namelesstavern.net

Would you whiny bastards stfu and read State of Fear already. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the global warming proponents are every bit as jaded in their views as the non believers, and it may make you think twice about some of the "scientific fact" behind your case.

Here's the thing though, Minrott. The "Global Warming Proponents" don't have anything to gain from it. Furthermore they are they actual people with scientific knowledge, not people making speculations based on what they interpret. I'll listen to a scientist over a pundit every time.

Global Warming is a huge ploy the the air conditioner companies of America.

Minrott wrote:Would you whiny bastards stfu and read State of Fear already. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the global warming proponents are every bit as jaded in their views as the non believers, and it may make you think twice about some of the "scientific fact" behind your case.

The book does provide a fairly negative view of Global Warming. Keep in mind however that this is a work of fiction. Some of what he discusses is valid and he did a significant amount of research in writing the book. You need to notice something about the book however, look at the people arguing both sides. The anti Global Warming group is represented by the extremely well spoken and highly educated Kenner and the Rick philanthropist Morton. While the Global Warming group is represented by the idiot Ann Garner, an even more annoying actor and of course the left wing extremist group NERF. You should probably see a trend here; the book has already put the reader against the Global Warming group.

The book has also been highly criticized by many scientists for having inaccurate data presented as fact. Others have also criticized that he took their research out of context in an argument against Global Warming. The author may or my not believe in Global Warming, however he does certainly know how to write a good book that will keep its readers attention. That’s what he has done here, he has provided a story that people will want to read. It is not proof and I would be really suspect of any person who uses this work of fiction as proof for or against Global Warming.

Answer = Neither. Both provide a service that we as consumers find worthwhile and therefore purchase.

Of course it was criticized. Anything that's contradictory to the majority belief for 30 years is going to be criticized. What makes your 'scientific' data better than somebody elses? Credability? Credability is perception.

Again I make no claim to whether the book is fact or fiction (in the data, not the plot), only that whining "but but but I'm a scientist you have to believe me" isn't a valid argument. There are scientists on both sides of the fence. One side is simple held to be the "right" side by the majority of people.

Christ there's a college proffesor here at UW Madison teaching that the government facilitated the 9/11 incident. Does that make it fact? Because it's taught at a fairly prestigous univerity?

I'm not a scientist, I've taken bio and chem, physics and calc, but I'm not a scientist. What I know are statistics and trends. But because the numbers that have been recorded are so recent, and debatable in accuracy at that, I lean towards disbelief.

I'm on board with evolution, I'm on board with the big bang and nearly all of the scientific theories that explain what and why our world is what it is.

But this end of the world dogma that spews forth over a heating trend that can't even be nailed down to the same numbers by independant researchers smells like shit to me.


Ozone good melting icecaps bad. I get it. CFCs and CO bad. I understand. We make an impact on the planet, yeah, makes sense. Instant skin cancer and flooded coastlines by 2020? Fear hungry sensationalized media bullshit.

How's the avian flu pandemic going? Half the world dead yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Plague

And we still don't know what caused it or what it is.

brinstar wrote:there is evidence that global warming is occurring.

the only discussion which carries any weight is "how much of it is attributable to man"

we don't have a correct undeniable answer to that yet. however, "all of it" is just as unlikely an answer as "none of it"

so the answer must then be "some of it"

to which i say "then why risk it? is it really worth the gamble?"

the correct reply is a resounding NO.

let's err on the side of caution. let's assume we're causing it, and take steps to change our pollution levels. if it turns out we WERE causing it, GREAT! crisis averted! if it turns out we were wrong-- oh well, at least our air is cleaner and we have all these great alternative fuel sources, which is great because we were running out of oil anyway!

conspiracy theories aside, i think when bush refused to be part of Kyoto he was partially doing it because he didn't like the idea of a bunch of other countries telling the U.S. how they should run their business, and on a certain level i can respect that. however, i think we're all stuck on this planet together for a long time, so we should ALL take part in being better stewards of it-- and his cowboy attitude on the subject might end up hurting everyone in the long run.

Probably one of the most sensible posts in this forum in a long time...

yah I'm surprised it came from brinstar. Usually his posts are verbal diarrhea.




oh wait no thats me.

did you guys forget to drink your brinstar-flavored haterade today or what

I don't hate you