LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksBut one can say that about anything. Just because there's profit in something, doesn't mean it's not true. For it to be a "CONSPIRACY" you need proof of a combination of intentional dishonesty and fudged data.Originally Posted by RPA1
Sr. Correspondent
But one can say that about anything. Just because there's profit in something, doesn't mean it's not true. For it to be a "CONSPIRACY" you need proof of a combination of intentional dishonesty and fudged data.
I said I wouldn't call it a conspiracy...Geez do some of you people even read posts? GW is not settled it is on-going research (which I also said) yet we are lead to believe we need to spend our tax dollars thwarting something that hasn't even been proven. There is no profit. Like many government 'black hole' programs the money goes in and nothing comes out. Solyndra comes to mind.
Energy goes where intention flows.
Sr. Correspondent
Oh relax...you're not being personally attacked.
GW is not settled it is on-going research (which I also said) yet we are lead to believe we need to spend our tax dollars thwarting something that hasn't even been proven. There is no profit.
But you did write:
Global warming has become an industry fueled by our tax-dollars
By saying industry, you did imply profit motivated business activity was part of your concern.
Last edited by l4zarus; Feb 08 2012 at 12:23 PM.
I didn't say I was 'personally attacked' I asked of you people actually read posts. Again you fail to properly address what is written.
Industry is fueled by its own PROFIT not by our tax dollars. Where do some you people think profit comes from anyway? Gad it's worse than I thought!But you did write:
Global warming has become an industry fueled by our tax-dollars
By saying industry, you did imply profit motivated business activity was part of your concern.
Energy goes where intention flows.
Guru
It appears we are seeing more lies from the GW community
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...s-than-thought
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ins?intcmp=122
Commentator
Eventually, but studies have suggested that the current burning of fossil fuels will prevent ice ages for the next half million years. See Archer & Ganopolski 2005.
Is quantum mechanics speculation? Is the Beer-Lambert Law speculation? Are the Navier-Stokes equations speculation? Is the absorption spectrum of CO2 speculation? Is conservation of energy speculation? If not, precisely what speculation are you objecting to?
The last time global CO2 levels were as high as they are today and stayed that way for a century or more was in the Middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago. At that time, global temps were 3 to 6 K warmer than today, and sea levels were about 100 feet higher than today. Tell me why you think that result cannot happen this time around. And tell me why that result is nothing to be concerned about.
False. The scientific consensus on this point is actually pretty good.
Human vs. natural contributions to global warming, according to: Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange).
Exactly the opposite is true. Models are flawed not because we know too little, but because we know so much that not everything we know can be put into a model and still make it run faster than real time. Therefore modelers have to pick and choose what to put in and what to leave out.
All, and I mean ALL, scientific laws are models. If you don't believe in models, you don't believe in science.
The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial:
1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories
Diethelm & Mckee 2009
Honesty is not on the list.
Commentator
The article says nothing about models. It does say something about measurements. Next time, read for content.
The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial:
1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories
Diethelm & Mckee 2009
Honesty is not on the list.
What "lies"?
There is a vast difference between "our estimates were wrong" and the sort of lies you see from denialists where whole "research" papers are manufactured.
The first is actually a mark of honesty and integrity. They were wrong in degree and they admit it
Sor to like a doctor telling you that they do not have to amputate your leg above the knee - they can save the knee - but of course you will have to have the knee amputated next year because we are not going to stop the rot - but at least you will have a knee for a year
The internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” ― Terry Pratchett
The lie is that GW proven science when it is obvious, from that article and other revelations about the GW industry, that the whole field is still being researched. There has been no scientific experimentation with the actual climate to prove any of the claims made.
Energy goes where intention flows.
Commentator
When was the last time you heard a scientist use the word "proven"? In what paper?
The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial:
1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories
Diethelm & Mckee 2009
Honesty is not on the list.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks