Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

[BloodEclipse]

LOVE that movie and that is awesome you have that quote memorized! Pretty much sums up my feeling on oil and the Middle East right now. Ending of that movie literally made me cry.

While I don't subscribe to the sky falling RIGHT NOW, we are doing some damage to the Earth that is irreversible. Maybe not now, but later we will have SOME repercussions from it. We have not been on this earth (technologically speaking, biologically still VERY short timers we are), we have no idea in the LONG run (like EONs) what our pollutive impact will be. Honestly, I think there is junk science on both sides of the arguement, both sides have alot to benefit from either doing nothing or forcing all actions to be taken.

To all: Maybe, instead of thinking the good ol' fashioned "burn it until dead" concept we WANT to live and the Al Gore "only me and my cronies will benefit from horror and scare tactics" concept, maybe a middle road? Improved environmental policies and better fuel economy, but not at the horrible cost and expense to taxpayers (slow and gradual change to our current technology and policies, not the quick change, expensive ones that benefit carbon credit holding flunkies like Gore).

Do you and others who claim we are in the middle east for the oil realize that we only get about 15% of the oil we import from the middle east? Movies like Syriana are just scare tactic movies with BS factual content. Scare the sheep and make AMERICA look bad. And to think we have a President now who is good at doing just that.

 

[JetGirl]

YouTube - The 12 Days Of Global Warming

 

[Disposable Heart]

Do you and others who claim we are in the middle east for the oil realize that we only get about 15% of the oil we import from the middle east? Movies like Syriana are just scare tactic movies with BS factual content. Scare the sheep and make AMERICA look bad. And to think we have a President now who is good at doing just that.

I understand that little of it is factual. Maybe, reread the FIRST sentence of my post: It sums up my FEELING, i.e. OPINION, which can be based on fact or not. It does sum up my one feeling, which is based on fact:

Regardless, while a low amount of OUR oil comes from there, alot of it does go to the rest of the world. In that concept, the founded idea still remains: When the middle east runs out of oil, it's only resource (realistically), then what? We impose our wars and ideology upon them through hard power and we feel threatened when they have a different idea or want to get into other markets to diversify their economic and infrastructural systems (i.e. using their capital to invest in US or European markets). Once again, while something not facing us immediantly, it will my generation and my child (hopefully not, both me having kids and issues facing them). Policy isn't checkers, it is chess, gotta think three steps ahead, not just what will happen until I die, to heck with the next generation.

Go beat up on someone else you bully! Pick on someone your own rep size! I kid! In all honesty, calling folks sheep for having differing ideas or worldviews, usually forged in a different social set or education set, is a bit boorish. I prefer "liberal communist nitwit"

 

[Disposable Heart]

YouTube - The 12 Days Of Global Warming

That rulez!

 

[dburkhead]

I just wanted to say one thing. Since we're only here on this earth for a millisecond, shouldn't we just be more concerned about partying and dancing our life away instead of caring what impact we have? I mean, why worry about all the waste and and destruction?

I just wanted to say one thing. Since we're only here on this earth for a millisecond, shouldn't we just be more concerned about giving our all to making sure our grandchildren's grandchildren have the same earth to enjoy as we do today? Let's make everyone suffer beyond belief so we can save the earth from those who don't care and the destruction they cause.

Hmm... I have to go with option C, Bill.

I agree with Disposable Heart. There has to be a middle ground in there somewhere that allows us to flourish without killing our economies and taking away our sovereignty.

How do we do that? **** if I know. I'm not a scientist.

The way we do that is through doing good science. You can't find a good balance until you know what effects various actions can and do have.

You have to know what is happening and you especially have to know the causative factors before you can hope to control the result.

Trying to "fix" whatever one sees as wrong with the climate without understanding the various things that affect it, and how much they affect it, is like trying to control your oven temperature by flipping the ceiling light switch.

But to get the good science you have to not only admit but seriously consider dissenting views. You have to be able to answer all the miserable hard questions that skeptics and dissenters come up with. If the theory is valid then all the criticism will only strengthen it. If the theory is not valid then shouting down dissent and trying to pretend it doesn't exist is not going to make it any more valid.

As I have said, science thrives on debate. It thrives on dissent. It thrives on controversy. Whenever anyone tries to shut out any of those, there science dies.

"The debate is over," and "we have a consensus" are not science, but the death of science.

 

[SavageEagle]

So we should pay trillions in new taxes to stop the heating of the earth, what can we do to help mars?

The way we do that is through doing good science. You can't find a good balance until you know what effects various actions can and do have.

You have to know what is happening and you especially have to know the causative factors before you can hope to control the result.

Trying to "fix" whatever one sees as wrong with the climate without understanding the various things that affect it, and how much they affect it, is like trying to control your oven temperature by flipping the ceiling light switch.

But to get the good science you have to not only admit but seriously consider dissenting views. You have to be able to answer all the miserable hard questions that skeptics and dissenters come up with. If the theory is valid then all the criticism will only strengthen it. If the theory is not valid then shouting down dissent and trying to pretend it doesn't exist is not going to make it any more valid.

As I have said, science thrives on debate. It thrives on dissent. It thrives on controversy. Whenever anyone tries to shut out any of those, there science dies.

"The debate is over," and "we have a consensus" are not science, but the death of science.

Right, but I'm not a scientist and I'll leave the science up to you all. I'm just here to defend against the zombies and drive people and goods where they need to go.

 

[cbop]

I am not a scientist but it does seem to me that those proponents of the global warming hypothesis show some hubris and arrogance in that they are certain that the temperature of the Earth, as it is in their era, is the ideal temperature and that any deviation from that is cause for great alarm.

As I said, I am not a scientist... just a lowly auto tech but I do know that in my field, if I see someone who cannot fully comprehend and explain all the inter-relationships and systems of a vehicle and throw out large portions of their test results and service manuals because it does not agree with the conclusion they have come to, I would hesitate to put my confidence in their abilities. Your mileage may vary however

 

[antsi]

"The debate is over," and "we have a consensus" are not science, but the death of science.

hubris and arrogance

Both very good points.

I am a scientist. The phenomena I investigate in my field are relatively simple. Questions like, "does giving mothers antibiotics in labor decrease the incidence of infection in newborns?" You would not believe the amount of doubt, complexity, and uncertainty involved in even relatively simple questions such as this. Whenever I state an opinion, I am always careful to state that I am interpreting imperfect data from many imperfect studies, and that my opinion is equally imperfect. I'm also willing to modify my opinion based on new data. Any time someone raises objections or critique of my opinion, I am ready to hear their point of view because it is very possible they are seeing something that I'm not seeing. You will NEVER hear me say anything like "undeniable scientific fact," or "unanimous consensus," or "unquestionable data." You will never hear me use marginalizing labels like "denier" about someone who has a different opinion.

I find it difficult enough to keep up with the research in my own field, so I can't claim to have any kind of personal opinion about climate data or what it means.

I do know that the phenomena climate scientists are investigating are several orders of magnitude more complex than the questions I face in my field. I would feel extremely irresponsible making the kind of claims about my data that they make about their data. Climate scientists do not talk like any other kind of scientists I know.

The one group I have encountered who does talk like climate scientists, oddly enough, was "true believers" of communism when I visited the former Soviet Union. They believed that the optimal conditions of Soviet life were creating a new species of human being called "Soviet Man" who was more evolved than other humans. They had all kinds of data and theories to back up this preposterous nonsense. If you tried to critique them, they replied just like the climate scientists do: name-calling, marginalization, and bald assertion.

Again, I haven't looked at the climate data or its limitations so I have no personal opinion about it. But based on how they talk, and who they talk like, I am deeply suspicious of global warming theorists and the program they are peddling.

 

[bigus_D]

...You will never hear me use marginalizing labels like "denier" about someone who has a different opinion.
...
The one group I have encountered who does talk like climate scientists, oddly enough, was "true believers" of communism when I visited the former Soviet Union.

to paraphrase: "I'll never marginalize differing views by calling them 'deniers'... I'll just call them communists."

very nice.

 

[dburkhead]

to paraphrase: "I'll never marginalize differing views by calling them 'deniers'... I'll just call them communists."

very nice.

No, actually. That's not what Antsi said.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bigus_D]

No, actually. That's not what Antsi said.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HA!
yep... it basically is. Sure, he said more in his post... but this is what I found interesting.

I included the two lines directly from his post, in mine above. There is no doubt that he was equating climate scientists to communists. I'd happily provide a sentence diagram if that would help with your reading comprehension.

p.s. when did 'denier' become such an bad word??? sounds like these climate change deniers might be a bunch of sissies.

 

[dburkhead]

HA!
yep... it basically is. Sure, he said more in his post... but this is what I found interesting.

You might try reading for comprehension next time.

I included the two lines directly from his post, in mine above. There is no doubt that he was equating climate scientists to communists. I'd happily provide a sentence diagram if that would help with your reading comprehension.

Snicker. Try again. Instead of a sentence diagram try a Venn diagram. That set A has a characteristic of set B (in this case how they talk) does not imply that set A is a subset of set B. Nor does it say anything about the intersection of the two sets.

p.s. when did 'denier' become such an bad word??? sounds like these climate change deniers might be a bunch of sissies.

When did the common abreviation of "negro" become such a bad word? It has to do with how the word is applied and the intent behind it.

People use the word "denier" when "heretic" would be a more honest term. That's what they mean by it.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

So the scientists say the planet is getting warmer and we are the ones causing it huh ?

I call BS on their "science" !

Clinton , Gore and their cronies got HAARP up and running and destroyed the atmosphere and need some BS science to hide the fact that they did it !

Jokes aside , scientists once told us the world was flat and that we couldn't travel over 100 MPH .

IMO , we're going through another cycle of the earth's natural history and we've been warm before .

I don't doubt that we have some impact on our environment , but to the extent of affecting the world's climate as a whole , to me is absurd .

Man's arrogance in believing in his intelligence shall be his undoing .

 

[gearjmmer56]

This piece of crap is just like obama if his lips move you know he is lieing

 

[bigus_D]

You might try reading for comprehension next time.

YOU might try reading for comprehension next time.

Snicker. Try again. Instead of a sentence diagram try a Venn diagram. That set A has a characteristic of set B (in this case how they talk) does not imply that set A is a subset of set B. Nor does it say anything about the intersection of the two sets.

This was a sentence. A sentence diagram should demonstrate the comparison drawn sufficiently. When did I say anything about Venn diagrams? In any case, if the diagram you are talking about includes the universe of people that either have or don't have a particular characteristic, then sets A (climate scientists) and set B (communists from Russia), DO interesect according to the sentence being debated. Don't forget, I'm a scientist also (with degrees... but who said anything about degrees except for you and me?)

When did the common abreviation of "negro" become such a bad word? It has to do with how the word is applied and the intent behind it.

People use the word "denier" when "heretic" would be a more honest term. That's what they mean by it.

So, you have to go bring race relations into this. I never said anything about my ethnicity. I'm offended.

 

[dburkhead]

YOU might try reading for comprehension next time.

I did. Unlike you I also included context.

This was a sentence. A sentence diagram should demonstrate the comparison drawn sufficiently. When did I say anything about Venn diagrams? In any case, if the diagram you are talking about includes the universe of people that either have or don't have a particular characteristic, then sets A (climate scientists) and set B (communists from Russia), DO interesect according to the sentence being debated. Don't forget, I'm a scientist also (with degrees... but who said anything about degrees except for you and me?)

When dealing with different sets, Venn diagrams are entirely appropriate.

The amusing point is that you think a sentence diagram would actually support your case. Knowing which words form the subject, which the predicate, and what adjectives and averbs modify what nouns and verbs isn't going to make the sentence say what you claim it says.

But then, you demonstrate here one of two cases: either your knowledge of the English language is remarkably weak or you are being deliberately obtuse. Case in point, "nor does it say anything about the intersection of the two sets." "Does not say anything" != "the intersection is a null set." The statement in question does not say anything about the content of the intersection of the two sets. Your claim that the statement makes the one part (AGW proponents) a subset of the other (communists). Whether intersection of the two sets is the null set, is equal to one or both of the two sets, or is some non-nul set that has fewer members than either of the two sets cannot be determined from the statement itself any more than "the two sets are similar" tells you anything about the intersection. Other statements may provide information about that intersection (Ivan Kuznets writes articles warning about global warming in "The Sky is Falling" magazine and extoling the virtues of collectivization in "Hang all the Capitalists" magazine)* in but the statement at hand does not.

Again, try reading for content and do try to avoid things like the straw man fallacy.

As for being a scientist: you have asserted that and I'll take you at your word that you have a degree in science but there is far more to being a scientist than having a degree and you haven't demonstrated any of that and, in fact, have acted in ways contrary to scientific discipline.

So, you have to go bring race relations into this. I never said anything about my ethnicity. I'm offended.

And I see the point sailed right over your head. I wasn't bringing "race relations" per se but the way words are used and how their meanings are affected by intent. The particular example was a rather extreme case but I used the extreme case in the hope that you would get. the. point.

*Ivan Kuznets would literally be "John Smith." In case their's any question, the two magazines in this hypothetical are made up.

 

[bigus_D]

I did. Unlike you I also included context.



When dealing with different sets, Venn diagrams are entirely appropriate.

The amusing point is that you think a sentence diagram would actually support your case. Knowing which words form the subject, which the predicate, and what adjectives and averbs modify what nouns and verbs isn't going to make the sentence say what you claim it says.

But then, you demonstrate here one of two cases: either your knowledge of the English language is remarkably weak or you are being deliberately obtuse. Case in point, "nor does it say anything about the intersection of the two sets." "Does not say anything" != "the intersection is a null set." The statement in question does not say anything about the content of the intersection of the two sets. Your claim that the statement makes the one part (AGW proponents) a subset of the other (communists). Whether intersection of the two sets is the null set, is equal to one or both of the two sets, or is some non-nul set that has fewer members than either of the two sets cannot be determined from the statement itself any more than "the two sets are similar" tells you anything about the intersection. Other statements may provide information about that intersection (Ivan Kuznets writes articles warning about global warming in "The Sky is Falling" magazine and extoling the virtues of collectivization in "Hang all the Capitalists" magazine)* in but the statement at hand does not.

Again, try reading for content and do try to avoid things like the straw man fallacy.

As for being a scientist: you have asserted that and I'll take you at your word that you have a degree in science but there is far more to being a scientist than having a degree and you haven't demonstrated any of that and, in fact, have acted in ways contrary to scientific discipline.



And I see the point sailed right over your head. I wasn't bringing "race relations" per se but the way words are used and how their meanings are affected by intent. The particular example was a rather extreme case but I used the extreme case in the hope that you would get. the. point.

*Ivan Kuznets would literally be "John Smith." In case their's any question, the two magazines in this hypothetical are made up.

Oh... i get it now... YOU are right, and I am wrong.

We could have been done with this a long time ago if you had just said that!

p.s. The only other people I've ever met who's writting appears as arrogant as yours are pompous a-holes. Please don't take this sentence to be comparing you to those pompous a-holes, because I understand your Venn diagram logic now! (i.e. when somebody says that one thing is like another thing, there is actually no assertion that there is an intersection of attributes between the two groups.)

 

[dburkhead]

Oh... i get it now... YOU are right, and I am wrong.

I've noticed that you try that approach when you are completely out of your depth and have nothing with which to even attempt a reasoned rebuttal.

We could have been done with this a long time ago if you had just said that!

Actually, we could have been done with this a long time ago if you were actually interested in honest debate and dealing with the actual content of various posts rather than trying to use verbal pyrotechnics in a failed effort to ridicule that which you are unable or unwilling to understand.

p.s. The only other people I've ever met who's writting appears as arrogant as yours are pompous a-holes. Please don't take this sentence to be comparing you to those pompous a-holes, because I understand your Venn diagram logic now! (i.e. when somebody says that one thing is like another thing, there is actually no assertion that there is an intersection of attributes between the two groups.)

Actually, you don't. But that's okay. The world has a place for people who are incapable or unwilling of understanding basic science and logic too.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

The world has a place for people who are incapable or unwilling of understanding basic science and logic too.

Yep , it's called the White House .

 

[CarmelHP]

Yep , it's called the White House .

You made me blow soda through my nose!

dburkhead, stop trying to insert science into a scientific debate, there's no place for that here. And you're unfair to the East Anglia climate mafia, it's perfectly reasonable to throw out the original data sets when they moved into a new building. You always throw out that which was painstakingly collected and is irreplaceable, and which everything else you do is supposedly based upon, in order to make room for a new couch or something equally indispensable. The AGW "research" should now be relegated to the Journal of Irreproducible Results.