- Last post
- 582 Responses
Stepping right past this heated debate, I have to say that I think that animation is only going to preach to the converted. The cynical ecolocaust deniers will simply scoff at more mawkish nonsense and laugh at people for feeling sad about anthropomorphic cartoon characters sitting around looking sad and committing suicide like miserable humans.
So I think its a BIG FAT FAIL VIDEO.
wow, ten thread about global warming in everyone of them the same video...
Who are we to dispute it? Are you doing climatology experiments in your backyard to determine whether or not we're causing it? The facts are:
- There are a ton of scientists that say it's real.
- There are a ton of scientists that say it's not real.
Since science is never final, how can we be so certain that one group is correct and the other is not?
It is absolutely beyond my understanding how anyone can actually belief this spiel about us creating global warming. *Blinks
I guess it was about time to have this discussion. teleos, I'm assuming you spend a lot of time here since you always seem to pop in for these discussions, so do you spend months waiting for a global warming or evolution thread to pop up, or do you have another username or what?
A logical approach to climate change (and a good lesson in risk-management)...
To be fair to both sides, let's say the science is 50/50...
Suppose we're WRONG and there’s no such thing as climate change, but we do something to fight it. All we've done is give our children a cleaner world.
Suppose we're RIGHT about climate change and do nothing. Then what have we done for the next generations?
Lowimpakt, fluoride is only an example of a quite an aged government supported (and conceived) bad science in action.
This is DDT and asbestos type of science from 50 years ago.
- flouride is an interesting one. People buy tootpaste with flouride but don't like getting it for free from the tap.lowimpakt
- they don't swallow toothpaste in amounts they drink water, do they? there are toothpaste fluoride limits now, regulated..rafalski
- ..by EU toxicity laws.
Depending on the amount of water you drink, actual F intake can be very highrafalski
Flouride is added intentionally as a means of mass medication. I'm not suggesting that is right but you and me, businesses and government often act through ignorance or ill-informed choices.
we drive cars that cause asthma in kids, we smoke cigarettes that cause cancer in ourselves and loved ones, we use plastics in products that disrupt hormones, etc etc. there are countless examples of cognitive dissonance in practice.
But that in itself doesn’t disprove or prove anything about climate change...
Lowimpakt - take water fluoridation - it's been done for decades, doctors say it's poisonous, responsible for all kinds of illnesses, allergies and cancers (ie. bowel cancer).
Yet still water is polluted with fluoride in many western countries, including Ireland. 20 years is some history, but doesn't add credibility by itself.
They are proving their position. Read some of the papers I posted in this thread, for pete's sake. And that's just a few of the reports I've seen. At best, there is highly conflicting data but which strongly suggests that humans can't do a thing about what's going on, as noble a notion as it may be to champion such a cause.
there will always be doubt with science - that is just the way it is. It is an evolutionary thing. we thought the world was flat etc.
It is how the doubt is handled is the important thing. I am of the mind that climate change skeptics have had their say and the onus is now on them to prove their position.
global warming zealotry = fashionable
Global warming theory provides the best business ever: selling nothing for billions packaged as emission quotas.
Therefore it will remain official for years to come.
Come on, if something comes from top establishment douches like Gore it deserves at least a hint of a doubt.
I love liberal tolerance!
btw, I defer my usual stance of wanting the Last Word.
there is no point.
Goodbye, once interesting thread.
Of course it's 'scientists vs. scientists' - that's what science, unlike the irreducible actuality of Your Word, is.
The problem with your position is that the gross majority of scientists 'believe' (I spit this word) in global warming, whereas a mere niggling minority don't.
But, whatever - *dances around the mulberry bush*
i suppose if you believe in the bible you may aswell believe in faux-science.
- And what do you believe? You must have the truth eh?designbot
- is it better to believe than to know?lowimpakt
- belief can come after knowing something beyond shadow of a doubt. Science does this all the time.designbot
- are saying a potential for error in the science destroys the entire proposition?lowimpakt
- science is based on presuppositions about laws of logic. Why do we assume it's a logical universe?teleos
- is logic a construct of the human mind? If we are particles in motion only, why trust it?teleos
- that's my point. how can you have certainty about anything?lowimpakt
- christ, literally christ. teleos is so far off its scary.spifflink
- lowimpakt you say "how can you have certainty about anything" but you are doing the exact same thing. you are CERTAIN The Bible is faux-science right?designbot
- Bible is faux-science right? Or at least not true. My point was how could you possibly know this unless you had the truth?designbot