Tommorow

Quote :

" Report to link global warming to humans POSTED: 4:27 p.m. EST, February 1, 2007 "There's no question that the powerful language is intimately linked to the more powerful science," said study co-author Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria. Weaver said it is all based on science that is rock-solid, peer-reviewed, conservative and consensus: "It's very conservative. Scientists by their nature are skeptics." The scientists wrote the report, based on years of peer-reviewed research; government officials edited it so that it would receive the required unanimous approval by world governments. In the end, there was little debate on the strength of the wording about human activity most likely to blame."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/01/climate.talks.ap/index.html


So is the verdict still out?

2/1/2007 7:13:09 PM

LA LA LA LA LA

2/1/2007 7:13:44 PM

is that science??

2/1/2007 7:13:59 PM

Quote :

"A long-awaited report says global warming is "very likely" man-made"

ITS AN ABSOLUTE FACT

2/1/2007 7:16:47 PM

Science can do that kind of thing

2/1/2007 7:20:42 PM

the very fact that the phrase says "very likely" means its not science...

2/1/2007 7:21:06 PM

^^it can according to soap box posters

Quote :

"Scientists by their nature are skeptics"

and you wonder why i dont watch a docudrama and believe everything i hear

[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 7:22 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2007 7:21:07 PM

^^ Scientists aren't allowed to conclude anything from their findings? Interesting.

^ Good thing the thoughts of some SB posters has any impact on this, what-so-ever.

2/1/2007 7:23:44 PM

good thing a few points ive argued in here tirelessly are immediately conceded based on a preliminary cnn blurb

2/1/2007 7:26:10 PM

Quote :

"Scientists aren't allowed to conclude anything from their findings? Interesting."

nope...they are allowed to prove or disprove things...then its science...

2/1/2007 7:45:19 PM

well they cant really prove anything definitely, only disprove things ...they can have evidence that supports a hypothesis

course when you dont understand a number of gas cycles and possible causes for climate change, you have to find something to blame

[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 7:49 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2007 7:47:20 PM

One study surely wouldn't tell us the verdict is in (especially the day BEFORE its released) but it certainly would add a +1 to the "humans are doing it" side of the equation.

More studies to replicate it would be helpful (although I have no idea how the hell anyone got conclusive evidence from the use of climate models-which are ridiculously complex and leave large gaps in their interpretations)

2/1/2007 7:49:38 PM

Quote :

"...a preliminary cnn blurb"

So if the "blurb" and the other previews I've read are correct, will you concede that science supports climate change caused by human activity?

2/1/2007 7:50:39 PM

i mean if u think about it, it makes sense

we put a lot of shit in the air...makes sense that we would be causing it to occur faster than normal

2/1/2007 7:52:24 PM

^^hold your horses until we can see the article

^it does make sense but just because something makes sense doesnt mean it has sufficient scientific backing

2/1/2007 7:53:57 PM

And since there is no 100% ironclad if-then causaility to make these people think humans aren't in part behind climate change then they also don't feel there is any reason to do something about what they are putting in the air. That, to me, is truely the sickening thing about it.

2/1/2007 8:34:28 PM

Quote :

"in part behind climate change "

who ever argued that humans werent "in part" behind climate change? you tryin to be sneaky with your wording or something?

that subtle semantic shit is probably why me saying "im not completely convinced humans are causing catastrophic global warming" sounds to some people like "i am convinced global warming is a total hoax!"

[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 8:42 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2007 8:39:32 PM

^ If that's your view, then the issue is not with people like you.

It's the people who object to environmentalism on the basis that global warming is not happening that is a problem. When certain organizations hire spokespeople to give more attention to a view than it deserves, this serves to mislead everyone.

Look at the physics community. When dark matter was first theorized to explain the mass of the universe, some physicists held on to the idea that dark matter was wrong, and maybe gravity was modified on the large scale. As time went on, and research progressed, this idea was marginalized as dark matter gained more evidence. There are still a few scientist who hold on to the idea of modified gravity, but they are a fringe. What would happen though if some powerful group started to spread the idea of modified gravity by misinterpreting or cherry-picking evidence? It would skew the public's perception of the reality of the science in a wrong direction, so that people are misguided.

It kind of mirrors the Young Earth Creationism issue. There are plenty people who believe in God and some form of creationism, it's the activist whack-jobs who try to remove evolution from the school that the other side hate.

[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 8:52 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2007 8:51:53 PM

Quote :

"What would happen though if some powerful group started to spread the idea of modified gravityglobal warming by misinterpreting or cherry-picking evidence?"

I mean, it's not like Al Gore has a lot of money or just made a big movie about it or anything...

2/1/2007 11:37:05 PM

apparently only people with financial stakes in oil companies have financial agendas regarding the environment...you can trust politicians as long as they're environmentalists

[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 11:39 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2007 11:38:38 PM

^^ That would be a valid point, if scientist in general didn't support the idea of anthropogenic global climate change, which is the point of the first post (assuming the reported report is valid).

If you have a majority of scientist saying A and a fringe saying B, but the B people get way more coverage than they deserve, something is wrong.

I've yet to see any reports saying that most scientist are against global warming by human causes.

2/1/2007 11:42:33 PM

I seem to recall that Pasteur was once a "fringe" scientist. what about galileo. or copernicus. or darwin. or...

2/1/2007 11:47:11 PM

The scientific community has changed drastically since then.

The detractors of pasteur and darwin didn't have the numerical evidence that scientist use today for global warming.

2/1/2007 11:53:46 PM

1% is a lot bigger than 0.001% but that doesnt mean 1% is a lot

aka, just because we know more nowadays doesnt mean we know it all

[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 11:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2007 11:55:25 PM

^ that's true, but what we do know is that conservation of the environment is a better way to live than wreckless consumption.

2/1/2007 11:59:18 PM

So we do nothing and perpetuate apathetic behavior because it is more comfortable to keep our heads in the sand an deny EVERYTHING.

2/2/2007 12:01:41 AM

Quote :

"The scientific community has changed drastically since then. "

no they haven't. and that's the fucking point. The point is that scientists have this big stick up their asses thinking that they are perfect and right about everything and when anyone challenges that belief, they rally around each other and protect their religion. And, the point is that even if every scientist says "yeah, this is true," IT COULD STILL BE FALSE!

2/2/2007 12:03:26 AM

kinda like how all the democrats supported the iraq war at first...even if they didnt believe in it, they didnt want to be the ostracized person with a differing opinion (most of them)...they just wanted to be part of the majority

or any case of people not speaking up for fear of ridicule by "not believing what everyone else does"

[Edited on February 2, 2007 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

2/2/2007 12:04:54 AM

Standing in the face of convention for the sake of doing so doesn't make you cool.

2/2/2007 12:10:29 AM

well duh but that doesnt mean it doesnt happen

2/2/2007 12:17:02 AM

Consider the sources of this report....

Climate scientists... who get their money from grants and such. If no one pays attention to them, their money and glory dries up.

The United Nations...notoriously anti-American organization.

2/2/2007 10:44:55 AM

Quote :

"The scientists wrote the report, based on years of peer-reviewed research; government officials edited it so that it would receive the required unanimous approval by world governments."

[/Thread]

2/2/2007 10:48:55 AM

BUT WHY WOULD ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE AGENDAS? ITS ONLY THE OIL COMPANIES!

2/2/2007 10:55:05 AM

so to review, random people with no scientific training are more able to determine what is scientific fact and what is not than guys with PhDs? sounds reasonable.

2/2/2007 12:24:26 PM

I like how issues like this turn conservatives into philosophical skeptics.

2/2/2007 12:28:04 PM

I'VE TAKEN A COUPLE CLASSES IN COLLEGE ABOUT THE CLIMATE. I KNOW ALL!!!!

2/2/2007 12:46:11 PM

global warming is one of those "common sense" things to me...like humans put a lot of shit in the air...only would make sense that we are speeding up how fast the world is getting hotter

2/2/2007 12:53:37 PM

Quote :

"kinda like how all the democrats supported the iraq war at first...even if they didnt believe in it, they didnt want to be the ostracized person with a differing opinion (most of them)...they just wanted to be part of the majority or any case of people not speaking up for fear of ridicule by "not believing what everyone else does" "

I swear to god if you say some shit like this again without properly qualifying it with 'most' and 'democrat representatives' I'm going to be even more pissed off

[Edited on February 2, 2007 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/2/2007 12:55:29 PM

Quote :

"kinda like how all the democrats supported the iraq war at first...even if they didnt believe in it, they didnt want to be the ostracized person with a differing opinion (most of them)...they just wanted to be part of the majority or any case of people not speaking up for fear of ridicule by "not believing what everyone else does""

This didn't happen like you say it did. If you recall back to the time of Powell's UN presentation, Bush and everyone around him was insisting that Saddam had WMDs, but he couldn't show the evidence because of security reasons. A lot of people were saying that assuming that Bush was telling the truth, then the war was the only option. As it has turned out, he was basically lying. If the archives of TWW went back that far, it would be easy to prove.

Quote :

""The scientific community has changed drastically since then. " no they haven't. and that's the fucking point. The point is that scientists have this big stick up their asses thinking that they are perfect and right about everything and when anyone challenges that belief, they rally around each other and protect their religion. And, the point is that even if every scientist says "yeah, this is true," IT COULD STILL BE FALSE!"

Haha, if you don't think the scientific establishment has changed since then, there's no hope for you. It takes a delusional mind to believe that, and only medication can help crazy people.

I'm also not saying that dissent shouldn't be allowed, because there would never be any progress without dissenting scientists. But as time goes on, there just seems to be more and more evidence in FAVOR of human-caused global warming. If the anti-global warming people could actually counter that evidence, they would gain acceptance, that's how it works these days.

2/2/2007 1:09:45 PM

So if science is all about maintaining skepticism even in the face of overwhelming evidence then how come CFCs produced by humans were attributed to the depletion of the Ozone Layer and everyone bought into it even though it cost industries millions to change their practices and also the fact that the Ozone Layer NATURALLY depletes itself anyways? Those anti-capitalists must have had an adgenda there too.

2/2/2007 1:23:47 PM

yeah i agree with the whole "ozone naturally depletes itself" thing, but like humans put a lot of shit in the air...it'd only make sense that we are making it deplete faster

2/2/2007 1:26:19 PM

so i'm guessing most of you have already looked through the report right?

Quote :

"random people with no scientific training are more able to determine what is scientific fact and what is not than guys with PhDs? sounds reasonable."

you clearly are one of those people with no scientific training

[Edited on February 2, 2007 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/2/2007 1:50:49 PM

and how does that diminish his point?

2/2/2007 1:58:43 PM

because he himself diminishes his point by making the point...he basically discredits himself

anybody saying scientists can determine "scientifc facts" does not have sufficient science training

2/2/2007 1:59:38 PM

you understand what he meant

you know the point he was trying to make

but you refuse to acknowledge it, and instead attempt nitpick at his wording. the true definition of a troll.

2/2/2007 2:03:18 PM

The crux of his statement was not the phrase "scientific fact," it was trying to point out that people with no training are more likely to misinterpret data, esp. when it comes to scientific data with numbers and stuff.

2/2/2007 2:04:24 PM

people with no training

like him?

^^how am i trolling by nitpicking his wording? im simply pointing out that the group of people he is criticizing includes himself


[Edited on February 2, 2007 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

2/2/2007 2:16:00 PM

Quote :

"Climate scientists... who get their money from grants and such. If no one pays attention to them, their money and glory dries up."

And no one would pay attention to them if they were stating something to the contrary? Seems like it would be in the best interest of anti-Kyoto groups to back scientists like this to make sure their message gets out. Don't act like only pro-GW scientists rely on such things.

2/2/2007 2:25:31 PM

Quote :

"no they haven't. and that's the fucking point. The point is that scientists have this big stick up their asses thinking that they are perfect and right about everything and when anyone challenges that belief, they rally around each other and protect their religion. And, the point is that even if every scientist says "yeah, this is true," IT COULD STILL BE FALSE!"

you must not associate with many scientists.

2/2/2007 2:25:35 PM

Quote :

"people with no training like him? ^^how am i trolling by nitpicking his wording? im simply pointing out that the group of people he is criticizing includes himself"

no, he hasn't tried to interpret the data in anyway, unlike everyone else in this thread. regardless of his not being a scientist his point is valid that qualified persons are better equipped at making interpretations of scientific data than the unqualified posters here.

and because you are saying that he is scientifically unqualified his argument above (which is in no way a scientific interpretation of data) should be discounted, that makes you a troll.

[Edited on February 2, 2007 at 3:22 PM. Reason : not]

2/2/2007 3:21:16 PM