32 réponses à ce sujet

[Necroscope84]

The ClimateGate Scam.  Global warming is a scam created by Climategate and the UN to try and create a World Government? 

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

I'm just putting this out there. Personally I've never believed in Global Warming because there has NEVER been a shred of scientific data to prove it.  Icebergs at the South Pole melt every single summer and always have and always will.  What do you'll think about this?  Whether you believe it or not I feel it is very important to put this information out there. I am not a conspiracy theorist but this is very disturbing to say the least.  Even if global warming is true then these guys shouldn't be fudging numbers and records to mislead anyone.  They should also not be witholding info that is freely availible through the Freedom of Information Act.  sigh, I sure hope this isn't true but all of the experts believe it is a true scam perpetuated on the people.  I also find it very distubing that None of the major news networds deem this worthy enough to report on.  We get Tigar Woods but not the possible biggest scam every perpetuated in the world.  Even if it's NOT true it should be reported on.  

Okay discuss : )

Modifié par Necroscope84, 05 décembre 2009 - 09:01 .

[wrexingcrew]

Likewise, there've been Blights before, and Thedas seems fine - why is everyone so concerned about this particular Blight? Personally, my PC will be sitting this one out. I'm not going to let some computer game tell me what the real threat is.

[AgnosticTheocrat]

You hear about those cops who framed that guy once? Yeah, I'll never trust any cop ever again. Clearly, this one instance of corruption proves that all police officers are liars and that crime is really just a drummed up conspiracy.

[Benfea]

Necroscope84 wrote...

The ClimateGate Scam.  Global warming is a scam created by Climategate and the UN to try and create a World Government? 

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

I'm just putting this out there. Personally I've never believed in Global Warming because there has NEVER been a shred of scientific data to prove it.  Icebergs at the South Pole melt every single summer and always have and always will.  What do you'll think about this?  Whether you believe it or not I feel it is very important to put this information out there. I am not a conspiracy theorist but this is very disturbing to say the least.  Even if global warming is true then these guys shouldn't be fudging numbers and records to mislead anyone.  They should also not be witholding info that is freely availible through the Freedom of Information Act.  sigh, I sure hope this isn't true but all of the experts believe it is a true scam perpetuated on the people.  I also find it very distubing that None of the major news networds deem this worthy enough to report on.  We get Tigar Woods but not the possible biggest scam every perpetuated in the world.  Even if it's NOT true it should be reported on.  

Okay discuss : )

Wow, you global warming deniers really are a bunch of conspiracy nuts, aren't you?

There is no conspiracy.

They were not fudging numbers. They merely refused to fudge numbers the way certain ideologues want them to. In our upside down world, refusing to alter scientific conclusions to satisfy the ideological needs of a bunch of birther nutcases makes you part of a sinister conspiracy.

What a world we live in.

I'll try and spell this out for you: 90% of scientists in related fields as well as 90% of ALL scientists (as measured by a recent poll) ascribe to anthropogenic climate change. Certain crazy people honestly believe that they are smarter and better informed than 90% of all the scientists on the planet because Rush Limbaugh told them so. Further, they believe that 90% of all scientists are part of a vast international conspiracy run by Al Gore that exists for the purpose of making American conservatives and certain oil company executives feel bad.

Despite what the Fair And Balanced people tell you, the emails do not say what you were told they say. Please try to be less gullible in the future. You'll look a lot less stupid that way.

Modifié par Benfea, 04 décembre 2009 - 04:07 .

[Gorath Alpha]

This thread is way out even for off topic, isn't it? 

There's been huge exaggeration and inflation regarding the IMMEDIACY of the danger point, because while it does exist as a trend, and it cannot be ignored totally, despite its actual point of disaster being much more distant, else the cost of correction will be increasing faster than the threat is.  It is real, and the nature of human beings is to let things slip that are coming to a head far in the future. 

The underlying fear from climatological scientists is that it almost certainly has an algebraically (non-linear) progressive growth for which the prediction algorithms are likely to be far too conservative in estimating the true impact and dating.  They have good logic for attempting to stir action early, when the COST of action will certainly be much less expensive. 

Anyone can have an opinion, same as they have an excretory orifice, and you can shut both of yours if you object to either side of this thing being brought out. 

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 04 décembre 2009 - 05:13 .

[the_one_54321]

if you're not a scientist studying the environment kindly stfu.

[LaztRezort]

Personally I've never believed in Global Warming because there has NEVER been a shred of scientific data to prove it. 

You should learn how scientists, and the scientific  method in particular, works.  I'll give you hint:  if there was no evidence for something, a (sane)scientist is not going to waste time and money working on their theory just to have it shot down by the rest of the scientific community. Also, there are many other types of evidence than just data.

Whether you believe it or not I feel it is very important to put this information out there.

What if it is misinformation that is being spread?  Would that not be harmful?

I also find it very distubing that None of the major news networds deem this worthy enough to report on.

Why do you suppose it is not newsworthy?

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.  And they are making an extraordinary claim.  I can say (and many do!) that, for example, darwinian evolution is a hoax, fraud, or conspiracy, but I better have some pretty good evidence of this on hand if I'm not to get laughed at by biologists.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Benfea wrote...

They were not fudging numbers.

They were pretty clearly being selecting in what they presented, though.

When they were "hiding the decline" for example, they were truncating the dendro-climatology data from Briffa (1999) at 1960.  Why did they do this?  Because from 1960 onward the dendro-climatology numbers, which were being used as a proxy for global temperature prior to 1940 (when we have no reliable instrumental measurements) decline.

Think about that.  According to the instrumental data so famously highlighted in the Hockey Stick graph, global mean temperature (which is a bit of a fuzzy number anyway, as it's an average of minimum temperatures and maximum temperatures, and those two things aren't moving in the same direction for reasons no one seems to be able to explain) has been climbing pretty steadily since 1940 - certainly from 1940-1998 (with a small dip in the '70s).

But if the actual temperature is climbing, but the dendro-climatology data that's used as a proxy for global temperature is declining, doesn't that show pretty clearly that dendro-climatology is a lousy proxy for global temperature?  In the one period where we can actually compare the two, they have a negative correlation!  So why does anyone, climate scientists or not, think that one is a good proxy for the other?

But rather than let anyone see that, the East Anglia CRU was intentionally hiding the data from the Briffa reconstruction post-1960.

Of course, they can't now explain that, because the original source data from these influential climate models has been "lost" - possibly intentionally destroyed, exactly as the leaked e-mails said they would be.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 décembre 2009 - 06:05 .

[KirbySkywalker]

isnt it ironic that the very internet al gore created is the one that shot him down?

[the_one_54321]

i hope everyone realizes, and simultaneously i am already certain that they dont, that the explanation of "global warming" that is given to you by the scientists is a severely dumbed down version that is made simple for you to understand. temperature is only the tip of the ice berg, so to speak.



as i said earlier, if you are not a scientist studying the environment, kindly stfu.



and before anyone pipes up with the smart [donkey] question, yes, i am a student of science studying the environment.

[AgnosticTheocrat]

the_one_54321 wrote...

i hope everyone realizes, and simultaneously i am already certain that they dont, that the explanation of "global warming" that is given to you by the scientists is a severely dumbed down version that is made simple for you to understand. temperature is only the tip of the ice berg, so to speak.

as i said earlier, if you are not a scientist studying the environment, kindly stfu.

and before anyone pipes up with the smart [donkey] question, yes, i am a student of science studying the environment.

Sure, there's the acidification of the oceans, the rising seawaters, the plantlife becoming less nutrient-rich, the decline of the northern tradewinds and subsequent icing of Europe, the oceanic currents disrupted by mass melt-water, the slow extinction of the lower rungs of the foodchain and thus the same higher up the chain, etc...

BUT A GROUP OF SCIENTESTS IN ONE UNIVERSITY EXAGGERATED SOME DATA FOR MORE GRANT MONEY!!! DON'T YOU SEE THAT MEANS EVERYTHING ANYBODY EVER SAID IS WRONG!

Modifié par AgnosticTheocrat, 04 décembre 2009 - 06:32 .

[Monstruo696]

It's inevitable. The planet will get hotter and then it will get colder. All the green house gasses are doing is speeding up the process by a few years.

[Mordaedil]

Wait, wait, wait.



Are you seriously saying "don't discuss this topic" on a random Internet forum as if implying it has some kind of effect on anything? If people aren't allowed to discuss something, why have discussion forums at all?



Personally, I think the Global Warming thing isn't so much an effect of Greenhouse gasses, but probably the cause of the suns rotation slowing down. Heck, we won't feel the effects until... What was it? 50 years, 10 years ago, so in 40 years? Or is it still 50 years away?



Regardless, the point is moot, because there is water on the moon. We're going to ditch this dumb rock sooner or later.

[Monstruo696]

Mordaedil wrote...

Personally, I think the Global Warming thing isn't so much an effect of Greenhouse gasses, but probably the cause of the suns rotation slowing down. Heck, we won't feel the effects until... What was it? 50 years, 10 years ago, so in 40 years? Or is it still 50 years away?

A radical climate change has happened before.  (See: Ice Age)

The planet is balancing itself out.

[Mordaedil]

Monstruo696 wrote...

A radical climate change has happened before.  (See: Ice Age)

The planet is balancing itself out.

Funnily, that is my thoughts as well.

But I think some countries could improve their recycling revenues anyway, if for no other purpose but to clean up a bit. Some steps are unnecessary however.

[Monstruo696]

Earth is doomed. No amount of common sense will move people off their asses to improve anything that doesn't affect them directly.

[Wendy_O]

Rather convenient to not believe in global warming or the greenhouse effect since it means you don't have to get off your arse and do anything!! BTW this is meant to be forum on DA:O!

[SardaukarElite]

It doesn't really matter whether or not Global Warming is real. The planet is overpolluted and our economic and energy systems are dangerously invested in finite resources.

Wendy_O wrote...
BTW this is meant to be forum on DA:O!

Actually this Off Topic. DA discussions go in the DA forums, accessed from Forum Home. Here anything goes, well anything in the rules at least.

[Mordaedil]

Monstruo696 wrote...

Earth is doomed. No amount of common sense will move people off their asses to improve anything that doesn't affect them directly.

I find that money is a very effective incentive. Around here you get a few back for returning bottles to their appropriate "bottle stations" and you get money back for doing so. People stand in lines before doing their weekly shopping submitting bottles.

Anything from alcohol to soft drinks. If every country had this, it'd improve a lot. I thought every country did, until I spent a year in England. ENGLAND of all places didn't have a decent recycling scheme!

Anyway, point is, by applying to peoples greed, you breed a new system of surviving.  The greedy will submit their bottles and clean up more after themselves, while the needy, the homeless, will collect the waste of the ones who do not care and cash in on that.

I know several homeless people in the town I work in survive on going into trashbins and submitting bottles other people have thrown away to waste. A little incentive goes a long way.

[elijah_kaine]

AgnosticTheocrat wrote...
BUT A GROUP OF SCIENTESTS IN ONE UNIVERSITY EXAGGERATED SOME DATA FOR MORE GRANT MONEY!!! DON'T YOU SEE THAT MEANS EVERYTHING ANYBODY EVER SAID IS WRONG!

Maybe a bit of an overexaggeration but it gets the point across.

I agree by the way. No matter what these scientests reasons for overexaggerating or fudging some data, it does beg to question how much we should trust the data being prestented to us by these scientists. Personally I feel a little less secure about how much I can trust what they release to the public.

Weither orn ot global warming is happening, is a threat or etc. is admittingly over my head, my personal opinion is better safe then sorry, but that is besides the point.

[the_one_54321]

AgnosticTheocrat wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

i hope everyone realizes, and simultaneously i am already certain that they dont, that the explanation of "global warming" that is given to you by the scientists is a severely dumbed down version that is made simple for you to understand. temperature is only the tip of the ice berg, so to speak.

as i said earlier, if you are not a scientist studying the environment, kindly stfu.

and before anyone pipes up with the smart [donkey] question, yes, i am a student of science studying the environment.

Sure, there's the acidification of the oceans, the rising seawaters, the plantlife becoming less nutrient-rich, the decline of the northern tradewinds and subsequent icing of Europe, the oceanic currents disrupted by mass melt-water, the slow extinction of the lower rungs of the foodchain and thus the same higher up the chain, etc...

BUT A GROUP OF SCIENTESTS IN ONE UNIVERSITY EXAGGERATED SOME DATA FOR MORE GRANT MONEY!!! DON'T YOU SEE THAT MEANS EVERYTHING ANYBODY EVER SAID IS WRONG!

precisely.

Mordaedil wrote...
Are you seriously saying "don't discuss
this topic" on a random Internet forum as if implying it has some kind
of effect on anything? If people aren't allowed to discuss something,
why have discussion forums at all?

no, it's just my way of pointing out that almost all the people talking about it here may as well be talking about the chemical processes in a waste water treatment plant. or discussing conjugation in latin. most of you know didly squat, and most of what people who know didly have to say is worth less.

elijah_kaine wrote...
No matter what these scientests reasons
for overexaggerating or fudging some data, it does beg to question how
much we should trust the data being prestented to us by these
scientists

i think you missed the MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SARCASM that were in that post.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 04 décembre 2009 - 04:24 .

[elijah_kaine]

the_one_54321 wrote...

i think you missed the MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SARCASM that were in that post.

Haha, I might have at that right? That's why sarcasm hardly works in text. Was just to sleepy to catch it. Still I dont' take back what I'm saying. Which is, that makes me trust the scientific community less.

Not that I thought they were scrupulous in the first place. I'm not denying that global warming is happening, or anything like that, but it does give me reason to doubt how honest any particular research group is, doesn't it?

[Malchiel777]

Hogwash

[elijah_kaine]

Malchiel777 wrote...

Hogwash

care to expound on that?

[RunCDFirst]

elijah_kaine wrote...

Haha, I might have at that right? That's why sarcasm hardly works in text. Was just to sleepy to catch it. Still I dont' take back what I'm saying. Which is, that makes me trust the scientific community less.

Not that I thought they were scrupulous in the first place. I'm not denying that global warming is happening, or anything like that, but it does give me reason to doubt how honest any particular research group is, doesn't it?

Trust is a ridiculous notion to have towards scientific investigation. Skepticism is really the corner stone of scientific inquiry. One must approach each situation with a certain amount of hesitation. Science is based on empiral information being tested and challenged. Only through rigorous testing spurred by concerns over the validity of claims can science truly progress.

So, yes, you shouldn't 'trust' science. Approach every claim with a certain degree of doubt and let the arguments for the position they advocate convince you.

Likewise, one incidence of mistrust does not a whole position rebuke. I doubt that 'scientists' have been covering up a global conspiracy towards rising temperatures and green house gases. Be skeptical of science and be skeptical of scientific naysayers.

Modifié par RunCDFirst, 04 décembre 2009 - 05:40 .