FYI: Kabana has been banned.
Good move, GC.
The appeal to the masses argument is a logical fallacy. Whether they be 17,000 scientists on a petition or half of all nobel prize winners. I don’t have much respect for the Nobel prize anymore but even if I did it wouldn’t make global warming true because half of them thought it was so.
FYI: I just noticed the banning a second ago. I guess that spurred on the tirade of empty insults. What a waste.
It is the true soul of an environmentalist on display.
I’m leaving this one post by Pogma up, temporarily, as evidence of his misbehavior. I had to delete at least half a dozen new threads he started this morning for the purpose of spamming the forum and abusing the moderators. His posting access has been removed, and I expect his IP will be banned.
why not contact his ISP and have him banned from them as well.
I suspect they were related… or one and the same, perhaps.
It’s likely that someone linked this forum on some commie forum, which accounts for the recent influx of trolls..
Hmm what is The Nobel prize is given in Physics, chemistry, lit, peace, econ, and medicine. Which of these disciplines requires the ability to know about the environment and global temperature trends. That sounds like an irrelevant point. I know the guy is gone, but anyone that sees 50% of the Nobel laureates agreeing on something as being relevant to almost any point needs to reconsider the facts.
-Nate
I know the guy is gone, but anyone that sees 50% of the Nobel laureates agreeing on something as being relevant to almost any point needs to reconsider the facts.
-Nate
Even if 100% of Nobel laureates agreed, it would still not justify the initiation of force against individuals for the purpose of “saving the environment”.
There is no reconsideration necessary.
Even if 100% of Nobel laureates agreed, it would still not justify the initiation of force against individuals for the purpose of “saving the environment”.
Not to mention that it wouldn’t prove anything, as it is just an appeal to authority.
Global warming is a topic ramped with “bad science” and hidden agendas. To even think about making laws based on what is said to be known about GW is sick.
Besides it’s still cold in Michigan. Everytime I brush the snow off my car I hope global warming kicks in soon. I should just move.
Speaking of global warming, I was on the plane the two days ago, and the movie they were playing was “The Day After Tomorrow”. Disgusting.
The latest issue of National Geographic has an article about GW but I have yet to read it.
VES
I saw The Day After Tomorrow too – almost three months ago. I first heard about it from a Popular Science article which interviewed a professor at my university, Richard Alley (author of this book). He spoke to my class when I was in 9th grade about his work on ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, which reveal that the last 100,000 years has experienced extreme climate change, with on and off ice ages – the last one abruptly stopping in only three years.
This seems to suggest that future climate change cannot solely be blamed on human beings; indeed, the amazon.com review of his book says Alley “contends that the unusually warm, stable climate we have experienced for the past 10,000 years is an anomaly.” Nevertheless, Alley went on (in the PopSci article) to stress that we should develop clean fuels like hydrogen and nuclear, that we should reduce our greenhouse output and try not to force the climate to change.
Global Warming is based upon Bad Science.
Check out this article about the world’s glaciers.
I don’t think this article supports Global Warming.
Nevertheless, Alley went on (in the PopSci article) to stress that we should develop clean fuels like hydrogen and nuclear, that we should reduce our greenhouse output and try not to force the climate to change.
I have not read Alley’s “PopSci” article, but I have read a number of his papers in the technical journals. It is clear to me that Alley has embraced conservation as a religion, in everything from his home life to his professional judgments. There are many substantially worse, but Alley is not a good friend of rational science when it comes to the environment. He has, as Oakes intimated, however, done some interesting exploratory work.
The latest issue of National Geographic has an article about GW but I have yet to read it.
VES
I read the editor’s self-congratulatory preface in which he basically said that he was being heroic and publishing this important new story in the face of possibly losing a few subsribers who dogmatically cling to the myth that there is no global warming. Of course, global warming is hardly a new story (and a story is all that it is), and the dogmatists are the vast majority of people who believe in it without being able to provide a scrap of evidence for it. So the editor’s preface is b.s. on several levels.
I then skimmed the article, but it was just the same old thing where they trot out a bunch of pseudo-scientists in a weak argumentum ad verecundiam and cite a few out of context statistics that don’t prove anything anyway.
(Merged with another thread - sN)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/27…reut/index.html
Of course there is no proof, but they say it is “likely”.
RadCap Posted: Jun 22 2003, 01:31 PM
And they all do this in volumes man does not even come CLOSE to releasing. Take carbon dioxide for instance. Man releases maybe seven billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually, whereas the planet releases almost two hundred billion tons over the same period of time.
And then there’s life itself. Living creatures are all notorious polluters. When they breathe, they pollute. After they eat, they pollute. In fact, termites alone expel about fifty billion tons of CO2 and methane each year. That’s ten times more than man produces by burning fossil fuels.
These are just small, isolated examples of the overwhelming amount of pollutants the rest of nature releases. Next to them, man’s pollution is insignificant.
I agree with this except the last line. It is still possible that the small proportion of CO2 we are releasing could be partly (along with various natural factors) responsible for global warming (assuming it is happening at all, which is unclear). As for whether such warming would be good or bad and whether we could or should try to stop it, I don’t think there is enough information to decide.
As for how many scientists believe in or don’t believe in global warming, the vast majority are not climatologists so their opinions are not relevant.
More importantly, as pointed out in the post by Marc K. quoting RadCap, it dosen’t matter… either way, men should be free to produce.
Even if that production eventually triggered an ice age that made much of the planet uninhabitable? (A remote possibility, maybe, but not impossible). How would that be different from someone’s factory producing a pollutant that was harmful to other people and their property, thus violating their rights?