Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 81
  1. #21  
    Well, those ignore the past...

    Yeah, that's the way, ignore the past and make up what the future will bring.
  2. #22  
    Sorry hoovs, I forgot to comment on your two other articles. I do not understand how the first one can debunk global warming but provide no data or references.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    and I am not convinced by the article heralded in your other link either.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    http://www.oism.org/pproject/
    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 03/17/2007 at 12:37 PM.
  3. #23  
    By the way, I'm not sure what county y'all were referring to. I was simply impying it affected a lot more than just one.

    I live in an area that experienced a moderately mild winter. You know, thanks to Global Warming and all.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Entertaining reading from 25 to 30 years ago, thanks. I enjoy reading history, and of course that is what this is.

    Its always fun to go back to before the science of a particular area was fully developed and read about what people were saying.
    I think "fully developed" is a loaded term and I don't think scientists closest to the issue would make that claim. In fact, I would question the intentions of any scientist who claims we've developed any area as fully as it can be developed. More to the point, imagine if we inacted legislation based on the "knowledge" of an impending ice age.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    A classic example is 50 or so years ago, when there were still people around who would make long arguments about how they thought tobacco was not harmful.
    Tobacco is harmful??? Actually, I make no apologies for my love of the leaf. All I can say is all good things should be enjoyed in moderation.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Sorry hoovs, I forgot to comment on your two other articles. I do not understand how the first one can debunk global warming but provide no data or references.
    That article was about the documentary and not, in itself, an argument one way or the other. I imagine that the documentary will bring forth it's own evidence. My point in posting it was to reference the quotes in the artice about how some proponents of global warming theory twist facts to make it look like thier theory is undisputed.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    and I am not convinced by the article heralded in your other link either.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/
    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
    Clearly. But, again, my point wasn't to debunk global warming but to debunk the myth that global warming is without dispute among serious academics.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    I think "fully developed" is a loaded term and I don't think scientists closest to the issue would make that claim. In fact, I would question the intentions of any scientist who claims we've developed any area as fully as it can be developed. More to the point, imagine if we inacted legislation based on the "knowledge" of an impending ice age.
    Science is always progressing, evolving as new data and hypothesis (supporting existing data and making predictions) comes along. The predictions made 30 yrs ago turned out to be incorrect. We have to go with the current understanding about scientific world.

    Claiming that nothing is "fully developed", ever, is a good excuse to ignore the facts and do as one pleases. About anything.

    In that sense, one either follows the teachings of science (however much developed), or the teachings of "whatever the heck one wants to believe in".

    A few brave souls will advance alternate theories, provide supporting data and make predictions. You too could be famous if you have such a theory!!!
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  7. #27  
    Aprasad, did you, by any chance, read Hoovs' post just before your most recent one?
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    I think "fully developed" is a loaded term and I don't think scientists closest to the issue would make that claim. In fact, I would question the intentions of any scientist who claims we've developed any area as fully as it can be developed. More to the point, imagine if we inacted legislation based on the "knowledge" of an impending ice age.


    Tobacco is harmful??? Actually, I make no apologies for my love of the leaf. All I can say is all good things should be enjoyed in moderation.
    Science is never fully developed you are correct. Also, I know you can always find a few fringe scientists to make almost any point and I realize that I am begrudging your efforts to have some fun around here too. Anyway, more power to you and your opinions, if nothing else I realize that they are well thought out.
    cheers,
    cell
  9.    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    ...Actually, I make no apologies for my love of the leaf. All I can say is all good things should be enjoyed in moderation.
    Totally agree.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    Science is always progressing, evolving as new data and hypothesis (supporting existing data and making predictions) comes along. The predictions made 30 yrs ago turned out to be incorrect. We have to go with the current understanding about scientific world.
    Sure, but we don't have to overstate the state of our understanding of the world.
  11. #31  
    I agree. Anyone who claims the latest theory of <anything> to be the final word on that subject is mistaken.

    On global warming, specifically, there are a few issues that makes it worthwhile to consider the worst. The changes to the climate takes a long time to occur and equally long time to correct. Sort of like turning an ocean liner .. cannot be done on a dime.

    What if the warming is real, and we can make some incremental changes now to improve the situation? Isn't that better than finding out decades/centuries later that it was too late and "we should have done something earlier"?

    Sounds an awful like fixing entitlement programs, doesn't it :-)
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  12. #32  
    "What if the warming is real"

    I think most agree. Caused by man, man/nature, nature is another question.

    "and we can make some incremental changes now to improve the situation? Isn't that better than finding out decades/centuries later that it was too late and "we should have done something earlier"?"

    What incremental changes? If we're unsure of the cause, how would you know if it would do any good, or for that matter, have unintentional detrimental effects?

    "Sounds an awful like fixing entitlement programs, doesn't it :-)"

    Man, another issue altogether! But, at the moment, I think we have a much better chance at correcting this issue!
  13. #33  
    Additionally, there's no way we should be taking action based on assumptions that are arrived at while ignoring/twisting known facts.
  14. #34  
    "I know you can always find a few fringe scientists to make almost any point"

    Wasn't Einstein (as well as many others) considered "fringe" by many?

    BTW, I read your post about three times today, and it was different each time. Did you edit it that much (I'm on Treo)?
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    What incremental changes? If we're unsure of the cause, how would you know if it would do any good, or for that matter, have unintentional detrimental effects?
    Gradually increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles.. study (and implement, if feasible) sequestration of CO2 emitted by coal-fired powerplants.. construct and encourage mass transit..

    The sad fact is that to have a meaningful effect, we'll have to increase the cost of energy. That can happen gradually, in a planned mode (yes.. taxes and a real energy policy).. or later because of supply and demand (and with more continued release of CO2 in the bargain).
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  16. #36  
    "Gradually increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles.. study (and implement, if feasible) sequestration of CO2 emitted by coal-fired powerplants.. construct and encourage mass transit.."

    I agree on conservation efforts (both personal & community). You can tell that so many individuals don't care by the way they drive. On sequestering CO2, what are you going to do with it all (oil companies already inject it into the oilwells to push out more oil - although it may be manufactured rather than "recycled" - so this may be a storage area for sequestered stuff). How much of the CO2 in the atmos is a result of industrialization? How much is a result of liberated soluble CO2 from warmer bodies of water?

    "The sad fact is that to have a meaningful effect, we'll have to increase the cost of energy. That can happen gradually, in a planned mode (yes.. taxes and a real energy policy).. or later because of supply and demand (and with more continued release of CO2 in the bargain)."

    It's all about money and power. Which is what I think may be causing all this controversy to begin with.
  17. #37  
    Or I should say, part of the reason.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    Additionally, there's no way we should be taking action based on assumptions that are arrived at while ignoring/twisting known facts.
    The prevailing scientific consensus (not every last scientist, but the vast majority) agrees on global warming and man's contribution to it. Those who pretend this is not the case are the ones doing the ignoring/twisting. Einstein was a great scientist because he dispeled the prevailing view with data, not rhetoric. Thats what it will take to dispel good science, not arguing louder or mischaracterization, but better science, better studies. I look forward to future discoveries in this area.
  19. #39  
    "The prevailing scientific consensus (not every last scientist, but the vast majority) agrees on global warming and man's contribution to it. Those who pretend this is not the case are the ones doing the ignoring/twisting."

    FOS

    Einstein was a great scientist because he dispeled the prevailing view with data, not rhetoric.

    And this man-made GW is accurate data??

    "Thats what it will take to dispel good science, not arguing louder or mischaracterization, but better science, better studies."

    Well then, you tell Gore to shut up.

    "I look forward to future discoveries in this area."

    Me, too. When we figure out for sure what can be done (if anything), that'll be great.
  20. #40  
    I blame George Bush.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions