When the class results didn't match the expected results, we were told to 'amend' them.
If this kind of practice goes on in a class room what do you suppose happens when a million pound grant hangs on your results and your tutors have taught you to fudge when needed? Do you produce the real figures or the expected? The honest truth-seeking scientist in that example will be found at the DHS.
Quote: Cinnamon @ December 6, 2007, 10:17 PMHowever, the vast majority of scientists accept the reality of greenhouse gases leading to extreme climate changes. Indeed, it is from the side of the deniers that the wilder individual speculations spring from
Vast majority? Depends where that census was held. Yes there will be climate change as a result of freeing up carbon. I did say that. But the world is nowhere near the state of the Carboniferous world when vast quantities of carbon (much more than today) were in the biosphere. The world was warmer but life continued, in fact, it thrived. Climate change is not the same as irreversible global warming.
Quote: Cinnamon @ December 6, 2007, 10:17 PMThe 'Green Taxes' theory appears suspect. Government could financially benefit from snubbing the scientists and reaping the rewards of good ol' cheap oil plants.
Whereas at present, they get both. The green taxes AND the money from oil. 
Quote: Cinnamon @ December 6, 2007, 10:17 PMWithout scienctific study I wouldn't be tapping away at a computer, I wouldn't be warm and healthy and, doggone it, I'd probably be dead.
In the Roman Empire you'd have had almost as good a life expectancy (if you were in the elite) plus you'd have had warmth, plumbing, cosmetic surgery, etc.
Quote: Cinnamon @ December 6, 2007, 10:17 PMWe can't accept innovation and advancement and then castigate the practice when it throws something up that makes us feel uncomfortable.
Likewise, we can't fall into the trap of taking science for gospel. It has been wrong time and again. It will continue being wrong. A debt to advancement does not mean we must turn a blind eye to wrongdoing whenever, or wherever, it occurs. It doesn't mean that we must kow-tow like bulls being led by their ringed noses just because they gave us the Internet. It doesn't mean that we must accept their prophetic dispensations without a questioning mind. In some ways we are a lazy species. We like to let others think for us. When that person wears a white coat, or a dog collar, or a chain of office - all the better.
As I said it sounds so bleeding soapbox Hyde Park and I'm sorry for that - I wish I could write more conversationally
Quote: Cinnamon @ December 6, 2007, 7:56 PMYes, and I've heard that they're going to say that oxygen is running out, just so that they can peddle us cans of 'fresh highland air'.
On the subject of Oxygen, The biggest natural producer is not Sting's bloody rainforest but plankton blooms in our oceans. We should be a bit more aware of the state of our seas and make that a bit more of a priority.
Yes to Plankton. You said that just for the krill of it, WJFK.
Quote: SlagA @ December 6, 2007, 11:28 PMYes to Plankton. You said that just for the krill of it, WJFK.
I take my hat off to you sir.
Are plankton related to sea monkies? I like them. Used to keep them as a student cause I hated not having a pet.
I am super paranoid about global warming. I turn off everything when not in use, buy loose products where I can to reduce packaging, and recycle a lot! In the westcountry, we have lots of different bins for things. The mothership has 5! One for land fill, one for composable goods like garden waste and paper, a tub for tins, another for cardboard, and a mini bin for kitchen waste! Awwww! THINK OF THE ICKLE BABY POLAR BEARS!!!!!!