Reply With Quote
Climate change is all about Political power, Ruffffffffffffffff.
Wake up WAKE UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Want to learn something, take 50 minutes out and watch Clive's book launch at the Australian National University last week. This is his fourth book, and he is an expert on the politics and science of climate change.
He has some particularly interesting comments on the rise of anti-scientific thinking led by the 'populist conservative' movement in the US.
BTW, I am not going to 'debate' climate science on here, because there is no debate in the science as is clear if you actually follow the science and not the media's distortion of it. Clive's speech is more about the politics and economics of climate change than the science.
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 04-20-2010 at 10:05 PM.
Climate change is all about Political power, Ruffffffffffffffff.
Wake up WAKE UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
A 50 minute youtube? No thanks.
Denial of anthropogenic climate change is the same irrational, magical thinking, anti-intellectualism as Bible-thumpers' childish creationism.
Climate Denial is all about Corporate Power (Koch, BigOil, BigCoal, BigAg, etc) spending $100s of $Ms to maintain their revenue streams, to avoid cleaning up their unsustainable industries by duping teabaggers, camo-bubbas, and other red-state dumb s into believing corporatge-protective fairy tales instead of science.
Two things:
The sun has always been the chief factor... Or did our anthropomorphic effects make it all the way to Mars as well?
Is water considered a pollutant by the climate change crowd? After all, it's forcing-factor on the greenhouse effect is 50x more potent than that of CO2? Which is it?
Take 1 minute to watch and you will learn everything about climate change
Evidently that mars rover we sent up there is an suv.
Good video.
If you say so. Will you ever understand the sciences enough to see the problems with the AGW theories out there?
On the contrary, it's the AGW crowd already making money with carbon credits, and lack of science. Scientific consensus is not science. A true Peer review process does not exist in the AGW world, because it would fall apart. The peer review process includes skeptics, showing the prrof to change their minds.
Don't you see... No true Peer Review, because that hasn't happened. They keep they data and methods to themselves. It's just another authoritarian take over for more control over our lives.
National Geographic News: Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
anti scientific thinking is on both sides of the isle, right next to scientific thinking.
The moment any scientist says "The science is settled.", he ceases to be a scientist and becomes an evangelist.
That, or the science is settled.
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.
Should have just posted a youtube instead.
What exactly Karl Popper used to say about that expression, "The science is settled"? Does anyone remember it?
PErsonally, I've never heard a scientist saying "The science is settled". As DarrinS says, that's not something a real scientist would say. That's an extremely anti-science kind of statement, it negates the core principles of scientific reasoning.
Cmon DarrinS, you could've thought this comment out a little better.
Or are we still not sure about the earth orbiting the Sun?
I think it's an excellent analogy. I'm pretty sure most scientists would agree with DarrinS and take exception with anyone who would say something like "The science is settled". That's religious language.
The bolded is hardly distinguishable from the appeal to authority you have taken exception to. That's religious language too.
Oh delicious irony.
So, it's unscientific to note that the science is settled regarding whether the earth rotates around the sun or not?
Or has there been some new evidence for the "earth is the center of the universe" theory that I haven't heard about?
I think the notion that science can be settled is unscientific itself.
Not that I'm aware of.
Certainly though, some theories have been proven correct to the point where the science has been settled. The theory that the Earth is the center of the universe, flat earth theory, the theory that rotting meat produces maggots/flies, etc etc
I don't agree that the science behind GW is 'settled' but the science of other theories can certainly be 'settled'. That's why scientists perform tests in the first place, to try to find answers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
