Free copy of An Inconvenient Truth DVD...maybe not

[quote name='spoo']This is exactly what I'm talking about. Ship captain records are useless to us to be used as scientific data.


I thought I made myself clear on my point, sorry. My point is all about the"fact" of global warming. We know that the earth has went through many global temperature trends and we can't explain many of them, but this trend we can explain all on man?

We should cut back on CO2 emissions, and many other "may be harmful" usage and we need to find other energy alternatives but this is the same scare tactic as the "yellow terror alerts". We should attack this issue as it is a "theory" not "fact". I do part by doing what I can out side of buying an electrical car and not buying harmful products. OMG we had a warm December, and now a cold January this all must be true!! Calling this fact is asinine.



Please not everyone with a different onion then you watches "Fox news" or listens to talk radio.

The facts are different scientist are coming up with different data. Also different things are coming up as why is the arctic ocean getting colder but the arctic is warming? I am not a scientist and will never be one but contradictions rise a red flag for me and it should for anyone.


I do know about ice tests and they have been testing many things from the ice caps. The data is still not as concrete as actual temperature readings. It is the best we have but not good enough.[/quote]

Well sir, then please cite your sources of these differing facts that contradict man being the leading cause of global warming. See, I teach science and although I'm certainly no scientist myself, almost every scientific article and writing I've read on global warming over the past decade points directly at mankind. The ones I've read that discredited those facts were themselves discredited as studies bankrolled primarily by big corporations and the oil industry. Gee, think they might have a stake in discrediting the the FACT of mankind caused global warming?

So please, tell me where you are getting your facts because I'd really like to know. Even the Bush Administration, who's energy and science czar that tried to discredit much of the information coming from the scientitific community regarding global warming, was in fact a oil industry lobbyist previous to his serving in our government, has come around to state that mankind is the main cause of global warming and is open to seeking alternative energy and cutting down on CO2 emissions. So if even this Administration has come around to admitting it, being no friends to the environment themselves, I'd really like to know what facts you're getting and where, that are causing you to hold out.
 


My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.

It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be avery good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.

But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.

But let's look at how it came to pass.

Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

One way to chart the cooling of enthusiasm is to review popular works on the subject. In 1964, at the height of SETI enthusiasm, Walter Sullivan of the NY Times wrote an exciting book about life in the universe entitled WE ARE NOT ALONE. By 1995, when Paul Davis wrote a book on the same subject, he titled it ARE WE ALONE? ( Since 1981, there have in fact been four books titled ARE WE ALONE.) More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called "Rare Earth" theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way.

Back in the sixties, SETI had its critics, although not among astrophysicists and astronomers. The biologists and paleontologists were harshest. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard sneered that SETI was a "study without a subject," and it remains so to the present day.

But scientists in general have been indulgent toward SETI, viewing it either with bemused tolerance, or with indifference. After all, what's the big deal? It's kind of fun. If people want to look, let them. Only a curmudgeon would speak harshly of SETI. It wasn't worth the bother.

And of course it is true that untestable theories may have heuristic value. Of course extraterrestrials are a good way to teach science to kids. But that does not relieve us of the obligation to see the Drake equation clearly for what it is-pure speculation in quasi-scientific trappings.

The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage-similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example-meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks.

Now let's jump ahead a decade to the 1970s, and Nuclear Winter.

In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported on "Long-Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear Weapons Detonations" but the report estimated the effect of dust from nuclear blasts to be relatively minor. In 1979, the Office of Technology Assessment issued a report on "The Effects of Nuclear War" and stated that nuclear war could perhaps produce irreversible adverse consequences on the environment. However, because the scientific processes involved were poorly understood, the report stated it was not possible to estimate the probable magnitude of such damage.

Three years later, in 1982, the Swedish Academy of Sciences commissioned a report entitled "The Atmosphere after a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon," which attempted to quantify the effect of smoke from burning forests and cities. The authors speculated that there would be so much smoke that a large cloud over the northern hemisphere would reduce incoming sunlight below the level required for photosynthesis, and that this would last for weeks or even longer.

The following year, five scientists including Richard Turco and Carl Sagan published a paper in Science called "Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions." This was the so-called TTAPS report, which attempted to quantify more rigorously the atmospheric effects, with the added credibility to be gained from an actual computer model of climate.

At the heart of the TTAPS undertaking was another equation, never specifically expressed, but one that could be paraphrased as follows:

Ds = Wn Ws Wh Tf Tb Pt Pr Pe… etc

(The amount of tropospheric dust=# warheads x size warheads x warhead detonation height x flammability of targets x Target burn duration x Particles entering the Troposphere x Particle reflectivity x Particle endurance…and so on.)

The similarity to the Drake equation is striking. As with the Drake equation, none of the variables can be determined. None at all. The TTAPS study addressed this problem in part by mapping out different wartime scenarios and assigning numbers to some of the variables, but even so, the remaining variables were-and are-simply unknowable. Nobody knows how much smoke will be generated when cities burn, creating particles of what kind, and for how long. No one knows the effect of local weather conditions on the amount of particles that will be injected into the troposphere. No one knows how long the particles will remain in the troposphere. And so on.

And remember, this is only four years after the OTA study concluded that the underlying scientific processes were so poorly known that no estimates could be reliably made. Nevertheless, the TTAPS study not only made those estimates, but concluded they were catastrophic.

According to Sagan and his coworkers, even a limited 5,000 megaton nuclear exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35 degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months. The greatest volcanic eruptions that we know of changed world temperatures somewhere between .5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed global temperatures by 10 degrees. Here we have an estimated change three times greater than any ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute.

But Sagan and his coworkers were prepared, for nuclear winter was from the outset the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign. The first announcement of nuclear winter appeared in an article by Sagan in the Sunday supplement, Parade. The very next day, a highly-publicized, high-profile conference on the long-term consequences of nuclear war was held in Washington, chaired by Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, the most famous and media-savvy scientists of their generation. Sagan appeared on the Johnny Carson show 40 times. Ehrlich was on 25 times. Following the conference, there were press conferences, meetings with congressmen, and so on. The formal papers in Science came months later.

This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.

The real nature of the conference is indicated by these artists' renderings of the the effect of nuclear winter.

I cannot help but quote the caption for figure 5: "Shown here is a tranquil scene in the north woods. A beaver has just completed its dam, two black bears forage for food, a swallow-tailed butterfly flutters in the foreground, a loon swims quietly by, and a kingfisher searches for a tasty fish." Hard science if ever there was.

At the conference in Washington, during the question period, Ehrlich was reminded that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were quoted as saying nothing would grow there for 75 years, but in fact melons were growing the next year. So, he was asked, how accurate were these findings now?

Ehrlich answered by saying "I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists…"

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therap6y…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

But back to our main subject.

What I have been suggesting to you is that nuclear winter was a meaningless formula, tricked out with bad science, for policy ends. It was political from the beginning, promoted in a well-orchestrated media campaign that had to be planned weeks or months in advance.

Further evidence of the political nature of the whole project can be found in the response to criticism. Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about," other prominent scientists were noticeably reticent. Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but…who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" And Victor Weisskopf said, "The science is terrible but---perhaps the psychology is good." The nuclear winter team followed up the publication of such comments with letters to the editors denying that these statements were ever made, though the scientists since then have subsequently confirmed their views.

At the time, there was a concerted desire on the part of lots of people to avoid nuclear war. If nuclear winter looked awful, why investigate too closely? Who wanted to disagree? Only people like Edward Teller, the "father of the H bomb."

Teller said, "While it is generally recognized that details are still uncertain and deserve much more study, Dr. Sagan nevertheless has taken the position that the whole scenario is so robust that there can be little doubt about its main conclusions." Yet for most people, the fact that nuclear winter was a scenario riddled with uncertainties did not seem to be relevant.

I say it is hugely relevant. Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends.

That is why it is so important for the future of science that the line between what science can say with certainty, and what it cannot, be drawn clearly-and defended.

What happened to Nuclear Winter? As the media glare faded, its robust scenario appeared less persuasive; John Maddox, editor of Nature, repeatedly criticized its claims; within a year, Stephen Schneider, one of the leading figures in the climate model, began to speak of "nuclear autumn." It just didn't have the same ring.

A final media embarrassment came in 1991, when Carl Sagan predicted on Nightline that Kuwaiti oil fires would produce a nuclear winter effect, causing a "year without a summer," and endangering crops around the world. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that "it should affect the war plans." None of it happened.

What, then, can we say were the lessons of Nuclear Winter? I believe the lesson was that with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact. After that, any criticism becomes beside the point. The war is already over without a shot being fired. That was the lesson, and we had a textbook application soon afterward, with second hand smoke.

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.

This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science….there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.

Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.

As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed.

As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?

And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.

When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?

To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.

This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.

Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.

But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."

What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.

The answer to all these questions is no. We don't.

In trying to think about how these questions can be resolved, it occurs to me that in the progression from SETI to nuclear winter to second hand smoke to global warming, we have one clear message, and that is that we can expect more and more problems of public policy dealing with technical issues in the future-problems of ever greater seriousness, where people care passionately on all sides.

And at the moment we have no mechanism to get good answers. So I will propose one.

Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepeneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research-or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.

I believe that as we come to the end of this litany, some of you may be saying, well what is the big deal, really. So we made a few mistakes. So a few scientists have overstated their cases and have egg on their faces. So what.

Well, I'll tell you.

In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.

Thank you very much.
 
I signed up for this months ago and never got anything other than probabaly my email and mailing address on millions of junk mail lists. Don't waste your time.
 
I saw this movie last week, and it was decent, and fairly convincing. The one issue it doesn't really tackle though is the only one which there is still a fair amount of debate on. Global Warming is happening, there's no doubt about it, but the one answer that remains unsolved is why. Is it the result of two hundred years of industrialized civilization pumping harmful emissions into the atomasphere? Could be. Is it just a natural warming and cooling trend the earth has seen for millions of years? Could be that too. No one seems to be able to have a conclusive answer.

The one thing I think we can all agree on though is that all you smug holier then thou assholes who claim to have all the answers and that the rest of us "watch Fox News and listen to talk radio" can go fuck yourselves. You certainly are no better then anyone else, and you aren't any more enlightened about anything either.
 
[quote name='spmahn']I saw this movie last week, and it was decent, and fairly convincing. The one issue it doesn't really tackle though is the only one which there is still a fair amount of debate on. Global Warming is happening, there's no doubt about it, but the one answer that remains unsolved is why. Is it the result of two hundred years of industrialized civilization pumping harmful emissions into the atomasphere? Could be. Is it just a natural warming and cooling trend the earth has seen for millions of years? Could be that too. No one seems to be able to have a conclusive answer.

The one thing I think we can all agree on though is that all you smug holier then thou assholes who claim to have all the answers and that the rest of us "watch Fox News and listen to talk radio" can go fuck yourselves. You certainly are no better then anyone else, and you aren't any more enlightened about anything either.[/quote]

I'm certainly more enlightened than you. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

That was a Michael Crichton speech from 2003 to the California Institute of Technology. Y'know, because science sucks, but science fiction writers are onto something. :roll:[/quote]
Oh my, his SOURCE for all his facts is a fiction novelist? LMAO Granted Crichton has a medical degree but that makes him as much an expert on global warming as I am with my JD degree. Guy needs to put down his sci-fi novels and pick up a science journal now and then.
 
Wow, Michael Crichton? Certainly an authority. Got anything by L. Ron. Hubbard about organized religion? Maybe the cretins will buy that too. :lol:

I mean, golly, the guy wrote Jurassic Park and EVERYTHING.

I don't know if anyone read further in that Crichton tirade, but he tries to say the dangers of secondhand smoke are bogus too. Are you F@#KING serious?

Not to mention, Nuclear Winter was based on something that they thought would MAYBE happen during a thermonuclear war. Global Warming is based on thousands of years of carbon dioxide readings from ice core samples.

Theory based on NOTHING, and theory based on HARD DATA is not the same. Way to go, d!ckhead.
 
[quote name='Stormy151']Wow, Michael Crichton? Certainly an authority. Got anything by L. Ron. Hubbard about organized religion? Maybe the cretins will buy that too. :lol:

I mean, golly, the guy wrote Jurassic Park and EVERYTHING.

I don't know if anyone read further in that Crichton tirade, but he tries to say the dangers of secondhand smoke are bogus too. Are you F@#KING serious?

Not to mention, Nuclear Winter was based on something that they thought would MAYBE happen during a thermonuclear war. Global Warming is based on thousands of years of carbon dioxide readings from ice core samples.

Theory based on NOTHING, and theory based on HARD DATA is not the same. Way to go, d!ckhead.[/quote]

Seriously, I want my Dinosaurs....GIVE ME MY FRIGGIN' DINOSUARS CRICHTON! And while you're at it I want to travel back in time to Medievil France as well....MAKE IT HAPPEN!
 
[quote name='Shredso']I signed up for this months ago and never got anything other than probabaly my email and mailing address on millions of junk mail lists. Don't waste your time.[/QUOTE]

Um, retard...

[quote name='the site']Over the last hour, sharethetruth received 450 DVD requests, on average one every 8 seconds. As of this writing, there are 3,213 unfulfilled orders for free copies. At $20, the DVD's current going rate, this operation would require $64,320 in donations – without tallying packaging and shipping costs – just to catch up.

Over the last week, eight very nice donors have stepped forward, contributing a total of $90.

Though the numbers are, to put it mildly, somewhat mismatched, I believe this isn't a funding problem as much as it's an awareness problem.

Oh, The Good Old Days

Looking back through the mists of time to July 2006, we see a somewhat balanced ledger. Before the DVD release of An Inconvenient Truth was ever on the horizon, sharethetruth sent people directly to the movie theater, paid tickets in hand. It worked just about right. This effort directly introduced the wonderful world of global warming to nearly a thousand people (indirectly, many more). We constantly ran out of funding, but enough generous souls continued to show up at the door to make up the difference.

How do we keep the books balanced, perpetuating past success? The answer is, I believe, improved communication on several points:

1. Hey you! Sharethetruth is powered by real people, not fake ones!

Since today's massive influx of visitors have come from FatWallet.com, SlickDeals.net, RedFlagDeals.com, and the like, many recent requests are generally being made in a different context than expected. Here's a sample of what people are saying:

Signed up. 1 less movie in my Netflix queue...
shieryda, CAG thread

I'm down for one. I saw this before. It was good. Maybe not exactly super exciting. But worth watching again... one day.
jdamirez, SlickDeals thread

Awesome! I can't wait to ebay my free copy.
breakfast-pants, Reddit.com thread

If it does come, I'm just going to turn around and sell it on Half.com or something.
GTZ_NSR, same CAG thread

While there's nothing wrong at all with scoring free or discounted stuff (I quite like it myself), I don't think most of the people requesting the DVD just to have a copy – or, $10 extra dollars – truly understand what this cause is about.

First, this site is not Al Gore's, nor is it affiliated with the Paramount or Participant Productions. Many visitors are leaving comments thanking Gore, or otherwise responding to the effort as if the movie studio is funding a giveaway effort.

Second, not only does all money come from individual donors, but an individual runs the website. The collaboration of these individuals has yielded a pool of cash none-too-easily collected. When was the last time you saw in-demand gifts publicly distributed by a non-profit organization, let alone individual people? Sharethetruth is simply not a company with profit margins or, for that matter, any funding that might allow for irresponsible spending. Even in our free movie ticket days, we declined requests that failed to convey sufficient trustworthiness. We'd lose the trust of donors if we squandered their gifted money.

Third, people mustn't misunderstand why the movie is being offered free. It's not because there's a surplus of movies, or that it's not worth the money. It's that viewers are so inspired by An Inconvenient Truth, they want to do what they can to help others see it, too. A perverse feature of the way we value goods in market societies is the confusion that can occur between two absolutely opposite ends of the worth spectrum.

2. Sharethetruth wants to "do good" and be sustainable, too.

The Inconvenient Truth DVD case is made of 100% post-consumer recycled material (a full step beyond "100% recycled") wrapped with EarthFirst PLA film made of corn and a 100% compostable label. Correspondingly, sharethetruth does not wish to condone excessive shipping, or excessive consumption. Someone who has seen the movie and wants a copy to sit on a bookshelf is, simply put, not a target beneficiary. I have no desire to be exclusionary, but given our limited resources, both for this cause and from this little blue dot that gives us life, it's the poor and the skeptical who get dibs on the free stuff.

3. Sharethetruth needs your help.

You may have noticed that the number of requests we are now getting far exceeds current capacity. Closing the request form is not an option, however, because everyone is still welcome and I hope to send out DVDs to as many as possible. So with this backlog of pending transfers at hand, I'm turning to you, if you've seen the movie, to either contribute some funds, or pledge a copy of the movie to sharethetruth, so we can connect you with a beneficiary in your area.

In the meantime, we're writing everyone we can for assistance, from Mr. Gore to companies involved in the film to unrelated but philanthropically inclined organizations, for any copies of the movie they'd be willing to offer up. This, like the global warning itself, is just part of the long beginning – and we really hope to do everything we can to help.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Stormy151']Theory based on NOTHING, and theory based on HARD DATA is not the same. Way to go, d!ckhead.[/QUOTE]


Love the quote :)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

That was a Michael Crichton speech from 2003 to the California Institute of Technology. [/QUOTE]
:applause: You get the cookie for knowing what it was. :roll:

[quote name='Stormy151']Wow, Michael Crichton? Certainly an authority. Got anything by L. Ron. Hubbard about organized religion? Maybe the cretins will buy that too. :lol:

I mean, golly, the guy wrote Jurassic Park and EVERYTHING.

I don't know if anyone read further in that Crichton tirade, but he tries to say the dangers of secondhand smoke are bogus too. Are you F@#KING serious?[/QUOTE]
Obviously you believe everything that you see a commercial for. 2nd hand smoke critics have been around for a long time. I once read a good article the cited all the 2nd hand smoke studies from the "truth" commercials and showed how and why it was some shoddy science reports passed off as "fact". They were using all the data that they could not determine the cause if it was heart or lung related they would blame it on 2nd hand smoke. I will try to find the article and post it if I remember where I read it at. Insert foot into mouth.

[quote name='lawdood']Oh my, his SOURCE for all his facts is a fiction novelist? LMAO Granted Crichton has a medical degree but that makes him as much an expert on global warming as I am with my JD degree. Guy needs to put down his sci-fi novels and pick up a science journal now and then.[/QUOTE]

When did I say it was a "source for my facts?" I didn't source any of my "opinions" on things that I claimed just as you haven't sourced any of your opinions.

Laugh all you want but I am done with this topic Mr. Science teacher:lol: As a science teacher you should know that a "medical degree" from Harvard Medical School has more science requirements then a Educational Specialist in science, degree.

As a writer Mr Crichton has nothing but time to educate himself on issues. I am willing to bet he spent at least 6 months reading science journals and getting familiar with the subject of global warming sine he wrote a novel about the same subject. Like him or not he is not one to write about a subject that he didn't look deep into.

Can you take the fact that not everyone sees things the same way you do? Probably not because if you are a teacher, (as one that had many bad teachers *ok most of my teachers were bad teachers) since teachers are normally very closed minded individuals.
 
[quote name='spoo']:applause: You get the cookie for knowing what it was. :roll:


Obviously you believe everything that you see a commercial for. 2nd hand smoke critics have been around for a long time. I once read a good article the cited all the 2nd hand smoke studies from the "truth" commercials and showed how and why it was some shoddy science reports passed off as "fact". They were using all the data that they could not determine the cause if it was heart or lung related they would blame it on 2nd hand smoke. I will try to find the article and post it if I remember where I read it at. Insert foot into mouth.



When did I say it was a "source for my facts?" I didn't source any of my "opinions" on things that I claimed just as you haven't sourced any of your opinions.

Laugh all you want but I am done with this topic Mr. Science teacher:lol: As a science teacher you should know that a "medical degree" from Harvard Medical School has more science requirements then a Educational Specialist in science, degree.

As a writer Mr Crichton has nothing but time to educate himself on issues. I am willing to bet he spent at least 6 months reading science journals and getting familiar with the subject of global warming sine he wrote a novel about the same subject. Like him or not he is not one to write about a subject that he didn't look deep into.

Can you take the fact that not everyone sees things the same way you do? Probably not because if you are a teacher, (as one that had many bad teachers *ok most of my teachers were bad teachers) since teachers are normally very closed minded individuals.[/quote]
...and I'm willing to bet you're pulling at straws to back up your claims.

"As a writer Mr. Crichton has nothing but time to educate himself on issues. I am willing to bet...blah, blah, blah" does absolutely nothing to solidify the fact that the only source for your opinions you offer is a FICTION novelist, a STORY writer for the masses. You have absolutely no facts to back up your claims of how much he knows about global warming, only what you think he should know because he has just so much time to educate himself on it and he has a medical degree. Wow....and being a teacher I have my summer's off and a law degree, so I must be ready to serve on the Supreme Court.

Why don't you take a look at this article that took me 10 seconds to google (it was among dozens I found) which all but debunk Crichton's statements and show him for what he is, a mouthpiece for groups trying to undermine the scientific community's stand on global warming...groups by and large funded by EXXON-MOBIL and other corporate interests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4319574.stm

Try digging deeper when you're looking at issues and see what and who is behind them before you pride yourself in being such an "open-minded" individual. You are probably one of those that are still hanging onto the "fact" that Iraq had WMD's as well huh?
 
Now I am one of the cheapest basterds you can find, but I will not pick up this film for free because the message needs to get out there to people who aren't as informed as me. Bottom line: Global warming is for real, the science of it is overwhelming. :hot:
 
Global warming is real and clearly caused by evil American corporations.

Any scientist who has ever received one red cent from ExxonMobil is a LIAR and a CHARLATAN.

Any scientist in favor of global warming being directly caused by evil American corporations?

PURE AS ANGEL'S SNOW!
 
Coincidentally, pulling grant money and ostracising scientists who dissent vis-a-vis global warming is justified! American corporations will destroy the Earth unless stopped! Besides, the scientists we haven't ostracised, derided, and called industry shills clearly prove global warming's existence! Those who disagree are clearly villains who support the destruction of the world!

McCarthy who?
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Coincidentally, pulling grant money and ostracising scientists who dissent vis-a-vis global warming is justified! American corporations will destroy the Earth unless stopped! Besides, the scientists we haven't ostracised, derided, and called industry shills clearly prove global warming's existence! Those who disagree are clearly villains who support the destruction of the world!

McCarthy who?[/quote]

Don't let science get in the way of your sarcasm and misplaced comparisons:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/index.html
 
There it is! PROOF! Undeniable, incontrovertible proof!

Right then, let's get started on the UN agency responsible for curtailing all business growth. I recommend the motto "That which is not mandatory is forbidden." I predict it will be led by third-world countries, with the Chinese maintaining heavy seats on the council. Of course, we'll all get to elect to have our own representatives, but, really, they'll just deliver the dictums from the bosses.
 
Because, let's be honest. Nobody oppose curtailing pollution and industrial outputs, but let's also be honest. The sheer amount of pimping of this global warming debate isn't a fight against evil corporations. The only logical end result of all of this is going to be a power-grab by the transnationalists to wrench away power from individual countries and surrender it to some hideous utopian wet-dream.

Because, seriously, once you have veto power over someone else's industrial output, you're the hand that rocks the cradle.

That's seriously the only issue here with me.

Well, that and the squelching of dissent IN THE NAME OF THE CAUSE, but two sides of the same coin, eh?
 
[quote name='Lou-Dawg']It snowed in Tucson, Arizona today. Global Warming???[/QUOTE]

Hey, I live in Tucson too and couldn't believe it snowed in the city. A rare sight indeed.

I've seen this movie and it really makes you think. Like some people have said, it shouldn't matter what political position you take, you should see this movie regardless. If all it does is start discussion, then it was worth the time and effort.

Originally I was going to sign up for a free copy, but seeing how they are low on quantities and I've already seen it, then I'll pass on the opportunity. Remember, you always have the option to rent this DVD so if you really want to see the movie, then spend the small asking price of $5. It'll be worth it.
 
[quote name='spoo']


Obviously you believe everything that you see a commercial for. 2nd hand smoke critics have been around for a long time. I once read a good article the cited all the 2nd hand smoke studies from the "truth" commercials and showed how and why it was some shoddy science reports passed off as "fact". They were using all the data that they could not determine the cause if it was heart or lung related they would blame it on 2nd hand smoke. I will try to find the article and post it if I remember where I read it at. Insert foot into mouth.


[/quote]
Insert foot into mouth?

Thousands of scientists worldwide back the theory of Global Warming. You know, REAL scientists. Armed with those oh so pesky FACTS, and HARD DATA.

You're citing a Science Fiction author, because you're "willing to bet" he's read some stuff?

Way to fact check. :applause: He MUST know what he's talking about, he's got all sorts of time to read. He must be the SMARTEST MAN ALIVE.

That "good" article that you read "one time" that de-bunked all the secondhand smoke claims? Claims made by MEDICAL DOCTORS? Who wrote that? Gene Roddenberry? Or was it in a Spiderman comic? :lol:
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Don't let MY Googling get in the way of your Googling.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009625[/quote]
Come on, I mean why trust somebody from the IPCC when you can read an interpretation of what the IPCC reported by somebody funded by Exxon Mobil.

Jesus, yes, scientists (or non-scientists, in your instance) aren't necessarily lying just because they're paid by Exxon Mobil, but don't you think it's a better idea to listen to somebody that doesn't have that conflict of interest?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Come on, I mean why trust somebody from the IPCC when you can read an interpretation of what the IPCC reported by somebody funded by Exxon Mobil.

Jesus, yes, scientists (or non-scientists, in your instance) aren't necessarily lying just because they're paid by Exxon Mobil, but don't you think it's a better idea to listen to somebody that doesn't have that conflict of interest?[/quote]
Which implies, I would think without justification, that scientists, especially the IPCC, who believe in global warming as caused by evil American corporations HAVE no conflict of interest.

I could Google up some more sites, but, honestly, if you cannot accept that the conflict of interest pendulum can swing the other way, there's no point to it all. Then, it is whether my team of scientists has whiter lab coats than yours.

But, again, the debate here about the effect of CO2 as released by humans (Mostly evil American corporations) is nitpicking over stuff that is NEVER going to get fully proven. So, we need to find solutions that are palatable to everyone. "Suffer now FOR TEH FUTURE" ain't ever going to cut it. Nuclear power, on the other hand... Electric cars that aren't a pain in the ass... things like this can work.

But you let the UN run this, it will only end in a transnational power grab that would stifle most western economies, and if you cannot see that, you're too focused on the trees to see the forest.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Which implies, I would think without justification, that scientists, especially the IPCC, who believe in global warming as caused by evil American corporations HAVE no conflict of interest.

I could Google up some more sites, but, honestly, if you cannot accept that the conflict of interest pendulum can swing the other way, there's no point to it all. Then, it is whether my team of scientists has whiter lab coats than yours.[/quote]

If you can show me how those people benefit from corporations modifying their emissions then I'll agree they have the same conflict of interest. When a company funds people to say things that will save that company money then I'm not going to trust them, it just doesn't make any sense to do so.

[quote name='RollingSkull'] But, again, the debate here about the effect of CO2 as released by humans (Mostly evil American corporations) is nitpicking over stuff that is NEVER going to get fully proven. So, we need to find solutions that are palatable to everyone. "Suffer now FOR TEH FUTURE" ain't ever going to cut it. Nuclear power, on the other hand... Electric cars that aren't a pain in the ass... things like this can work.[/quote]

I agree that the fixes should be made to work for everybody, but at the same time delaying isn't a good idea either, so something has to be done and everything being voluntary won't work.

[quote name='RollingSkull'] But you let the UN run this, it will only end in a transnational power grab that would stifle most western economies, and if you cannot see that, you're too focused on the trees to see the forest.[/quote]

I don't see how the UN has stifled western economies so far or how it will in the future, so please elaborate.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Global warming is real and clearly caused by evil American corporations.

Any scientist who has ever received one red cent from ExxonMobil is a LIAR and a CHARLATAN.
[/QUOTE]

OBJECTION!!!1
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']But you let the UN run this, it will only end in a transnational power grab that would stifle most western economies, and if you cannot see that, you're too focused on the trees to see the forest.[/QUOTE]

Where's your good ol' American ingenuity? WHy the hell can't US companies start making the devices, energy generators, vehicles, etc. that will be created when there is a demand for environmentally-friendly products? Why not build the best solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles, etc.? Why can't we turn this around to actually favor our industry? Damn, we get to the moon but we can't develop, market, and export scrubbers?

We are fucked.

BTW, I haven't gotten the damn free dvd.
 
Let me sum this entire issue up for everyone, and draw some conclusions of which I am certain:

1. Predicting long-term climate change is currently beyond the scope of human scientific ability. In time, this ability may become a reality. But as for now, it is simply too complex and involves too many variables in order to accurately predict what is going to happen (and why it is happening).

2. It would be a conservative estimate to suggest that >99% of you do not have the scientific training in order to understand the nuances of global climate change and the research behind it. Similarly, >99% of you wouldn't have the first idea about how to analyze and interpret an article from a scientific journal.

3. What most people believe in this forum regarding global warming is what they are fed, whether it's from Fox News, Michael Crichton, Al Gore, or any of a number of sources. To truly understand the underpinnings of the proposed theory of global warming, you have to review and analyze the research behind it, rather than passively receive an interpretation from a biased source (this includes scientists themselves).

4. Scientific research is not without bias. As research is conducted, there aren't really facts, so much as there are theories. A significant number of scientific "facts" have been overturned or successfully dismissed years later. Take the medical literature for example. Years of research resulting in a journal publication that stands the test of time becomes one line in textbook chapter. But even then, nearly half of what is agreed upon as truth is eventually reputed over the course of time as being false and inaccurate.

5. To believe what you are told without engaging in genuine investigation is to become part of the uneducated masses, and contributes to the gradual dulling of America that is already well underway. An individual would do well to steer clear of that trap.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Which implies, I would think without justification, that scientists, especially the IPCC, who believe in global warming as caused by evil American corporations HAVE no conflict of interest.

I could Google up some more sites, but, honestly, if you cannot accept that the conflict of interest pendulum can swing the other way, there's no point to it all. Then, it is whether my team of scientists has whiter lab coats than yours.

But, again, the debate here about the effect of CO2 as released by humans (Mostly evil American corporations) is nitpicking over stuff that is NEVER going to get fully proven. So, we need to find solutions that are palatable to everyone. "Suffer now FOR TEH FUTURE" ain't ever going to cut it. Nuclear power, on the other hand... Electric cars that aren't a pain in the ass... things like this can work.

But you let the UN run this, it will only end in a transnational power grab that would stifle most western economies, and if you cannot see that, you're too focused on the trees to see the forest.[/quote]

Your whole argument loses a lot of luster with your repeated insistence on this "transnational power grab" you keep bringing up. You obviously have some conspiracy theories floating around your head which hold little support in mainstream society.
 
An Inconvenient Truth is that Al Gore is talking out of his ass. This whole Global Warming scam might go down in history alongside such illustrious frauds like the Cardiff Giant.
 
[quote name='SpazX']If you can show me how those people benefit from corporations modifying their emissions then I'll agree they have the same conflict of interest. When a company funds people to say things that will save that company money then I'm not going to trust them, it just doesn't make any sense to do so.[/quote]
The issue here isn't so much about scientists attacking evil corporations. That is just my way of skipping much of the kerfluffle regarding global warming to what is kinda obviously the endgame scenario. Industrial emissions cause CO2, and if CO2 has to be stopped, industrial emissions will have to stop, and that is done by stopping the evil corporations blah blah blah.

Anyway, these scientists benefit because, ironically, world governments and folks similarly minded to Al Gore will pay them the big bucks to continue their research. The funders want to scare the world into action, or they want to Kyoto up the place with poorly conceived emissions slowing plans. Bureaucrats want that power. Scientists might like it too, but mostly probably the money.

Short of it, there exist interests that would want global warming (ACBEUC, as caused by evil US Companies) to ring true. Same as the oil companies who don't want to invest monies in curtailing their emissions.



I agree that the fixes should be made to work for everybody, but at the same time delaying isn't a good idea either, so something has to be done and everything being voluntary won't work.
Click to expand...
And yet closed minds like lawdood deride my "OH NOES A TRANSNATIONAL POWER GRAB" like it is a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

The question is... since everything being voluntary won't work. You need a group of people who "know better" than the average prole who wouldn't give up his car. Thus... a contingent of folks with nearly dictatorial powers. (Lawdood should really be covering his ears at this point.)

The problem there is that once you start down that path, you'll need regulations, often extra-governmental (Because no government wants to drive oil prices up to $5/gallon.), to get people to do things involuntarily. You do that, you break the economy. From that point on, you're really a fickle dictator.


I don't see how the UN has stifled western economies so far or how it will in the future, so please elaborate.
Click to expand...
It hasn't because it lacks any real power. Kyoto was an interesting attempt, as it would have wrecked the US economy more or less specifically, assuming we entered into it in better faith than most of the countries are in it right now.

Look at it this way. Given the mindsets and attitudes of those in the UN, someone has to be thrown under the bus to curtail emissions. Can you seriously say that the US would be hurt less than, or even the same amount, as major industry growth nations China and India?

And tickdood, the more we pressure our companies to produce green goods (And I think to a certain extent they favor green goods where costs are cheap, due in part already to government favoring of such things. Then again, could be a smoke screen. I'm not that tough to outwit.), the better they'll get at it. If they see a market for such things, they'll be on it like the ravenous profit whores they are.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']An Inconvenient Truth is that Al Gore is talking out of his ass. This whole Global Warming scam might go down in history alongside such illustrious frauds like the Cardiff Giant.[/QUOTE]


pssst just to let you know the earth is also round...
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']pssst just to let you know the earth is also round...[/QUOTE] No shit? Thanks there, professor. Enjoy the spoon-fed pablum you are lapping up.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']An Inconvenient Truth is that Al Gore is talking out of his ass. This whole Global Warming scam might go down in history alongside such illustrious frauds like the Cardiff Giant.[/quote]

boy do i feel scammed by global warming :lol:
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']No shit? Thanks there, professor. Enjoy the spoon-fed pablum you are lapping up.[/QUOTE]


pssst the earth goes around the sun, and also when you sneeze its not your soul trying to escape.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']pssst the earth goes around the sun, and also when you sneeze its not your soul trying to escape.[/QUOTE]
:lol:
 
Global Warming told me that it was the deposed prince of an Eastern European country and wanted me to have some money. I cannot believe I fell for Global Warming's Scam!

EDIT: And now it wants tree-fiddy, whatever the hell that is!
 
If were not gonna trust scientists about a science issue what the hell are they wasting there lives for?
Doesnt matter to me how global warming is truly caused if the first guess is wrong so be it .
Let them all be wrong if it fails to slow it down then we will know thats one less thing we can do. A problem is a problem were suposed to do what we can and try untill we fix it.

I think the argument about if its real or not is a complete waste of time.

heres some caveman terms for the real slow people

Big ice melt big ice melt bad.
 
[quote name='D_Icon']Did anybody get the DVD yet?[/quote]

No, I don't think so. It's been 4 weeks, and they usually say 4-6, so it'll probably arrive shortly.
 
Someone needs to update the OP with the message from the website itself, where the person behind the website makes it clear that the posting of this "deal" to CAG, SD, and FW have more or less made the website unsustainable in terms of actually shipping the product out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top