Discussion in 'Nature/Habitat/Garden Corner' started by OSimpson, Mar 25, 2008.
You may be on to something there........
At about 5:20, he says "The more prestigious they are, the more weight you can give their statements". What complete crap. Proper argumentation is based solely on what is said, not on who says it.
Here is a much more thorough response to this video:
I'm all for devastating the world's economy and causing massive starvation in third world and developing countries. Sure, just cut CO2 emissions by 70% and see what happens--very little effect on the environment and catastrophe to humans.
Al Gore just laughed off the economic cost in last night's 60 Minutes segment. He dismissed critics and skeptics as a very small minority who he likened to those who believe the world is flat. I cannot wait until the hoax of global climate catastrophe (alarmism, not the fact that we are seeing a warming trend) is exposed.
(Part 1 of an 8-part documentary)
Obviously, all of these people are bought and paid for by Big Oil. They are merely using facts, reason and perspective to throw us off the trail
umm- i'm sitting here freezing my tukkus off- yeah- said TUKKUS!- in nasty cold VA rain- where's OUR warm globe??!?!
:eww:Wow, a science carny!
I want the carniverous alien hamsters!
One more thing, nuclear power produces FAR LESS co2 than fossil fuels. However, I would guess that superheating water, and putting hot water into our rivers would also cause a warming of the ocean. Not to mention the waste produced.
Come on, lets fix the problems with potable water, air quality, landfills. There are actual pollutants (heavy metals, Carbon MONoxide, etc) that have been "put on the back burner" because of CO2 being put in the limelight.
Yes, indeed it is "crap" to give more weight to a reputable organization's findings... why would we do something silly like that.
If you really believe that something is true just because someone 'reputable' says it, then there is not much point in trying to reason with you. I am just an anonymous person on the internet, so I have no hope of ever swaying your opinion versus the IPCC, no matter how valid my arguments are, because in your eyes, I am not reputable.
Do you know what 'peer review' is? In the scientific community, even the most reputable and prestigious scientists are not taken at their word. Their findings are reviewed, analyzed, critiqued, and broken down by other members of the community. This is how normal science works. Global Warming is the big exception. When the topic is Global Warming, any critique or analysis of the 'science' is dismissed as "a few deniers", and the alarmists refused to debate the issue, claiming it is 'settled science'. Here is a hint: There is no such thing. Even the most fundamental scientific theories such as relativity and evolution continue to be analyzed and researched and modified. Nothing in science is ever a settled matter. When someone tells you otherwise, that is a big clue that they are not really interested in science -- they have something else on their agenda. Global warming is all about politics, money, and influence; it has very little to do with actual science.
Did you bother to look at the website I linked to? It was not some random site I found from a Google search. Warren Meyer, who runs that site, is one of many people who are trying to encourage *scientific* discussion and rational analysis of the theory of global warming. The specific article I linked to was his response to the video you posted. His belief is that global warming is real, it is partially caused by man, but that the effects are extremely overstated. He has posted a great deal of data and gone to great lengths to analyze it and explain it to his readers. You might be thinking right now that he is probably a hired gun working for the oil industry, but you'd be wrong. He is a small business owner, who runs a number of campsites in the western US.
The extent of global warming is up for debate, but you still must admit that we as people are not having a positive impact on the planet. Regardless of the severity (or not?) of the global warming issue, we still should do better about the results of how we use and deplete our natural resources.
If you want an easy example, go live on the east side of Houston in Baytown, TX sometime. All the oil refineries there put out a ton of pollutants and even if you don't believe those are very harmful, from an aesthetic standpoint it smells terrible there!
Anyone have the research on volcanoes? I've heard they pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than anything we puny humans are doing.
Why must you always bother us with details?
Yes, I did check the website and also saw the responses back and forth with the guy who does the youtube videos. I, nor have I read anywhere that said global warming was a "settled" scientific fact or certainty. It's great to have so many people researching the climate, etc. It's good to have dialogue both ways, but with the likely high stakes, it comes down to "risk management" (probability/consequences) as the guy in the video says. He has several followup videos about it which presents everything very well IMHO.
You say that this one guy says that the effects are extremely overstated. That's fine. But when a whole body of scientists, not a campground owner out west, is warning of consequences, I'm inclined to listen. And yes, I value the findings of scientists that are saying that global warming isn't as bad as some say, or doesn't exist. I listen to that too, because that would be great if this is all a big sham and we don't have any meaningful effect on the planet. But currently it seems like the majority of the scientific community is coming back with findings that say that we do have something to worry about. It shouldn't be political, but it is, because the two sides are typically split along party lines. When it gets political, people get really defensive and stick to their guns and it ends up in a discussion like this. Take a look at his other videos.... you can tell what side he is on, but they way he got to that opinion is logical, at least to me. If, on the other hand, you are saying that you don't "believe" in evolution or relativity because it's not 100% proven, I can't help you. Global warming is a theory, but we're potentially living in it, so that's why people care more.
Doctors used to recommend cigarette brands. They were scientists. All of the barbers provided health remedies by bleeding their "patients". Before Gallileo, all of the experts knew that the world was flat, and that there were serpents at the end. (Also, all of the cosmos went around the earth). Native Americans wouldn't eat a tomato, fearing death.
You can find literally thousands of theories that were generally accepted at one time or another, but were EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the TRUTH.
Again, go back to his carniverous hamster chart. It was dead on!
He sounds like a one man Abbott and Costello routine, or a three card monty dealer in times square.
Separate names with a comma.