Global Warming,eh?

[cockerpunk]

Just a clue, you arent going to win this one buddy.
Its a lose lose situation for you either way.

Just sayin//

yup, whenever you talk to true believers you can't win with data. it happens.

[cockerpunk]

Then exactly who IS a climate expert? (other than you?)

im certainly no climate expert. i have however taken serious time looking into the science of climate change to understand the claims being made. understand the science is fundamental to understanding what is and is not a releivent claim.

This man is supposed to be your saviour! Now your throwing him under the bus too? Have you no loyalties man!

the fact that you say this only proves how little you know about the subject.

There are just as many skeptics as proponets on this issue. Except that the skeptics don't get all the media coverage. The only instance I can recall of media coverage, is the 'scientists' rigging the #'s over in Brussels for IPOCC.

perhaps in the popular culture there are equal terms, but in the scientific one, there is a strong consenus.

I know you only read 'scientific journals', so I don't reckon you will check these links from the likes of the BBC, Heartland Inst., etc, but this quick YouTube vid means you dont have to read

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IMGiNn9hmc

Fraud from BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12219472

the BBC is a news source, not a peer reviewed journal

Michael Mann (discredited hockey stick theory) and another supposed "Top Scientist" is suing to keep his cause alive, and SILENCE his critics.
http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/bl...st-top-skeptic Before you poo-poo this page check out the authors' credidentials. I'm sure even you would agree that these men are scientists.
Why would he have to sue to keep people quiet if his conclusions are backed by hard facts? My guess would be he is hiding something. Or his posh lifestyle is threatened.

science isn't decided in a courtroom

How about these alarmist photoshop fakes by the AGW scientists? http://www.heartland.org/full/27623/...ake_Photo.html

the title says it all "nonclimate scientists"

So does that really mean that man is the culprit? Isn't the Earths core warming too? How did we do that?

it means that the sun isn't, and no, the earths core is cooling.

You seem like a pretty sharp dude. You will find, as you age, that most things ARE as they seem. When the experts come out preaching death and destruction, it is usually a snow job for $$. (or should it be sun job in this case?)
VSb
im not preaching death and desturction. just tearing down the urban myths and internet rumor mill garbage that is propagated.

^^^

[dahoeb]

I think we all acknowledge that theres a little warming going on to one degree or another....something like 1.2 degrees (give or take) over the past 150 years. Forgive me if this sounds ignorant ....but wouldn't it be MORE unusual if there was a total of 0 degrees of variation over that time span? Do "scientists" really expect that the average global temperature would have NO incline or decline? Especially given the history of the Earths climate always shifting each way.

Also, is Co2 really such a bad thing? Its necessary for things we need like veggies and trees which then create O2. So wouldn't Co2 simply promote plant growth? So I would assume that plants around the world absorbing that stuff would help offset some of the affects.....

And what about the data and ice cores that shows that the increase in Co2 actually FOLLOWED the temp increase, not preceeding it.....

There are a lot of things that could affect the accuracy of the recorded temps, such as urbanization that has sprawled around the recording area, etc. Over the past 150 some odd years, as technology advances the recordings of the instruments may vary ever so slightly as well. I remember reading the news a few years back, they were talking about this huge ice shelf the size of Cali suddenly being discovered because the satellite wasn't configured correctly.

Theres simply history. Much of the northern hemisphere, right down to the great lakes, were covered in snow, ice and glaciers just a few thousand years ago. Geographically, thats really not all that long. And now look at us. In fact, there was one study I read in pop sci or something that stated that global warming help push the Roman Empire and some other major cultures (at different periods) to primacy. I question that assertion to a degree, but the point of the article was that periods of global warming are usually accompanied by growth, while cold periods result in fewer species and more extinctions. So is warming really such a bad thing?

Then I question the motives of the scientists.....when people raise these perfectly valid questions, the typical response is that they usually try to "dazzle us with bullpoo" to shut us up or they resort to stereotyping. "If you question man made global warming, then suddenly youre a schill for big oil" is what I hear most.

Also, if Co2 is the cause of global warming, at this rate, shouldn't EVERY year be warming then the next? If we are pumping more and more and more and more Co2 every year, then shouldn't every year be warmer than the last? It's odd that we were these weird trends without major warming. From what I've read in the past, we went most of the past decade with relatively static temps. It just doesn't jive.

Then, if there is a claim that isn't "peer reviewed", then it somehow doesn't count and we should all just ignore it. Frankly, I can see quite a few conflicts of interest developing with that kind of attitude, especially when many universities and organizations geting loads of cash for researching this. A lot of cash for this type of research is coming from all kinds of government bodies. It's not much different of a situation where people claim that drug research companies don't REALLY try to develop a cure for some diseases because theres more money to be made by prolonging these illnesses....

And finally, EVERYTHING is caused by global warming these days. If theres a bad winter...GLOBAL WARMING....if theres a hot summer.....GLOBAL WARMING....katrina....GLOBAL WARMING! Back in 2009 or 2010, when Iceland had the volcanoe eruption that shut down all those flights, scientists came out and said it was caused by global warming (they said the melting ice or something influenced it). Really? When EVERYTHING is because of Aunt Theresa's SUV, it doesn't help the argument.

I'm just a casual observer of this whole global warming thing, I honestly don't know if there is or isn't MAN MADE global warming, but there are A LOT of reasons to be skeptical and question the motives of those who try to force the issue and silence the debate ("the debate is over..."). The second someone tries to "end the debate" on anything, for me that raises some red flags..... From "hide the decline" to the inaccurate claims about the Himalayan Glaciers; theres a lot of money and power to be gained from this debate and to simply throw out every chart and graph produced by NASA or the IPCC blindly and without some degree of skepticism is just "silly".

[cockerpunk]

I think we all acknowledge that theres a little warming going on to one degree or another....something like 1.2 degrees (give or take) over the past 150 years. Forgive me if this sounds ignorant ....but wouldn't it be MORE unusual if there was a total of 0 degrees of variation over that time span? Do "scientists" really expect that the average global temperature would have NO incline or decline? Especially given the history of the Earths climate always shifting each way.

the current warming trend is much faster, and much more dramatic then seen prviously

Also, is Co2 really such a bad thing? Its necessary for things we need like veggies and trees which then create O2. So wouldn't Co2 simply promote plant growth? So I would assume that plants around the world absorbing that stuff would help offset some of the affects.....

that would be great, except that mankind is also deforesting thousands of square miles as well

And what about the data and ice cores that shows that the increase in Co2 actually FOLLOWED the temp increase, not preceeding it.....

the 800 year lag time has always been know and understood. its is part of the positive feedback system i discussed earlier

There are a lot of things that could affect the accuracy of the recorded temps, such as urbanization that has sprawled around the recording area, etc. Over the past 150 some odd years, as technology advances the recordings of the instruments may vary ever so slightly as well. I remember reading the news a few years back, they were talking about this huge ice shelf the size of Cali suddenly being discovered because the satellite wasn't configured correctly.

????

And then finally, theres simply history. Much of the northern hemisphere, right down to the great lakes, were covered in snow, ice and glaciers just a few thousand years ago. Geographically, thats really not all that long. And now look at us. In fact, there was one study I read in pop sci or something that stated that global warming help push the Roman Empire and some other major cultures (at different periods) to primacy. I question that assertion to a degree, but the point of the article was that periods of global warming are usually accompanied by growth, while cold periods result in fewer species and more extinctions. So is warming really such a bad thing?

the last ice age was about 10,000 years ago. as for the romans, that makes no sense at all.

Then I question the motives of the scientists.....when people raise these perfectly valid questions, the typical response is that they usually try to "dazzle us with bullpoo" to shut us up or they resort to stereotyping. "If you question man made global warming, then suddenly youre a schill for big oil" is what I hear most.

acutally, scientists make there name by proving other scientists wrong. this is a fundamental part of science, the peer review process by which a new idea is vetted

Then, if there is a claim that isn't "peer reviewed", then it somehow doesn't count and we should all just ignore it. Frankly, I can see quite a few conflicts of interest developing with that kind of attitude, especially when many universities and organizations geting loads of cash for researching this. A lot of cash for this type of research is coming from all kinds of government bodies. It's not much different of a situation where people claim that drug research companies don't REALLY try to develop a cure for some diseases because theres more money to be made by prolonging these illnesses....

universities and research originizations get money for well done peer reviewed work. they make there money by presenting information that no one can prove wrong - that is the power of peer review.

And finally, EVERYTHING is caused by global warming these days. If theres a bad winter...GLOBAL WARMING....if theres a hot summer.....GLOBAL WARMING....katrina....GLOBAL WARMING! Back in 2009 or 2010, when Iceland had the volcanoe eruption that shut down all those flights, scientists came out and said it was caused by global warming (they said the melting ice or something influenced it). Really? When EVERYTHING is because of Aunt Theresa's SUV, it doesn't help the argument.

that would be the mass media, not climate scientists saying these things. show me the journal articles and then you might have a point.

I'm just a casual observer of this whole global warming thing, I honestly don't know if there is or isn't MAN MADE global warming, but there are A LOT of reasons to be skeptical and question the motives of those who try to force the issue and silence the debate ("the debate is over..."). The second someone tries to "end the debate" on anything, for me that raises some red flags..... From "hide the decline" to the inaccurate claims about the Himalayan Glaciers; theres a lot of money and power to be gained from this debate and to simply throw out every chart and graph produced by NASA or the IPCC blindly and without some degree of skepticism is just "silly".

being skepitcal is wonderful and it is a fundamental part of science. ALL scientific theories should be vetted for accuracy and tested. that is the entire point of peer review. remeber, as a scientist, the money and power and respect comes from proving other scientists wrong. you don't remember great scienstists because they agreed with someone elses idea - you remember great scienstists because they proved someone elses idea wrong.

did you read any of the thread?

[VailSkibum]

@ cockerpunk
Does your boss know you post so much?
EDIT: Also... Lies, Darn Lies, and Statistics.

[dahoeb]

the current warming trend is much faster, and much more dramatic then seen prviously

Correlation doesn't mean causation.



that would be great, except that mankind is also deforesting thousands of square miles as well

But it still doesn't answer the question. I don't know what the capacity of Co2 absorption the forests, and grass and algae and the oceans have. But it's one of those questions that if a layman like myself can think of, then some astute professor may want to have a good answer for it before instructing politicians to force me to change to mercury laden lightbulbs.



the 800 year lag time has always been know and understood. its is part of the positive feedback system i discussed earlier

Oh, ok. Ofcourse. I'm sure theres some stat or something out there disproving it...




???? elf
It's pretty self explanatory. The concrete, asphalt and buildings in an ubranized area will affect the temperature of an area. It will absorb and radiate heat differently, ect. So if you throw a thermometer in the vicinity of a growing and expanding city, we should expect some changes. Then I addressed the prospect of human and mechanical error in the measuring instruments, in this case a satellite.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...wfallacies.pdf




the last ice age was about 10,000 years ago. as for the romans, that makes no sense at all.

The article stated that the periods of increased warmth resulted in higher crop yields and a longer growing season. And the last ice age was 10000 years ago? Ok, the ice age was 10,000 years ago. So what? <a href="http://s1179.photobucket.com/albums/x389/dahoeb/?action=view&amp;current=l1_northiceland2.gif" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x389/dahoeb/l1_northiceland2.gif" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a> My graph is better than yours.


acutally, scientists make there name by proving other scientists wrong. this is a fundamental part of science, the peer review process by which a new idea is vetted.

universities and research originizations get money for well done peer reviewed work. they make there money by presenting information that no one can prove wrong - that is the power of peer review.

I understand the point of peer review. It was initially developed to help make sure that editors of science journals don't look like idiots by publishing stuff they know little about. With peer review (especially with billions of $ at stake) it wouldnt be hard for a community or organization to end up monopolizing an idea or belief (even passively). What scares me are the people who take everything "peer reviewed" as gospel without giving it a moments of critical thinking, such as, "hmm, I wonder where this data came from." Frankly, anymore it seems like when I ask basic questions about the whole man-made global warming thing, it feels like I'm talking to a used car salesman, not a scientist. Not a good sign.

You say colleges make their money off of it....exactly. Who provides them with that money? In many cases, probably people who have something to gain off of it. But when a body or an organization of people have a lot to gain off of something as big as this, you should be able to see a POTENTIAL desire to want to keep perpetuating it. This isn't exactly on the same level as proving black wholes evaporate or something.

It's almost like behavior conditioning in rats, positive reinforcement. You tell me global warming exists, I give you money. If you voice skepticism or dissent, you'll be forced from your cushy position (such as UCLA's Dr. Enstrom).



that would be the mass media, not climate scientists saying these things. show me the journal articles and then you might have a point.

The mass media who cite "cimate experts". Peter Jennings isn't getting his info on this from Katie Couric. Or is he....


being skepitcal is wonderful and it is a fundamental part of science. ALL scientific theories should be vetted for accuracy and tested. that is the entire point of peer review. remeber, as a scientist, the money and power and respect comes from proving other scientists wrong. you don't remember great scienstists because they agreed with someone elses idea - you remember great scienstists because they proved someone elses idea wrong.

I agree with most of that.

I really don't have a dog in the game and don't care much either way. For every convenient graph or fact someone cites for HUMAN caused global warming, I see one reputing it. For every person that says, "99.999% of scientists agree", someone quickly attacks it with the simple fallacies of the statistic (ie. the population sample is fixed or something along those lines). It's really just one big Rock Paper Scissor game, and I'm not entirely convinced either way on the debate (though I'm sure you can tell which direction I lean). Anways, thats my 2 cents.

[OPBN]

I saw a discussion on the news the other day in regards to all of the horrendous weather that we are having, rain, floods, cold weather, tornadoes and the question was asked "whether things were really that bad lately? ". It may seem like all hell is breaking loose these days, but statistically the weather isn't really anymore extreme than it has been in years past. The difference is in the media coverage of such events. Extreme weather is hot these days. Does anyone remember Walter Cronkite flying out to interview some woman who's husband died in a tornado 30 years ago? The media has sensationalized extreme weather and the more than necessary coverage of it to a certain degree has everyone running around like Chicken Little yelling that the sky is falling. Relevency is due to the stance now that it is no longer Global Warming, but "extreme climate change".

As mentioned, I question the current system in place these days. Scientists simply put are being paid to support global warming. If there isn't a problem they need to solve, their jobs go away. It's like asking a politician to decrease the size of government. It ain't gonna happen.

[cockerpunk]

As mentioned, I question the current system in place these days. Scientists simply put are being paid to support global warming. If there isn't a problem they need to solve, their jobs go away. It's like asking a politician to decrease the size of government. It ain't gonna happen.

you clearly have no idea how professional science works.

[cockerpunk]

Correlation doesn't mean causation.

i wasn't corrilating anything in that statment, just commenting that the rise in tempratures was faster then anything we have seen before

But it still doesn't answer the question. I don't know what the capacity of Co2 absorption the forests, and grass and algae and the oceans have. But it's one of those questions that if a layman like myself can think of, then some astute professor may want to have a good answer for it before instructing politicians to force me to change to mercury laden lightbulbs.

of course it does, and yes, we have a good idea of the co2 bufferng ablity of the earth. we are destorying the co2 buffering ablity while putting massive amounts of co2 into the system ... simple addition is all you need.

Oh, ok. Ofcourse. I'm sure theres some stat or something out there disproving it...

the 800 year lag time hasn't been disproven. its real. no one besides gore has pretended otherwise. the positive feedback mechnatism of methane gases is what cuases it.


It's pretty self explanatory. The concrete, asphalt and buildings in an ubranized area will affect the temperature of an area. It will absorb and radiate heat differently, ect. So if you throw a thermometer in the vicinity of a growing and expanding city, we should expect some changes. Then I addressed the prospect of human and mechanical error in the measuring instruments, in this case a satellite.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...wfallacies.pdf

that increase in heat is real though - therefore worthwhile to measure.


The article stated that the periods of increased warmth resulted in higher crop yields and a longer growing season. And the last ice age was 10000 years ago? Ok, the ice age was 10,000 years ago. So what? <a href="http://s1179.photobucket.com/albums/x389/dahoeb/?action=view&amp;current=l1_northiceland2.gif" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x389/dahoeb/l1_northiceland2.gif" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a> My graph is better than yours.

again ... ??? the last ice age was 10,000 years ago.

[B]I understand the point of peer review. It was initially developed to help make sure that editors of science journals don't look like idiots by publishing stuff they know little about. With peer review (especially with billions of $ at stake) it wouldnt be hard for a community or organization to end up monopolizing an idea or belief (even passively). What scares me are the people who take everything "peer reviewed" as gospel without giving it a moments of critical thinking, such as, "hmm, I wonder where this data came from." Frankly, anymore it seems like when I ask basic questions about the whole man-made global warming thing, it feels like I'm talking to a used car salesman, not a scientist. Not a good sign.

actualy no, peer review was done LONG before scientific jounrals. peer review is a fundamental part of the scientifc process by which other scientists repeat and confirm test reswualts. and if they don't agree with the resualts someone else got, they try to figure out why.

this is how knowledge is made.

your last sentence is just ignornace as an argument. "becuase i have to ask questions it must not be true..." blah

You say colleges make their money off of it....exactly. Who provides them with that money? In many cases, probably people who have something to gain off of it. But when a body or an organization of people have a lot to gain off of something as big as this, you should be able to see a POTENTIAL desire to want to keep perpetuating it. This isn't exactly on the same level as proving black wholes evaporate or something.

acutally like i pointed out before - YOU MAKE MORE MONEY AS A SCIENTIST PROVING OTHER POEPLE WRONG. ergo the onyl economic forces in science are pushing the opposite direction.

It's almost like behavior conditioning in rats, positive reinforcement. You tell me global warming exists, I give you money. If you voice skepticism or dissent, you'll be forced from your cushy position (such as UCLA's Dr. Enstrom).

that depends, there are many respected, published skeptics. fries christianson is a pefect example. rather then there ideas being shunned, they are well known by proponents of science. but, your attempting to use the argument the creationists always do "they shun me because of my ideas" no, the scientific community shuns you becuase you rnot doing science, your doing politics.

The mass media who cite "cimate experts". Peter Jennings isn't getting his info on this from Katie Couric. Or is he....

so lets see the experts. jounralists are paid to sell adds, and they are nowhere near experts on climate.

I really don't have a dog in the game and don't care much either way. For every convenient graph or fact someone cites for HUMAN caused global warming, I see one reputing it. For every person that says, "99.999% of scientists agree", someone quickly attacks it with the simple fallacies of the statistic (ie. the population sample is fixed or something along those lines). It's really just one big Rock Paper Scissor game, and I'm not entirely convinced either way on the debate (though I'm sure you can tell which direction I lean). Anways, thats my 2 cents.

acutally the claim of consenus among climate scientists is due to a paper done in 2006 IIRC by which scientific abstracts were searched for the terms "climate change" and above 95% of those papers explictly endorsed if not directly supported the anthropogenic model. now, it is easily possible that search term is not perfect, and did not capture ALL climate change papers, but as a measure of consensus, it shows that climate scientists for the msot part agree.

see, the fundamental problem with the "scientists are conspiring to make money" model is that science (esp professional science) is about making a name for yourself by proving other poeple wrong. another scientist in the "rank and file" of the "conspiracy" gains NOTHING. meanwhile, if you could disprove the anthropogenic model, or have a better one, you would be the most infuential scientist (and richly paid) one of the decade. there are a few skeptics still out there, and rather then being shunned, there theories and ideas are well known by climate scientists. the only scientists who get shunned from science are ones that arn't doing science. most often they are doing politics or religion.

then you have the opposite going on - follow the money right?

the oil and power companies in our country have spent MILLIONS on killing global warming. MILLIONS on lobbying policians, MILLIONS on adds and movies ....

if they arn't making trillions of dollars by killing global warming off, i'll eat my hat.

[OPBN]

you clearly have no idea how professional science works.

Wow, one post and you already are calling me ignorant. That may be a record.

[cockerpunk]

Wow, one post and you already are calling me ignorant. That may be a record.

agreeing with consenus in science gets you nothing professionally. you make money and a name for yourself in science by doing something new and proving old ideas wrong.

you can't make money doing and agreeing with everyone - thats a poor scientist.

[OPBN]

If it's not about money, why on average do scientists/researchers devote 40% of their time to securing grants? If you don't have grants, you don't get funding, you have no job. As far as not getting paid to agree with everyone not making money, I'll bet all those researchers getting paid to measure temperatures, taking ice core samples, and CO2 levels around the world would strongly disagree. Michael Crighton had an good epilogue in one of his books in regards to scientists and in turn governments to have an alarmist mentality. Essentially, the theory is that if there are no emergencies to solve, there really is no need for goverment. If there is no need for government, a whole lot of people become unemployed. Man, starting to sound like I might need to get fitted for a tin foil hat.

http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/04/25/chasing-grants/

As long as money is involved, science will not be pure.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for society going as green as possible. I don't see how anyone can argue against it. Go stand in a garage with the car running for 10 minutes and see how pleasant this becomes. While gas guzzling, raw horsepower having, tiring burning cars is awesome, at some point people have to realize that a zero emissions car is a lot nicer to have in terms of air quality.

However, something to consider, and I saw this referenced in some really stupid move one time. It had to do with the discovery of cold fusion. Consider if we actually were able to come up with a totally emission free power source that would allow us to drive cars as much as we wanted without the concern for high gas costs and harming the environment. Everyone could drive as much as they wanted. People could log hundreds of thousands of miles a year with no high expense and no ill effects on the environment right? Not quite. What about tires? Tire manufacturing still relies heavily on fossil fuels to produce them. So potentially instead of going through one set of tires every 4 years or so, you now go through maybe one or two sets a year. Where do those used tires go? If we are putting that much wear and tear on the roads, they will need to be replaced sooner, which again causes a higher consumption of fossil fuels. And now that we are putting more mileage on these cars, how long are they going to last? So now the life expectancy on a car goes from 10 years to maybe 3 or 4. Look at the amount of plastic used in cars these days. Plastic is petroleum based as well. Again, this was taken from a movie, I am sure there are some potential flaws in the logic, but you get the idea.

I think I went a bit off topic.

[cockerpunk]

If it's not about money, why on average do scientists/researchers devote 40% of their time to securing grants? If you don't have grants, you don't get funding, you have no job. As far as not getting paid to agree with everyone not making money, I'll bet all those researchers getting paid to measure temperatures, taking ice core samples, and CO2 levels around the world would strongly disagree. Michael Crighton had an good epilogue in one of his books in regards to scientists and in turn governments to have an alarmist mentality. Essentially, the theory is that if there are no emergencies to solve, there really is no need for goverment. If there is no need for government, a whole lot of people become unemployed. Man, starting to sound like I might need to get fitted for a tin foil hat.

well everyone has to eat. no one said scientists can run on old excel spreadsheets. of course they spend time securing money, they would be stupid not to! but saying the fact they have to eat changes the outcomes of experiments is pretty rediculous.

http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/04/25/chasing-grants/

As long as money is involved, science will not be pure.

thats BS. like i said, compettiton for money makes scientsts double cheack each others work and second guess each other, and that makes for BETTER science

Don't get me wrong. I am all for society going as green as possible. I don't see how anyone can argue against it. Go stand in a garage with the car running for 10 minutes and see how pleasant this becomes. While gas guzzling, raw horsepower having, tiring burning cars is awesome, at some point people have to realize that a zero emissions car is a lot nicer to have in terms of air quality.

i think your right. i love my catalytic free porsche as much as the next guy ...

However, something to consider, and I saw this referenced in some really stupid move one time. It had to do with the discovery of cold fusion. Consider if we actually were able to come up with a totally emission free power source that would allow us to drive cars as much as we wanted without the concern for high gas costs and harming the environment. Everyone could drive as much as they wanted. People could log hundreds of thousands of miles a year with no high expense and no ill effects on the environment right? Not quite. What about tires? Tire manufacturing still relies heavily on fossil fuels to produce them. So potentially instead of going through one set of tires every 4 years or so, you now go through maybe one or two sets a year. Where do those used tires go? If we are putting that much wear and tear on the roads, they will need to be replaced sooner, which again causes a higher consumption of fossil fuels. And now that we are putting more mileage on these cars, how long are they going to last? So now the life expectancy on a car goes from 10 years to maybe 3 or 4. Look at the amount of plastic used in cars these days. Plastic is petroleum based as well. Again, this was taken from a movie, I am sure there are some potential flaws in the logic, but you get the idea.

cold fusion is perfect example of how science works. Pons and the other guy lied, and science called them out on it. had Pons been correct, he would have been the greatest scientist of our age. instead he is a luaghing stock. had scientists all conspired to make it seem like cold fusion was true, the once scientist who proved them wrong would be the richest and most infuental scientist, and those discredited would never work in science again.

I think I went a bit off topic.

but it is about money - oil money. we KNOW 100% for certain the millions they spend killing global warming, we KNOW 100% that they make trillions and trillions on the status quo.

no need for a conspriacy on that side.

[OPBN]

but it is about money - oil money. we KNOW 100% for certain the millions they spend killing global warming, we KNOW 100% that they make trillions and trillions on the status quo.

Goody, let's use your argument. The same example of competition breeds better science for the ones with the money to discover alternate fuel sources. Who better than the ones with all the resources? Also, according to a couple of sites I came across, it says BP and most of the others "big oil" companies actually support the idea of global warming. Yes, they make trillions from fossil fuels, but just think about how much money they could make getting us to move away from those and having to buy all new stuff. It would behove those with the means to subsidize our forced move to alternate fuels. At some point it has to run out. It only makes sense to research it. Perhaps the problem isn't in recognition of an issue, but not a viable means to combat it, thus a reluctance to attempt to enforce it until we have a means to move away from it. I don't see Al Gore riding a bike to his lectures anytime soon.

[cockerpunk]

Goody, let's use your argument. The same example of competition breeds better science for the ones with the money to discover alternate fuel sources. Who better than the ones with all the resources? Also, according to a couple of sites I came across, it says BP and most of the others "big oil" companies actually support the idea of global warming. Yes, they make trillions from fossil fuels, but just think about how much money they could make getting us to move away from those and having to buy all new stuff. It would behove those with the means to subsidize our forced move to alternate fuels. At some point it has to run out. It only makes sense to research it. Perhaps the problem isn't in recognition of an issue, but not a viable means to combat it, thus a reluctance to attempt to enforce it until we have a means to move away from it. I don't see Al Gore riding a bike to his lectures anytime soon.

of course they are hedging there bets, any good businessman would. and you bet your butts, when they find something better, they would love to push it hard.

but its easy to look up exactly how much money is being used to push anti-global warming stuff, its well publish and public knowledge. if you want to follow the money, follow it that way. some misty conspriacy of the international scientifc community is pretty rediculous in comparision to the well documented and known targeted anti-global warming push, which is, by and large, purely an american phenomina (much like the evolution/creationism issue).