... it's time to file for grants to research something else ...





... it's time to file for grants to research something else ...





well, it's a free country (for the moment at least). SW visitors are free to ignore me in the same way that they are free to ignore contradictory evidence to the 'global warming' theory. As to 'saying the same thing over and over again', please note that my posted evidence is always new, as opposed to the consensus arguments which keep saying the same things over and over again.
and many, many do ignore you. and now I will too.
have fun posting the same shit (and it is 100% shit, btw) over and over. rinse and repeat.
Well, I'm confused. A few years ago, global warming was being hotly denied here. A few months ago, no one was denying it. Now are we back to it being a deniable theory?
Back in the 1930s and 1940s, doctors and surgeons knew how bad smoking for us was without the benefit of "studies." Got a patient with emphysema? Smoker. Got a patient with lung cancer? Smoker. You crack open a chest during surgery and see the dark, decaying lung tissue. Oh. Smoker. The tobacco companies would come up with all kinds of "scientific" crap to say what was clearly not the case in order to extend their influence as long as they could.
So it goes with global warming. Ice shelves drop off Antarctica. The polar icecap thins and retreats. Glaciers disappear. Deserts expand. Communities that once stayed cool in summer now universally have air conditioning. These are obvious things. Oh, but wait. There are studies that throw tea leaves into the jetstream, or take isolated data points out of context, or put up paper walls in the face of hard facts. Black is white, white is black, tobacco is good for you, and there is no global warming.
Not even talking about how it's caused or whether it can be contained. The more we dick around with arguing about something that is clearly the case only slows down our ability to deal with the consequences. But that's how we work it. Interest groups swing bigger hammers than tangible facts.




We had an ice age at one point? And before that a hot period? There is obvious evidence for routine changes in the planetary climate. Dinosaurs also once roamed the earth, nature does some crazy shit. Now I'm NOT saying that global-warming is or isn't happening, I'm just saying I think there is evidence on VOTH sides.
For me, the jury's not out.








^^^ lol, now you dit it. Although I personally agree with you
hardly becuase unlike Melonie I don'thappen to think I know more about everything than the all world's experts combined. Not to mention I haven't even seen that movie and I mostly watch msnbc and bbc. I just happen to follow science news pretty close that's all. Also it's not hundreds either and even if it was, 10 plus times as many scientists do agree with me that global warming is a major enviromental threat and mostly caused by Co2 and NOT the sun.
LOL, STFU TigerLily.....I'm pretty sure the person who 'posts the same thing over and over again' is NOT Melonie. Why won't you just lay off Melonie? You make it obvious who you are each time your reincarnate yourself.
Oh, wait, she can't hear me because I must have made her cry and rush for the ignore button. Carry on.
^ha that was funny, sorry but that was a little uncalled for...the whole melanie bashingness at the very beginning was really childish..."ohhh i dont like you and no one else does either nah nah nah nah nah nah" speak for yourself, and stop being childish.
^Were you talking about me? If not...
Be careful....she'll put you on ignore too
I'm sorry your thread got derailed Melonie. Carry on, please.
Well, of course. And I'm sure that if there were wooly mammoths who had the intelligence and sophistication to be invested in tundra futures, they could have produced studies saying that the Ice Age was not happening.
I'm saying that ignoring the signs doesn't change reality.
Really. Stand at a glacier terminus, anywhere in the world, and compare it to where the terminus was 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago. What's the evidence that it's not retreating? Camp out on the Larsen ice shelf, or at least the remaining part. What's the evidence that it hasn't actually broken apart?I'm just saying I think there is evidence on VOTH sides.
I'm not blaming humans. I don't give a crap about Al Gore's movie. I'm suggesting that we look at the world the way it actually exists. But we're not a species that base our decisions on basic facts. We base our decisions on what we want to believe and the artifices that we can build to support that.




And I'm saying how do you know they're signs at all? How do you know this isn't just a reverse ice age? I don't. I beleive some scientists have put forth a few theories on causes other than global warming. Again I don't know, I'm not a scientist, but I'm not going to ignore the points of one side just because the other is more popular.
How would I know that melting ice and advancing deserts means a warming trend?
Um, OK. Nice talking with you.![]()










^^^ nobody is arguing that there isn't a warming trend ... or more precisely that there hasn't been a recent warming trend (which the latest data shows as having ended in 2000 or so on a global basis - ).
What IS being argued is what role human based CO2 emissions have contributed to that warming trend - and by inference how effective or ineffective even a properly effective Kyotolike global effort to reduce CO2 emissions might or might not be despite the very high cost of compliance for residents of 'developed' countries.
I'm still perplexed by the apparent fact that Mars and other planets are also undergoing a similar warming trend ... in the total absence of human based CO2 emissions.
the human based CO2 emissions advocates have not addressed this data at all, other than to attempt a call of bullS#!t with no contradictory data and/or to attempt personal attacks to discredit the 'messenger' !!!
PS forgive the reposting of links that I have referred to in older SW posts ... they were reposted to save SW readers from having to search their a$$es off, or to take my statements as being unsupported.
going back to my original post, the tongue in cheek point was that some scientists will aggressively seek grant money to conduct research, with at least some possibility that the results of targeted grant research tends to support the hoped-for conclusion the grant payers are expecting to hear ! Arguably this was true of tobacco research in the 1960's, and is equally true of global warming / cooling research in recent years.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 02-09-2008 at 01:15 PM.





^^^by the same logic, can you absolutely state that man made CO2 emissions have not contributed to global warming? or that a Kyoto like accord won't have an effect in stemming the slide? Is it really worth the potential cost to stick our heads in the sand and hope that nature simply reverses course?









no I can't. But contributing at a 10-20-30% level and contributing at a 0.01-0.02-0.03% level are two very different situations ... and spending trillions of dollars to achieve 0.01-0.02-0.03% reductions while leaving no money to pursue other more fruitful avenues seems to be poor judgement at best and foolhardiness at worst.can you absolutely state that man made CO2 emissions have not contributed to global warming?
yes I can ... the new studies are all showing that new CO2 emissions from 'developing' countries like China that are exempt from Kyoto emissions limits are far exceeding the declines in CO2 emissions (actually declines in growth rate only) occurring in 'developed' countries that are bound by CO2 emissions limits, creating a net increase in global CO2 as the direct result of the Kyoto treaty. This was discussed in detail in another thread.or that a Kyoto like accord won't have an effect in stemming the slide?





What more fruitful and fiscally responsible avenues have been proposed again?
Well, technically I said a Kyoto like accord, not the Kyoto accord, which for the record I'm not real crazy about either. Something that places all countries, developing or otherwise, on the same playing field is certainly something that could be accomplished with a little ingenuity.
Bookmarks