End goal of GW scientists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-06-2012, 10:40 AM
RE: End goal of GW scientists?
(19-06-2012 10:34 AM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  This thread is not about whether Global Warming is real or not, I just want the views of deniers on why they think scientists are faking the info. Some of the replies have confirmed what I initially thought: money for doing nothing. That doesn't make any since why thousands of scientists around the world would do such a thing, though. Sure, I'd love to get paid for doing nothing, but it would wear thin after a while. I mean what is the point of putting forth the effort to get a PhD in a given field only to not use it? It's like making a sandwich and then throwing it away when you are starving to death.


Very few have ever given me a clear reason why they think scientists are faking it, a few nuts think it's a grand conspiricy. I do think the others see it as a power grab/tax scheme on the part of government. I usually can't get them to the position of what to do to fix/mitigate as they usally parrot some talking head who found a study that fits their point of view.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 10:42 AM
RE: End goal of GW scientists?
(19-06-2012 10:33 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  ....... when I ask them to look at more that just one or two sources (usually unscientific oners) they tend to just blow it off.
If it aint mainstream it isnt real Wink

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 10:44 AM
RE: End goal of GW scientists?
(19-06-2012 10:34 AM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  This thread is not about whether Global Warming is real or not, I just want the views of deniers on why they think scientists are faking the info. Some of the replies have confirmed what I initially thought: money for doing nothing. That doesn't make any since why thousands of scientists around the world would do such a thing, though. Sure, I'd love to get paid for doing nothing, but it would wear thin after a while. I mean what is the point of putting forth the effort to get a PhD in a given field only to not use it? It's like making a sandwich and then throwing it away when you are starving to death.
I dont think its a case of faking the info...... more a means of manipulation towards an end goal.

End goal = £££

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 10:47 AM
RE: End goal of GW scientists?
One argument I have heard is that there are a lot of people out there making money off of Global Warming (which there are) and it is in their best interests for it to be pushed. This is a somewhat legitimate argument since corporations are using global warming as a way to help them market new technology and new products (the green movement uses this fear of global catastrophe all the time). I'm not saying I disagree with 'going green' but some of the things we buy that are supposedly 'green' are just a lot of bullshit.

There is also legitimate concern about what is driving climate change, and it is almost certainly not solely humans nor is it even solely CO2. Climates vary regularly on Earth with fluctuations between glacial and interglacial cycles occurring at regular intervals and appear to be most strongly coupled with the Milankovitch cycles (the tilt of the Earth, the shape of its orbit, the wobble of the orbit, and the combinatorial effects of these). That doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't play a role, but it most likely means that there are other factors that initiate either temperature change first or CO2 first and then it becomes a positive feedback loop.


@Bemore
Who told you climate has anything to do with the polarity of the magnetic poles? The timescale that happens over is much longer than anything seen in the ice cores.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 10:50 AM
RE: End goal of GW scientists?
(19-06-2012 10:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  @Bemore
Who told you climate has anything to do with the polarity of the magnetic poles? The timescale that happens over is much longer than anything seen in the ice cores.
I read it somewhere and it seemed at the time to make sense (although im no expert)

Ill trawl my history and see if I can find you a link.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 11:03 AM
RE: End goal of GW scientists?
Not only that but at most a collapse in the magnetic poles would allow more radiation through, but that is still hypothetical since we have no idea what really happens when the poles flip (it may even go into a state where there are more than 2 poles, like a quadrapole or octopole).

If there were instances of such increased radiation and rapid change, we should see extinctions every 5 million years or so, but we don't. The pole thing sounds like BS but I would be most intrigued by any literature you find on it.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 11:14 AM
RE: End goal of GW scientists?
Here would be my take on Global Warming skepticism.

Is Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) real? Given the evidence, I'd say yes. There does appear to be a direct correlation between average global temperature and average concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

Is the climate changing? Yes, but the climate of earth changes constantly, with or without human intervention.

How much of our current observable climate change is linked to MMGW? Well it depends. Certainly MMGW is making the planet warmer, which does contribute to ecological changes but I'm not sure science fully understands this or its total impact given how many variables affect the Earth's climate.

Are there risks associated with ecological change caused by global warming? Possibly, but we just don't fully understand the scope of the problem to clearly predict them.

Are these risks serious to humans and other creatures dependent on a stable biosphere? Possible

Are environmentalists exaggerating these risks for the value of fear pimping? My answer would be YES. I think a lot of environmentalist groups, many of which are scientifically illiterate IMO, stupid asshole celebrities, etc., are hijacking a rational discussion of this subject in favor of fear tactics which garner these attention whores with the coverage they crave. They also have a lot of agendas not related to the environment like the anti-corporate OWS bullshit.

Are there MMGW skeptics which are also distracting a rational conversation on the subject? YES!!!!! Plenty of 'em! Lately it seems like its either politicians or lobby groups backed by bucks from companies which would suffer economic loss from the implementation of 'green' legislation or the 'useful idiots'; knee jerk religious types that can't stand to watch science and reason eclipse their bronze age holy books.

Isn't it wise just to take a 'play-it-safe-and-go-green' attitude? This is kinda like an environmentalist's version of Pascal's Wager. We have to determine first if there is a high probability of a SPECIFIC calamity happening as a result of MMGW and then what we can do to prevent it, not to mention a cost-benefit analysis on the implementation of that action.

Are a lot of green technologies readily available to supplant fossil fuel consumption? Some are ready to go as we speak, some are still in the works. It will probably take 50-60 years to implement a fully clean, renewable system of energy for the human race. My grandchildren should enjoy that, though.

So those are my thought on global warming skepticism.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
19-06-2012, 11:39 AM
RE: End goal of GW scientists?
Then there was this discussion between Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bob Lutz on Real Time With Bill Maher




"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 12:24 PM
RE: End goal of GW scientists?
Yet another reason why I will never by GM again.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 05:12 PM
RE: End goal of GW scientists?
(19-06-2012 01:16 AM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  Anyway, I've asked him and other climate change deniers what the end goal of global warming scientists is if it is truly a fictional phenomenon.

Note the bold. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: