Environmental disaster in Buenos Aires

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:23 pm

Sorry that is not an internationally recognized scientific study.
You got others or that's it?

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:24 pm

garyb wrote: do you want me to chew your food for you as well? do you not know how to research?

You?

You can't, but you can do my dishes.

Post by **garyb** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:37 pm

BingoTheClowno wrote:Sorry that is not an internationally recognized scientific study.
You got others or that's it?

what is not an internationally recognized study? the website or the studies cited by the author? you did notice that the author IS a recognized scientist?

here's a quote from some "experts":
NASA Science News "It may surprise many people that science cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change"

no, i won't qualify the quote. don't take my word, look it up.

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:48 pm

garyb wrote:
BingoTheClowno wrote:Sorry that is not an internationally recognized scientific study.
You got others or that's it?
what is not an internationally recognized study? the website or the studies cited by the author? you did notice that the author IS a recognized scientist?

The study is from 1996. He is a recognized scientist in Nevada

We are in the year 2008. The CO2 levels have almost doubled since then.

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:51 pm

garyb wrote: here's a quote from some "experts":
NASA Science News "It may surprise many people that science cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change"

Can't find it so it is not true.

Post by **garyb** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:56 pm

BingoTheClowno wrote:
garyb wrote:
BingoTheClowno wrote:Sorry that is not an internationally recognized scientific study.
You got others or that's it?
what is not an internationally recognized study? the website or the studies cited by the author? you did notice that the author IS a recognized scientist?

The study is from 1996. He is a recognized scientist in Nevada
We are in the year 2008. The CO2 levels have almost doubled since then.

so?

scientists in Nevada are somehow less real than ones from elsewhere? oh, i guess they are when they present data that you don't like.... how UNscientific....

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:04 pm

It is stupid. Remember water vapor discussion we had, we've covered this subject before?

Post by **garyb** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:05 pm

yes, you still refuse to recognize science.

what are your qualifications again?

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:08 pm

garyb wrote:yes, you still refuse to recognize science.

what are your qualifications again?

I am a sales manager. You?

That is not science.

Post by **garyb** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:01 pm

BingoTheClowno wrote: I am a sales manager. You?

say no more....

FrancisHarmany · Post by **FrancisHarmany** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:32 am

*sighs*

I bet you all believe in gravity as well. An apple falling proofs so much. its funny because the stars are actually pushing us. You never knew did you ?

BuzzBang · Post by **BuzzBang** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:40 am

hmmm, wrt the geocraft articles:

http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/ ... ime-2.html

"until it is verified by peers, it is opinion masquerading as science, targeted to a gullible public"

"If Hieb is not interested in advancing scientific understanding via the time-honoured peer-review method, it's most likely that his agenda is to create the impression that there is scientific doubt about global warming. A conspiracy? Who benefits - well, his employer - the coal industry."

Why is that quite a few of the articles that you post Gary are linked to organizations or scientists that would appear to gain by discrediting the concept of global warming?

My main frustration is that you are obviously an intelligent man, but somehow seem to miss the point on this one. To your credit you appear to refrain from taking your critics responses too personally and resorting to a slanging match. The overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific evidence points to man made CO2 influencing temperatures. Whether it will be on the catastrophic scale predicted or not, is a tough call. Unfortunately I suspect it will be fairly unpleasant for a large percentage of people on this planet; and this is why it has become such a passionate subject. You also appear to be so certain. On some things it's okay to have strong convictions, on others it better to have a view but remain open minded....

A wise man will concede that there is a chance that he might be wrong.

I know I frequently am! Well that's what the missus keeps telling me

cheers

BuzzBang

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:14 am

Imho neither of us, Bingo, Gary, you and me lacks the kind of education (or call it skills) required to deal with so called scientific facts to make up his own conclusions about the subject. One may weigh this and another that source more important, correct or whatever.
I seriously doubt that the statistic majority of the population is even remotely capable of doing so.
Call it arrogance - I'll call it the result of years of observation...

admittedly the word-for-word's-sake 'fights' that Bingo recently promotes are partially amusing to read, as Gary is smart enough to not go ballistic...
but in the end it's not very enlightening regarding content

it is of course plain bullsh*t, to clain a 'scientific' truth by majority
that is as 'unscientific' as can be - I remind on discworld once again

anything that influences public opinion on a large scale (or can be made to) will have it's lobbyists and anti-lobbyists.
Scientists have a rent to pay, a family to supply, may be greedy, just want to get to fame etc etc - in other words, they are regular folks, not saints

cheers, Tom

BuzzBang · Post by **BuzzBang** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:55 am

you make some good points Tom

Many years ago when I was a poor student and was hitching I was picked up by an Oxford lecturer who pointed out that the majority is not always right. Something I've never forgotten.

Within the realms of science I was asked to define 'objectivity' for my PhD viva; just what you need, a loaded high pressure question when you are stressed to the extreme. I was pleased that my answer 'consensual subjectivity' was accepted fairly well

They could have tried to rip me apart on that one....

Cheers

BuzzBang

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:10 am

astroman wrote:Imho neither of us, Bingo, Gary, you and me lacks the kind of education (or call it skills) required to deal with so called scientific facts to make up his own conclusions about the subject.

So in your "humble opinion" thousands of scientists in the world lack the expertise to interpret the data on global warming? What about the government adopting CO2 cutting strategies? What about BMW developing hydrogen fueled cars? Why do you think are they doing that? Come on, I don't claim my own interpretation of the warming trend data, as Gary often does, I just repeat what the scientific consensus on this subject is.

astroman wrote: admittedly the word-for-word's-sake 'fights' that Bingo recently promotes are partially amusing to read, as Gary is smart enough to not go ballistic...
but in the end it's not very enlightening regarding content

Really? Can you give examples?

astroman wrote: it is of course plain bullsh*t, to clain a 'scientific' truth by majority
that is as 'unscientific' as can be - I remind on discworld once again

Again, the scientific majority decided that E=mc^2. Does that mean it is not true?

astroman wrote:
Scientists have a rent to pay, a family to supply, may be greedy, just want to get to fame etc etc - in other words, they are regular folks, not saints

What exactly are you implying? Are you saying that scientists that see a global warming trend are greedy or bribed?

That's preposterous and, sorry, but very stupid.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:06 am

Even is global warming was not man made, wouldn't it be nice to breath clean air and not be dependent on oil and preserve biodiversity?

Nobody ever said that science is always right but eventually they do tend to figure things out correctly.

You don't have to believe anything if you don't want to.

I have heard people say that walking on the moon was a hoax. My own grandfather thought it was faked in a studio. To me that is a form of insanity.

People used to think the earth was flat. I haven't been to space but I trust these photos of the earth are real.

If I get sick I am going to a doctor not to a shaman that is for damn sure. Thankfully, most people would take their kids to the doctor when sick. If they really thought god was real and omnipotent you would think praying would be enough. God is rubbish.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:33 am

BingoTheClowno wrote:
astroman wrote:Imho neither of us, Bingo, Gary, you and me lacks the kind of education (or call it skills) required to deal with so called scientific facts to make up his own conclusions about the subject.
So in your "humble opinion" thousands of scientists in the world lack the expertise to interpret the data on global warming?

you may have noticed the paragraph and that it's content was about 'educated' individuals versus a 'statistic majority'.
even thousands of scientists don't make up for a majority in any population, hence no conclusion about them in that context.

I've made a clear statement about scientists as a group further down.
You probably have a similiar proverb in the US like our ...I'll sing the song of the one who supplies me bread...
If you really believe they only do research and publishing for the sake of the purest truth, then you are naive at best in my most humble opinion

What about BMW developing hydrogen fueled cars? Why do you think are they doing that?

Moneymaking is a jolley good Thing
If they really would care for the environment German car manufacturers wouldn't fight like hell to get a foot into the Chinese market. Afaik they don't plan to supply solar driven mobiles only...

btw the so-called negative ecologic influence of private motorized traffic could be reduced by 80% - or 400% depending from what side you look at the figure - almost instantaneously
drive reasonable, in a reasonably sized vehicle that complies with mobility demands and not status phantasies.
Buy domestic, accept a small delivery delay and stop those 'on demand productions' that move storage to the road.

that is a plain stupid matter of fact and you don't need a Harvard diploma to understand that it will have a tremendous impact on environment quality, but for sure call up not only a dozen different lobbies but also those poor citizens that feel restricted in their personal freedom and almost loose the sense of their life, worshipping the 4 wheel golden calf.

if someone wants to act in someway to improve the environment, then he or she can do already by free decision.

No need for an Al G and company (btw his world-wide-TVed 'manifest' was the most stupid approach to demagogy I ever happened to witness)
70 years ago we had a minister who really knew that job - ah, Olympics ante portas btw...

This is all a big bla bla for convenience sake, as for obvious reasons any personal action will cause one or the other personal restriction - at least that's what it will be perceived in the first moment.
Carbon Dioxide is nothing but a scapegoat and the excuse for selfishness - for sure it's already abused to for advertizing purpose. LMAO

as mentioned I know enough about geophysics and astronomy to check my own sources - I will be convinced by evidence and quality of the material, not by a supposed majority.
In fact the latter is a mostly negative term imho, as I'm a strong believer in the elite principle.

with e=m*c^2 you gave an excellent example
it was developed by one individual with only the power of his mind and probably (I lack some historic background) was discussed highly controversary at the time of first publishing.
Regular folks and for sure a lot of scientists among them, could only be convinced by verifying individual parts of the theory in experiments.

Now wtf would people people tell about 'relativity' if the technology of say cesium clocks would have never existed ?
Does that render Einsteins theory ton nonsense just because the average mind cannot follow ?

cheers, Tom
(admittedly highly average minded versus Mr. Einstein)

Post by **garyb** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:35 am

yep, i've never said 'just pollute all you want, make trash and use lots of oil".

i have said the solutions given to us won't help, that there was no shortage of oil and that the leaders are corrupt. all of these things are obvious and not arguable. it doesn't take an exceptional person to see this, only an honest one who has paid attention.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:18 pm

Astro,

Einstein was a humble man. When Edwin Hubble proved that the universe is expanding the finding prompted Albert Einstein to acknowledge and retract what he called "the greatest blunder of my life."

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:28 pm

humble or not - he was a sophisticated thinker who developed an equally sophisticated model/theory that originally only existed in his mind and then in his papers.
According to Bingo's way of arguing that theory would be rubbish until a physical proof was shown. Over time evolving technology allowed such proofs, but what if that kind of technology had never existed ?
Would people call him a wierdo today and deny the model ?

I know I'm deliberately simplifying but that's exactly the point - you'd weigh a 1000 average minds with no idea about what's going on over one genious with a clear view.
That's why quantity as a scale of truth can never work - it may only indicate a higher probability in some cases.
To be precise it's relevance will increase with decreasing demand of the problem in question.

cheers, Tom