PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

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

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

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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."

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

astroman wrote: According to Bingo's way of arguing that theory would be rubbish until a physical proof was shown.

According to you and Gary, your own oppinion is as good as any evidence ("humble" I might add).

NOTE: all the vews expressed in this post reflect my own and only my own personal perspective, even if I often state them as facts.

Bingo -can't refrain from trying to pick up a fight bro? I mean, at least you could be grateful to those in this thread who remain polite even if you treat them like complete dumbasses... You don't agree, fine, but can't you at least respect that we all are free thinkers? Anyway, that's your problem... The rest of the post is addressed to all who read this thread, not you specifically.

I think none of us really grasps the big picture in all these issues, we hardly understand who and what we are, let alone the complex mechanics of ecosystems and solar systems -and our emotional/mental/physical interaction with what surrounds us...

Physical pollution is but a byproduct of a deep emotional unrest which rages within almost every individual on this planet, generating self-destructive behaviours and blocking the natural personal impulse for Compassion and desire for the greater good. Every children (or the VAST majority) is closely connected to this pure sensitivity and concern for all living things, they do clearly feel when something is destructive or distorted. Unfortunately, as the grown-ups nail into their consciousness the concept of struggle, pain, fear, etc. and the child begins to accept to submit to this social brainwashing, this Compassion and True Awareness gets covered and soiled by the mud of human duality and emotional poison.

I think the all-important thing is for every individual to reconnect to the child within and recover this primordial concern for the greater good, this totally compassionate and non-antagonistic attitude towards life (yet very dynamic if need be), thus lifting the emotional pressure from the planet and working on the true cause for the Earth's sickness, which is not physical but emotional. The cause for war is purely emotional, being the uncontrolled savagery in the feeling and desire to kill others who disagree. Hatred is the worst poison there is, far worse that physical pollution. Moreover, the reason for this sick medieval philosophy within political and corporate circles who conspire to enslave mankind and prevent clean technology from reaching the masses, is nothing else than greed, which is fear, which is also an emotion.

So you see, we can debate all we please about how we should deal with the symptoms, without even touching the reasons underlying the effects of that of which we speak. Actually, these sometimes bitter debates just fuels this collective antagonistic emotional "cloud", and actually add to the problems which are discussed. Many around are clever enough not to respond to attacks, but can't we just get along without trying to tear each other to pieces?!?

If you don't realize how your emotional life affects the whole of this Planet and the mankind upon it, there are plenty of researches who clearly show the impact of human emotions on plants -for instance, -and many other unsuspected interactions as well. "Official science" means "widely published and generally accptted science", but you should know that the official channels won't let compromising data through, just like the newspapers, otherwise it would SHATTER TO PIECES MANY PUBLIC MISCONCEPTIONS, and people would begin to question the dogma... You don't believe it? Do your homework and dig an hour or two outside of the black box of "official channels"... I guarantee you'll be amazed at the actual scientific researches we never read about in the papers!

Anyway, should we wait for the approval of "official scientific channels" to stop biting each other and become more loving and compassionate???? Should we wait after ANYONE or ANYTHING to experience for ourselves directly and draw our own conclusions on how powerful emotions are -among other things, how peace, honesty, kindliness, create a sense of harmony and affects our surroundings positively, -and so on??? If we wait for corporations to dictate our beliefs that is the end of it, there is no hope for survival, the whole cycle repeats itself, and who wins?? There's no big winner on either side, one destroys and the other is destroyed, so what's next? Let's do it all over again!!! I think we've had enough of this self-inflicted torture...

Bingo- think it is fine not to believe everything we are presented and take time to think it over and examine the data, but to systematically refuse anything and everything that so-called scientific authorities do not endorse is CRIMINAL INSANE NONSENSE AND IS POSSIBLY THE SHORTEST ROAD TO COLLECTIVE PERDITION!!! I mean wake up, how many atrocities were commited under the guise of prooven science??? If you can't admit at least that part go have your head checked man. I'm blunt but it doesn't mean I'm not compassionale!

E

eliam wrote:NOTE: all the vews expressed in this post reflect my own and only my own personal perspective, even if I often state them as facts.

Thanks for mentioning this, that's exactly what I expected from gary and astro.

eliam wrote: Bingo -can't refrain from trying to pick up a fight bro? I mean, at least you could be grateful to those in this thread who remain polite even if you treat them like complete dumbasses... You don't agree, fine, but can't you at least respect that we all are free thinkers? Anyway, that's your problem... The rest of the post is addressed to all who read this thread, not you specifically.

I wish you posted an example. I triy to criticize ideas not persons.

eliam wrote: I think none of us really grasps the big picture in all these issues, we hardly understand who and what we are, let alone the complex mechanics of ecosystems and solar systems -and our emotional/mental/physical interaction with what surrounds us...

I understand your bewilderment; however I must say that we know a lot about ecosystems. As far as emotional link between nature and our mind and solar system, I don't know much about that. I can say that the natural day/night pattern has something to do with our sleep pattern.

eliam wrote: Anyway, should we wait for the approval of "official scientific channels" to stop biting each other and become more loving and compassionate???? Should we wait after ANYONE or ANYTHING to experience for ourselves directly and draw our own conclusions on how powerful emotions are -among other things, how peace, honesty, kindliness, create a sense of harmony and affects our surroundings positively, -and so on??? If we wait for corporations to dictate our beliefs that is the end of it, there is no hope for survival, the whole cycle repeats itself, and who wins?? There's no big winner on either side, one destroys and the other is destroyed, so what's next? Let's do it all over again!!! I think we've had enough of this self-inflicted torture...

Bingo- think it is fine not to believe everything we are presented and take time to think it over and examine the data, but to systematically refuse anything and everything that so-called scientific authorities do not endorse is CRIMINAL INSANE NONSENSE AND IS POSSIBLY THE SHORTEST ROAD TO COLLECTIVE PERDITION!!! I mean wake up, how many atrocities were commited under the guise of prooven science??? If you can't admit at least that part go have your head checked man. I'm blunt but it doesn't mean I'm not compassionale!

E

No examples again which means you have not thought this through. The so called scientific authorities spent months of their lives away from their families, working in harsh conditions at either poles of the Earth to obtain weather data that their conclusions are based on. The only INSANE proposition is accepting flawed conclusions raised by few scientists with questionable motives.
How many atrocities were committed under the guise of science? I don’t know, why don’t you tell me?

who funds those extrodinary expeditions? often those expiditions are the ones with questionable motives, but all the sources i point to use the data from the sources that you like.

also, when it's opinion, i have no problem with stating so. just because you or any other don't know that it's a fact, doesn't just make it my opinion. regardless, i can assure you, i am just as qualified, no more qualified than you to come to conclusions about the available data. no i won't prove that last statement either, i'll just let you think i'm full of it.

BingoTheClowno wrote:

eliam wrote:NOTE: all the vews expressed in this post reflect my own and only my own personal perspective, even if I often state them as facts.

Thanks for mentioning this, that's exactly what I expected from gary and astro.

well, that's a pretty obvious pre-condition for any discussion, isn't it ?
I see few needs to explicitely mention it with every statement
Furthermore I can't remember to have written in a style postulating the one and only truth.
My weighing of available data may differ from yours which I've already mentioned and which is perfectly ok.

What I do criticize indeed is your argument of a 'majority' as a default proof for thruth. It can at best be considered a higher evidence, but is still prone to error.

I'll construct a small example:
One can (at least to a degree) estimate CO2 emission of human activity by fuel sales, energy production, etc as these are rather continuous processes.
But to predict the (effective) CO2 output of vulcanoes is close to impossible due to the sudden and massive nature of the process.
If you argue ...the majority of scientists considers volcanoes irrelevant in this context... then I'd ask ... how do they know ?
you cannot globally monitor the processes in real-time, you can only have a model based on relatively few samples.

You trust those scientists, while I suspect them to be cheaters in their own advantage.
My verdict is derived from own experiences - you may have had different ones.
No need to quote an internet source on that

btw it was exactly the already mentioned Al G TV transmission that made me really sure that climate change is not CO2-human-activity based.
It was clearly written on his face that all and everything he performed was a fake, and it was a miserable one, too
believe it or not, but I didn't pay much attention to him until then, so this was in no way a prejudice.

cheers, Tom

astroman wrote: But to predict the (effective) CO2 output of vulcanoes is close to impossible due to the sudden and massive nature of the process.
If you argue ...the majority of scientists considers volcanoes irrelevant in this context... then I'd ask ... how do they know ?

How do you know that? Have you personaly tried to measure it?
The CO2 levels in the past are obtained from polar ice cores. As you know, the snow layers at the poles traps the CO2 in the ice. By reading these layers, scientists (bribed or honest) can draw a graph with those levels over large periods of time including years with significant volcanic activty (including the year Vesuvius buried the roman city of Pompei.
Now check this out, the CO2 levels are highest in 600,000 years, during which many volcanic eruptions occured.

I must add that the "volcanic activity" argument is common amongst the "global deniers" which contradicts your creedo of not accepting the majority consensus.

Astroman wrote: btw it was exactly the already mentioned Al G TV transmission that made me really sure that climate change is not CO2-human-activity based.

That's is wrong.

no, you are misled.

garyb wrote: CO2 IS LIFE ON EARTH!
THE MORE CO2, THE MORE LIFE!
CO2 LEVELS ARE AT THE EARTH'S HISTORIC LOW!
HUMAN CO2 ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN 1% OF ALL GREENHOUSE GASSES!
IN THE PAST CO2 LEVELS HAVE BEEN 14-15X THE PRESENT LEVELS WITH THE SAME AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE!
etc, etc, etc.



blaming CO2 levels for climate change is moronic, as i said, STUPID.

The CO2 levels are highest in 600,000 years.
Did you personally come up with these ideeas?

nope and so what? it's still very low concentrations. plant more trees. don't dump millions of gallons of out of date toxic nerve gas into the ocean so that the phyto plankton can live. grow vast fields of hemp! CO2 is not a problem. dumb people who will submit to a "carbon tax" in their panic is. don't you understand that CO2 makes plants grow which makes oxygen available to breathe? actually, if you read those studies you point to but have never fully investigated, you'll find that O2 is in rather low concentrations in the present day. the two gases are part of a cycle.


it's all a whole lot of reactionism with very little actual reasoning and thought...not surprising when between the mercury in the vaccines(in the preservative thermiosol), and the flouride in the water*, both substances that make small holes in the cortex, government figures suggest a loss of about 20 points of IQ on average in each human being. oh well, the genius is above average, above average is average. average is below average and below average is just impaired. most who live in industrialized areas are incapable of rational though or understanding anymore. have fun!






*calcium flouride is a nutrient and is good for bone and teeth in very small quantities. what they put in the water is stannous and sodium flouride, byproducts of aluminum and other manufacture that is so toxic, it can't be put down the drain. sodium flouride was used in the water in the Nazi death camps to keep the prisoners docile.

BuzzBang wrote:The overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific evidence points to man made CO2 influencing temperatures.
BuzzBang

this is oft repeated but not true. the majority of studies show just the opposite. it's only the news and the UN which makes these claims.

somewhere in the off topic section here, i posted an article which was a survey of peer review studies, all on the up and up and well notated which showed quite conclusively that the majority of studies DO NOT support man made global warming through CO2. *edit* here's the article.

i've formed my opinions from what i have been able to study on the subject. no doubt i'm not the last word. no doubt there's considerable lying to the public happening. also, the same money funds studies for and against "global warming". follow the money and it always turns funny...

anyway, i only care about the quality of the info. some more pages from that website, which again, point to studies that are peer reviewed and are mostly uinquestioned by the scientific community, as far as accuracy goes(just because i know everybody just ignores the actual data and has already made up their minds so they don't look at all the information available).
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html

as you can see, the man is a geologist, first.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/TableOfCont.html

it's well known that the MAIN cause of global warming is and has always been orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun's output.

garyb wrote: it's well known that the MAIN cause of global warming is and has always been orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun's output.

That's very funny. That's the first time I hear that.
They are not questioned because they are ridiculous.
And you are using the same old person who claimed that second hand smoke is good for you, who was on the tobacco industry payroll and now is on oil industry payroll. Do you have any other scientists, who are not on Exxon's payroll, and, you know, some one with professional INTEGRITY?

PBS Frontline wrote:
Dr. Fred Singer publicly denies receiving funding from energy industry sources, but he has acknowledged previously being a paid consultant for several oil companies. In addition, his organization -- the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) -- has received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, according to a review of Exxon's own financial documents and Greenpeace's Exxonsecrets.org. That site also shows that many of the other organizations with which Singer works -- Frontiers of Freedom, the Cato Institute, National Center for Policy Analysis -- have received large grants from Exxon as well.