1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Global Warming & Evolution: WHO are The Scientists?

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by TheJPRD, Jan 9, 2013.

  1. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,077
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games

    thats how its supposed to work. and its unlikely the admin signees even bothered to read the finding critically. even other scientists at east anglia were irate over portions of the content.
     
  2. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,847
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    The emails at East Anglia were taken out of context. They were scrutinized by the scientific community, which found that there was no tampering.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Science_Assessment_Panel
     
  3. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,077
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    is it really possible for there to have been no tampering when they cannot produce the data in question ?

    of course they have attempted to save some face but the fact tht they admitted that there was no warming for 15 (now 16) demonstrates grave lapses in scientific practice.
     
  4. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    386
    Trophy Points:
    83
    As I have said before.. denial of science is bi-partisan. The only difference is the issues affected by the denial. just being a little sarcastic..great post..
     
  5. kowalskil

    kowalskil Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Yes, give scientists time and keep politicians away from this problem.
     
  6. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,077
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    I would add have those scientists who were inclined to jump the gun to allow for normal review to occur.
     
  7. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,312
    Likes Received:
    727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And miss out on all that "green" money?
     
  8. Iolo2

    Iolo2 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2012
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Rhondda
    The only scientists relevant to global warming are climatologists, obviously. As to evolution, all educated people know its is hugely more likely than any other notion.
     
  9. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    386
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Given that we know that the warming so far has increased global vegetation cover, increased precipitation, lengthened growing seasons, cause minimal ecological change and had no impact on extreme weather events, I need persuading that future warming will be fast enough and large enough to do net harm rather than net good. Unless water-vapour-supercharged, the models suggest a high probability of temperatures changing less than 2C, which from what I understand and almost everybody agrees will do net good.

    Nor is it clear that ecosystems and people will fail to adapt, for there is clear evidence that adaptation has already vastly reduced damage from the existing climate – there has been a 98% reduction in the probability of death from drought... flood or storm since the 1920s, for example, i read that malaria retreated rapidly even as the temperature rose during the twentieth century.

    So I cannot see why the poor should bear the cost of damage that will not become apparent until the time of a far richer future generation, any more than people in 1900 should have borne sacrifices to make people today slightly richer. Or why today’s poor should subsidise, through their electricity bills, today’s rich who receive subsidies for wind farms, which produce less than 0.5% of the country’s energy....THATS JUST NUT'S

    Indeed I will need persuading that pushing everything to renewables can cut emissions rather than make them worse; this is by no means certain given that the increased use of bioenergy, such as wood or corn ethanol, driven by climate policies,and from what I nderstand is indeed making them worse. Meanwhile shale gas use in the USA has led to a far greater cut in emissions thanany other technology, yet it is opposed every step of the way by climate alarmists/OUR PRESIDENT.

    Finally, you might make the argument that even a very small probability of a very large and dangerous change in the climate justifies drastic action. But I would reply that a very small probability of a very large and dangerous effect from the adoption of large scale renewable energy, reduced economic growth and hurt the poor the most through carbon taxes or geo-engineering also justifies extreme caution. At the moment, to me, it seems highly likely that the cure is worse than disease.
    We are taking chemotherapy for a cold.
     
  10. DavidCervid

    DavidCervid New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    3
    It appears like each time another story is made by the media about science, there should be some kind of questionable subject or verbal confrontation included. The Theory of Evolution is no more bizarre to debate, particularly the possibility that people developed after some time from different species. Numerous religious gatherings and others don't have faith in advancement due to this contention with their creation stories.

    Another dubious science point regularly discussed by the news media is worldwide environmental change, or a dangerous global warming.

    Life on Earth has as of now been on a very basic level modified by a worldwide temperature alteration, influencing the qualities of plants and creatures and modifying each biological system on the planet, as per a noteworthy survey of the logical writing.

    Australia's wild parrots, which are progressively being presented to a portion of the world's most noteworthy temperatures, have advanced to develop longer wings to adapt to the additional warmth.

    Researchers at the University of Notre Dame Australia have found that the wings of ringneck parrots, which live in Western Australia, have developed by 4-5mm in the course of recent years.

    Specialists guarantee the adjustment implies the feathered creatures, generally called 28s after their shrieked "twen-ty-eight" call, have adjusted so they can shed more warmth when they fly.
     
    grumpy likes this.
  11. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
  12. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Far from true...climatology is a soft science...those with a degree in climatology are grossly lacking in upper level mathematics, statistics, physics, chemistry, etc...a person graduating with a bachelors degree in physics could effectively teach any course in climatology while a masters or PhD in climatology would be lost teaching any but the most basic courses required for a degree in physics.

    This is why climate science tends to hide their data and methodology...when actual experts look at their work, they find mistake after mistake after mistake...upside down proxies, flawed statistical work, shitty programming..etc. etc. etc. and on and on and on.
     
  13. The Sage of Main Street

    The Sage of Main Street Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Eco-Eunuchs

    They are B students jealous of A students. Resentful of their inferiority and vindictive about it, they have a desperate psychological need to preach that all inventions that geniuses brought to us have only desecrated their sacred Gaia and doomed mankind.

    These self-protecting snakes invented the Ad Hominem "fallacy" so that their creepy motivations will never be questioned. Only someone intimidated by academic shields would treat the preachings of these minor-league scientists as objective and fall for the mandate that every squeaky-voiced, pencil-necked, hollow-chested nerd is an impersonal and angelic mentor offering us humanitarian science. These dangerous mutant misfits have to feel they are on the cutting edge. If they are, it should be the cutting edge of a shredder.
     
Loading...

Share This Page