Provoke a different way of thinking sure. As you cannot prove a negative, only poke holes in it at best. Asking someone to disprove something that they themselves cannot prove makes no sense.
Are you even aware of why you can't prove AGW, but at best, can only give evidence that it's happening?
This is moronic. If anthropogenic global warming theory is so readily disprovable, then post something that disproves it.
No idiotic cartoons. No strawmen. Post actual *** science.
If you're still waiting on conclusive evidence, it is not because there is a lack of any. It is because you're intentionally ignoring it.
You have to prove god doesn't exist in order to do that.
This is starting to look like one of the oldie but goodie "burden of proof" arguments. LOL!
Give me a multimillion dollar research grant and I'll prove whatever you want.
If people really think like this I wonder why we do any research at all ever... because it appears that people given grant money just come back and say whatever the hell they want to just to get the moneys...
Or is this just the case with global warming/climate change?
Yeah, because that's why scientist become scientist to begin with.
To get rich.
Some do do it for the money lol... If you've disallusioned yourself to the point that you think all scientists got into it for the pure science and nothing else... well yea... I got some beach front property for you in South Dakota...
Give me a multimillion dollar research grant and I'll prove whatever you want.
Isn't that what certain industries do with regard to presenting scientists that deny whatever event is occurring along with arguing against the impact of consequential preventative measures that would hinder profits?
Give me a multimillion dollar research grant and I'll prove whatever you want.
If people really think like this I wonder why we do any research at all ever... because it appears that people given grant money just come back and say whatever the hell they want to just to get the moneys...
Or is this just the case with global warming/climate change?
It depends who funds the study. What their network of peers is like, etc.
People attack any study the Koch brothers fund, yet Al Gore can fund anything he wants and have it be truth.
You can fund and research all you want, but unless you have something to show for all the research it's just another money/time sink.
At best global warming research has just given politicians something to argue about, rather than come to any agreement on how to fix anything remotely important to the way society or the economy is ran.
Give me a multimillion dollar research grant and I'll prove whatever you want.
Isn't that what certain industries do with regard to presenting scientists that deny whatever event is occurring along with arguing against the impact of consequential preventative measures that would hinder profits?
People attack any study the Koch brothers fund, yet Al Gore can fund anything he wants and have it be truth.
Going by some posts in this thread and the opinions of people living in middle America in the heart of coal production that statement that anything Al Gore says is held as truth, ain't exactly true.
I'm sure some do, but our friend here is asserting that the whole scientific community pushing for a false agenda in order to get rich, not just some.
Some don't even know they're being led astray. Their hearts and/or minds might be in the right place, but their basic assumption dates back to ideas that originated over a 100 years ago. Well before the drastic increase of CO2. So what were their intention back then? We may never know.
You have to prove god doesn't exist in order to do that.
I don't want to jump to the conclusion that you might be stupid, so I'll ask you if you are just trying to provoke..
Provoke a different way of thinking sure. As you cannot prove a negative, only poke holes in it at best. Asking someone to disprove something that they themselves cannot prove makes no sense.
But that's the foundation of the scientific model, all of the collective work is "current understanding until proven otherwise" that's how it works.
I'll still take the collective scientific community' word on something, even if they may be wrong, than a group of quack scientists who are in the pockets of big oil.
Some don't even know they're being led astray. Their hearts and/or minds might be in the right place, but their basic assumption dates back to ideas that originated over a 100 years ago. Well before the drastic increase of CO2. So what were their intention back then? We may never know.
Who, exactly, are you referring to?
Can you answer my previous question? Do you know why we can't prove AGW but only give evidence for it?
You have to prove god doesn't exist in order to do that.
I don't want to jump to the conclusion that you might be stupid, so I'll ask you if you are just trying to provoke..
Provoke a different way of thinking sure. As you cannot prove a negative, only poke holes in it at best. Asking someone to disprove something that they themselves cannot prove makes no sense.
But that's the foundation of the scientific model, all of the collective work is "current understanding until proven otherwise" that's how it works.
I'll still take the collective scientific community' word on something, even if they may be wrong, than a group of quack scientists who are in the pockets of big oil.
I'm sure some do, but our friend here is asserting that the whole scientific community pushing for a false agenda in order to get rich, not just some.
Some don't even know they're being led astray. Their hearts and/or minds might be in the right place, but their basic assumption dates back to ideas that originated over a 100 years ago. Well before the drastic increase of CO2. So what were their intention back then? We may never know.
You can't even articulate why you think the science is wrong here. All you can do is insist that it is. Sorry, that's worthless.
Some don't even know they're being led astray. Their hearts and/or minds might be in the right place, but their basic assumption dates back to ideas that originated over a 100 years ago. Well before the drastic increase of CO2. So what were their intention back then? We may never know.
Who, exactly, are you referring to?
Can you answer my previous question? Do you know why we can't prove AGW but only give evidence for it?
Scientists in general.
I have no idea what all these acronyms are. I haven't researched any of them.
You have to prove god doesn't exist in order to do that.
I don't want to jump to the conclusion that you might be stupid, so I'll ask you if you are just trying to provoke..
Provoke a different way of thinking sure. As you cannot prove a negative, only poke holes in it at best. Asking someone to disprove something that they themselves cannot prove makes no sense.
But that's the foundation of the scientific model, all of the collective work is "current understanding until proven otherwise" that's how it works.
I'll still take the collective scientific community' word on something, even if they may be wrong, than a group of quack scientists who are in the pockets of big oil.
Then prove god doesn't exist then.
You read but aren't listening.
The two aren't even comparable, the one has evidence backing up it's claims, the other uses circular logic.
You claim to try to provoke thought, but about the best you're accomplishing is annoying trolling. There's better ways to go about it.
I'm sure some do, but our friend here is asserting that the whole scientific community pushing for a false agenda in order to get rich, not just some.
Some don't even know they're being led astray. Their hearts and/or minds might be in the right place, but their basic assumption dates back to ideas that originated over a 100 years ago. Well before the drastic increase of CO2. So what were their intention back then? We may never know.
You can't even articulate why you think the science is wrong here. All you can do is insist that it is. Sorry, that's worthless.
I never said science is wrong. Science has neither an absolute wrong or right. It's always changing to explain that which was unexplainable.
I never said science is wrong. Science has neither an absolute wrong or right. It's always changing to explain that which was unexplainable.
I'm pretty sure that objects fall to the Earth at an acceleration of 9.8m/s while in a vacuum. I think you should stop talking about science if you don't know anything about it.
Give me a multimillion dollar research grant and I'll prove whatever you want.
If people really think like this I wonder why we do any research at all ever... because it appears that people given grant money just come back and say whatever the hell they want to just to get the moneys...
Or is this just the case with global warming/climate change?
It depends who funds the study. What their network of peers is like, etc.
People attack any study the Koch brothers fund, yet Al Gore can fund anything he wants and have it be truth.
You can fund and research all you want, but unless you have something to show for all the research it's just another money/time sink.
At best global warming research has just given politicians something to argue about, rather than come to any agreement on how to fix anything remotely important to the way society or the economy is ran.
there seem to be plenty of ideas to help fix this situation. Most just revolve around passing bills that will never go through as industry and many other people don't want to do it lol.
If you're talking about developing a cure all device well we could be waiting forever for that. We still ahven't solved the riddles that plague the human body no matter how many billions have been thrown at it.
Fix the situation! But don't study it thouroughly... don't make anything more expensive and don't do anything that could possibly change anything in my own life!
A very extensive report, known as the National Climate Assessment, was released earlier this week. Nothing in the report is particularly surprising, but its presentation for the general public, here, is incredibly impressive. (Not all government website releases are a disaster!)
If hardcore technical reports aren't your thing, the highlights portion of the site breaks each section down as plainly as possible, is extensively cited, and makes no secret the level of uncertainty inherent in current findings. The site is really quite fantastic, and I would encourage anyone with genuine interest, skepticism, and/or curiosity in U.S. climate change to fuck around in it for a while. (Of course, if well-substantiated, easily digestible scientific communications aren't your thing, there's always this.)
Perhaps, the most poignant message arising from the report is summarized in this quote from the article:
Quote:
The report pointed out that while the country as a whole still had no comprehensive climate legislation, many states and cities had begun to take steps to limit emissions and to adapt to climatic changes that can no longer be avoided. But the report found that these efforts were inadequate.
I don't really consider myself a policy person so... what do?
Edit: Also of note is the high diversity of those involved. Largely scientists, of course, but representative of a wide swath of interests, including some oil companies.