- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,966
- Reaction score
- 2,154
March in Copenhagen to Stop Global Warming
- Thread starter redrumloa
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,803
- Reaction score
- 6,529
redrumloa said:
Why would you be?
Title of video from your link:
So, not only is climate change a hoax (according to you the "biggest scam in human history, horrible crimes against humanity" - although maybe that was a joke?), it's a hoax orchestrated by communists and socialists in order to take your money *or* it's because communists and socialists are so gullible they support attempts to address it but aren't actually behind it?
(Or both?)
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,966
- Reaction score
- 2,154
Robert said:
Sounds close, though the demonstrators are likely just terribly weak minded individuals. At the top it is orchestrated by people who likely don't give a crap about communism, socialism or anything except making their elite ruling class even stronger. The upper 1% get even richer and the rest of us descend into surfdom.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,256
- Reaction score
- 2,693
redrumloa said:
Divide and conquer.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,803
- Reaction score
- 6,529
redrumloa said:
So, to summarise your position:
Climate change is the biggest scam in human history, a crime against humanity orchestrated by 'the upper 1%' and gullibly believed by weak-minded communists.
My question would then be: what about the scientists who believe there is a warming trend? Are they part of the 1% or are they weak-minded commies?
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
I am. There's nothing about Global Warming and emission reductions that requires communism. Capitalism will one day be the driving force behind eco friendly products and alternate fuel sources - even if it seems like an obstacle today. One day even you Red will defend the eco friendly entrepreneurs of the future.redrumloa said:
As for the communist banners... An issue as big as global warming is the sort of thing that both sides politicize. Some will attack it others will piggy back their own agenda. This is unfortunate as I feel that these large communist rallies in the name of Global Warming only discredit GW in the eyes of people like you Red. Just remember that there's no reason to believe that the science depends on any particular economic model.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 5,144
- Reaction score
- 1,243
Great point Glaucus! Just because some of the political and/or economics smell bad that doesn't mean the science itself is bad. Even if Global Warming is false scientifically, which it isn't, there are still these factors manipulating markets as they have been since nearly forever in the human species.Glaucus said:
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,966
- Reaction score
- 2,154
Glaucus said:
This is where you guys always get me wrong. "Eco friendly products" are the future, I have no problem with that. I am a big advocate of the electric car and alternative energy sources such as geothermal, solar and wind. I dislike the big oil companies and HATE electrical utilities. My reasons are likely completely different than your reasons. I can't stand junk science that is being used as an excuse to rob me blind and turn my children's generation into indentured servants.
It may be unfortunate, but it alone does not discredit AGW. Even considering that commie bastard Chavez got a standing ovation for his tirade against capitalism, which shows where most the attendees political affiliation are, the fake science is what does it in.
Robert said:
Which scientists do you mean?
The ones that wrote in the exposed emails that they hoped warming would start to happen soon.
Or the ones who engage in this kind of science:
1. Hypothesise (i.e. manmade global warming)
2. Write a computer program that demonstrates the hypothesis with all input, even the lottery numbers show warming.
3. Get a friend to peer review, using this very method.
4. Collect some multi-million pound grant money from the UN.
5. Repeat.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,803
- Reaction score
- 6,529
smithy said:
That would not be a scientist.
Hmmmm.....
You really think all peer-reviewed papers demonstrating evidence of a warming trend have been reviewed by friends, the inference being that they deliberately lied?
Or are you joking too?
Robert said:
You didn't answer my question: which scientists that believe in warming are you referring to? It clearly can't be the experts from CRU who wrote in their emaisl that they hoped that warming will start soon!
For your whole "lying" tangent. Firstly I find your faith in these climate scientists precisely that: faith without any reason to back it up. Almost like a religion. I never inferred they were lying, that was you - I was inferring their method is nothing short of bad.
The infamous hockey stick paper was peer reviewed. So that's two scientists that have accepted the hypothesize/write a software model to prove hypothesis/collect grant money. Can you really see nothing wrong with this method? Do you think it's good science that they create their own experiment results?
What about that these scientists believe, politically, in global warming? We have scientists that don't have objectivity and whose income depend on their results. Do you really see no conflict of interest here?
As for friends. There are a few thousand climate scientists who do work for the IPCC. As we've seen from the exposed emails, they are in contact with each other across the world. Once again their own funding depends on keeping the theory validated, including validating their contemporaries' papers. If not friends, they are certainly colleagues who depend on each other for their funding.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 7,710
- Reaction score
- 2,587
wow, the paranoia is strong with this one!
this is the process of getting published in a science journal:
write your findings
send to editor
editor sends out your paper anonymously to a bunch of qualified (ie they know the subject) scientists to judge if your study was properly executed according to the standards they all have to follow.
these suggestions to your paper are sent to the editor who then complies the info and figures out if your paper meets the standards.
if yes, paper is published and then scientists either redo your study and see if they get the same results or do another study to test an aspect of your conclusions.
rinse
repeat
anything not done this way is simply not science.
this is the process of getting published in a science journal:
write your findings
send to editor
editor sends out your paper anonymously to a bunch of qualified (ie they know the subject) scientists to judge if your study was properly executed according to the standards they all have to follow.
these suggestions to your paper are sent to the editor who then complies the info and figures out if your paper meets the standards.
if yes, paper is published and then scientists either redo your study and see if they get the same results or do another study to test an aspect of your conclusions.
rinse
repeat
anything not done this way is simply not science.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 5,144
- Reaction score
- 1,243
Interesting. Point your fingers at Climatologists who research ends up pro-GW but neglect of the deamons within your own camp.smithy said:
Take for example the anti-GW statistican which testafied in front of congress. His works was not published in a peer reviewed journal, Cecelia does a good job explaining how those work, and actually reviewed by friends. The 'sins' you blame on GW are actually in the Anti-GW camp.
4. Collect money. Certainly if you find any scientist that does it for free let me know. I'd like to know how they live without having to pay for groceries. And to add to this point Exxon and other interests have funded CEI and other 'think tanks' to ensure their own agenda is carried out.
Smithy when you stick out and point your finger at someone notice the majority of the fingers are pointing back at yourself. That's where the majority of the problem resides.