Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- designbot0
Anyway in regards to your link ukit, there are a few questions I would have regarding it. First, how were the 3,146 scientists selected and or what is their background? Let's keep in mind it is a survey, so where you might argue 97% of scientists involved believe global warming is real....this certainly DOES NOT mean that 97% OF ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL.
Plus, what tommyo said. According to this survey, 82% of these surveyed scientists think Global Warming is from humans. If one is carrying out such a survey and has a biased or certain presuppositions going into it....I don't think it's far fetched at all to think those chosen to participate could be hand picked.
Lastly, where are these scientists names recorded??
- ukit0
No I get it, tommyo.
10 years ago, the line the conservatives were feeding you guys was "global warming is a crock of shit."
Now it's, "it's real, but we're not sure how bad it is."
10 years from now, it will probably be, "OK, it's bad, but it's too late to do anything so fuck it."
- Yeah that's what happened. You guys need to get out more.tommyo
- No, it'll be: "Only conservatives can tackle this problem, not the pansy lefties..."TheBlueOne
- You're jumping on this train too TBO? I've got to say that I'm kinda disappointed.tommyo
- ukit0
And either way, the energy companies (who I'm sure have nooo skin in the game at all, not being involved with the Republican party < sarcasm) get to keep the profits rolling in and avoid the painful changes.
Cost for the rest of us? You're right, it's unknown.
- tommyo0
Ukit... who's fault was it when the ice age came to an end? Look, I'm not saying that it can't be us causing some of this... BUT... the only real fact is that we don't really know. We do know that the climate on earth is a volatile thing, constantly changing.
Religious nuts aside, if you take the timeline of earth and represented that as the Empire State Building, the timeline of humans is but the size of a mere postage stamp. This whole thing just feels a little too reactionary to me. But, when all is said and done, it would be much safer for us humans to live cleaner. So I'm with you on just about every 'solution,' I'm just not going to play the chicken little. We can go about this without all the doom and gloom, 'we must act now or we die!' bullshit. Like I said before, I think this is part of our societal evolution and it will happen. I just think that rushing into costly solutions as quickly as possible is the wrong approach.
- PonyBoy0
10 years from now we'll be back to global cooling and the north american union's 'amero' will be worth 10 cents it initial value
- ukit0
@ designbot - this is exactly what I mean when I say you take your biases/ ideology and work backwards from there.
Climate scientists are the ones who know about the climate. There's no reason to believe that poll is wrong except that you disagree with it. There is not a single reputable poll you can show me that has a majority doubting that GW is real.
- ********0
Not believing in global warming is like believing in Jesus.
- tommyo0
Yeah, scientists are always right.
'As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.'
http://www.time.com/time/magazin…
Reactionary. Purely reactionary.
- tommyo0
^^ In 1974 Blue_Balls would have been doing his part by burning goat dung to heat the world he helped destroy.
- designbot0
Ukit,
Don't you think that it is a perfectly acceptable request to ask for the scientists names involved? And also, to ask how they were selected? How is this "taking biases/ ideology and work backwards from there" You are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of. When I started a thread about Global Warming and posted a petition of a large number of scientists opposed, people claimed it was not legit based on the names on it. (If I am not mistaken, you were one of these people)Now you are wanting me to place faith in an article you post from CNN on a survey where I can't even see the names of the scientists on it? Why do you assume that this survey is 100% legit? I would bargain to say it is because of your own biases that you believe it 100% without researching it's validity.
- tommyo0
^^ In 1974 DrBombay would have been seen purchasing a 2 mpg dump truck so he could help do his part.
- the global cooling thing in the 70's was no where near a worldwide meme like global warming is now.DrBombay
- Yeah there wasn't money to be made in it.tommyo
- you're a fucking mook.DrBombay
- I thought you were all about the people being able to make money?DrBombay
- Do you try to miss the point and reduce things to simple rhetoric?tommyo
- ukit0
Yeah but the survey you posted was clearly not legit. That's the problem, you can't separate a survey of actual climate scientists from a survey that included dentists and had Mickey Mouse as one of the signatories.
- designbot0
And yours is no more legit, as it can not be verified. Just because it's from CNN does not make it legit. You know CNN leans heavily left and is basically FOX for democrats right? :)
- Since when is Fox considered news?********
- Like Joe the Plummer and or Col. Ollie North are credible, right.********
- holy shit...DrBombay
- Since when is Fox considered news?
- ukit0
That poll was not from CNN. It was done by a university.
How did they pick the respondents?
"The authors contacted the 10,200 scientists listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments and received 3,146 responses"
Go ahead, tell me how that poll was biased.
But fine, throw out that evidence if you want and just read the Wikipedia page on the subject...
- TheBlueOne0
OK, here's my take:
I'm pretty convinced there are climate change effects caused by our civilization. If you want to argue that point, fine. I think it's arguing if the earth is round or not, and quite frankly I'm not interested in wasting my time indulging in it.
As a species we've been around for about 200,000 years. Our jump to civilization started about 10,000 years ago. I work off the assumption that a big part of that drive towards civilization was a combination of general population size (hit a plateau of numbers that made agricultural and centralized authority workable) and agreeable climate to the whole agricultural experiment. If you think it's cool to play dice with those conditions that underlie the human civilization experiment, you go right ahead. I for one would like to use our wisdom, foresight and knowledge to maintain the conditions upon which our species thrives at an optimum level.
Any thing that mucks about with the climate conditions upon which allowed our civilization to flourish is of serious concern to me. If you're comfortable in sitting back and waiting to see if it's you know "really happening", well go right ahead, but don't be surprised if those conditions deterirate rapidly.
We know from the physical sciences and system theory that systems can exist at particular ranges of equilibrium for some time, but can easily slide into a radical phase transition quite quickly and at exponential rates. That seems to be the message that we're getting from the climate scientists I read. That we see some changes occurring, but by the time we really start seeing massive change, it'll be like a runaway train with massive amount of momentum and we're basically fucked. If I read one more douchetard comment like "Hey, it snowed here in Georgia today, so much for you climate eggheads and your so-called global warming!" on the internet I'll fucking scream.
Ah, but fuck it, the US is well on the path to losing it's leadership position in the world, why should this be any different.
- I agree with you on just about everything here. Even though I'm skeptical that this is earths cycle, we need to play it safetommyo
- and act wisely. It's the idea that we NEED to 'race to salvation' that concerns me when we really, in a macro scope of thistommyo
- issue, don't really understand it. It's relatively a new issue, why spend lots of resources on it, which cause other social economic problems with thistommyo
- economic problems with this sort of expediency?tommyo
- Well, I think that the speed of the problem will only increase, so we better be prepared...TheBlueOne
- The previous administration sat on their hands for 8 years about it. Where was the rush you speak of?DrBombay
- DrBombay0
These guys all say they are independents, but you never ever see them call bullshit on anything a conservative says... It's all very suspect. Closet republicans.
- And you're critical of dems...ever? Pot picks up his cellphone...scrolls his contact list to the letter 'K'...tommyo
- that joke was shitty yesterday and is shitty today.DrBombay
- Roland Burris and Rod Blago is a bad thing that democrats did. You have been proven wrong.DrBombay
- I'm so sorry. I have been proven wrong.tommyo
- designbot0
Ukit, here is some quote's from the AGI's site:
it's a non-profit that:
"serves as a voice of shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience education, and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role the geosciences play in society's use of resources, resilience to natural hazards, and the HEALTH OF THE ENVIRONMENT.""Position statements prepared by AGI and its Member Societies provide a blueprint for guiding the intersection of the geosciences and policy."
"AGI and its Member Societies provide a blueprint for new U.S. leadership in "Critical Needs for the Twenty First Century: The Role of the Geosciences". The document provides a list of critical needs for natural resources, environmental quality and resiliency from risks and policy actions to meet these needs with the help of the geoscience community."
just reading these few snippets it becomes evident quickly that this is not just some neutral group of scientists, but they are very defined in what they do and seem to place much focus on influencing government policies. Does it alarm you at all the the group of scientists selected to be part of the survey seem to be part of a group who is already heavily involved in Global Warming and influencing policies around it? Obviously a group so concerned and involved in Global Warming must already have it's mind made up regarding the issue, no?
