Firearms & co... hate or love them?
- Thread starter Tony Manero
- Start date
philologus
Subgenius
vincegamer
Active member
Most scientists in environmental sciences will happily acknowledge that H2O is the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
Wait. If water vapor is a greenhouse gas, how can clouds cool the earth when they are water vapor?
I need sites.
Wait. If water vapor is a greenhouse gas, how can clouds cool the earth when they are water vapor?
I need sites. [/quote]
Clouds act as insulation. They block a lot of the harmful rays from the sun, absorbing or reflecting them back into space. However, much like any other insulation, they also trap the heat radiated from the planet itself.
In the last 300 hundred years or so we have built cities out of concrete, a substance that absorbs and keeps heat far better and longer than earth does.
Co2 may not be the problem, the fact that we are absorbing more heat may be.
The point I\'m trying to make, is that the ecology of the planet is a complex thing, we understand bits and pieces, without seeing exactly how they interact, blaming one thing is foolish. Acting without understanding, is just as foolish.
Even if the \"greenhouse Gas\" theory is correct, anything we do, unless actively changing the planet, is merely prolonging the inevitable, as the planet is producing far more \"Greenhouse Gases\" naturally than man is.
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
Okay I\'ll join in then:
@Evil Dave: Your wrong about that scientists haven\'t thought about Water vapour, it\'s an old argument and it is accounted for in all reports I\'ve read on the subject. The amount of water vapour will of course increase as the earth heats up and will propell the increase even more as in a \"feedback loop\". Same with the \"400 gigatons of methane\" locked in the frozen arctic tundra. The concrete/asphalt heating is also rejected as not an important factor by the IPCC report for example. But my guess is that as each of the oilcompanieshiredscientists arguments are rejected new will come...! They are only smoke-screens of course, blowing things that are unclear out of proportion and trying to diffuse the picture. Much like politically or economically fueled research actually! Everytime you destroy their argumentation they always seem to come up with new ones. They have a vivid imagination I give them that!
@Philologus: Saying that there is a breach between climatescientists in how they view the global warming is a gross overexaggeration. The Oregon petition is old, many have changed opinion since.. and actually any mumbojumbo-scientist could sign the petition even if they haven\'t even touched the subject in question. There is a hard core of sceptics but they are pretty easily countable. Just trace their payments from Exxon! lol And honestly because the empirical data and science most often gives arguments to leftish views might give you a clue to why I am leftish!
The real world and solutions to real problems do tend to have a distinct leftish bias.
And how does the pressure work? Who are interested in downplaying the risks and why would anyone want to upgrade the risks? Greenpeace vs. large corporates, who do you think have more power honestly??
A survey made in USA said:
\"Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.\"
\"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete references to \"global warming\" or \"climate change\" from a report.\"
Bah! Is all I have to say.. hide your heads in the sand all you want. But don\'t try to say that the research is on your side, and give good explanations why the scientists on the subject don\'t support your view when all you\'ve got on your side is the very people interested in downplaying the risk of said phenomenon!
How\'s that for getting it to page 20? Hmm.. I tried not to be my usual diplomatic self! Emotions are great for fueling discussion!
@Evil Dave: Your wrong about that scientists haven\'t thought about Water vapour, it\'s an old argument and it is accounted for in all reports I\'ve read on the subject. The amount of water vapour will of course increase as the earth heats up and will propell the increase even more as in a \"feedback loop\". Same with the \"400 gigatons of methane\" locked in the frozen arctic tundra. The concrete/asphalt heating is also rejected as not an important factor by the IPCC report for example. But my guess is that as each of the oilcompanieshiredscientists arguments are rejected new will come...! They are only smoke-screens of course, blowing things that are unclear out of proportion and trying to diffuse the picture. Much like politically or economically fueled research actually! Everytime you destroy their argumentation they always seem to come up with new ones. They have a vivid imagination I give them that!
@Philologus: Saying that there is a breach between climatescientists in how they view the global warming is a gross overexaggeration. The Oregon petition is old, many have changed opinion since.. and actually any mumbojumbo-scientist could sign the petition even if they haven\'t even touched the subject in question. There is a hard core of sceptics but they are pretty easily countable. Just trace their payments from Exxon! lol And honestly because the empirical data and science most often gives arguments to leftish views might give you a clue to why I am leftish!
The real world and solutions to real problems do tend to have a distinct leftish bias.And how does the pressure work? Who are interested in downplaying the risks and why would anyone want to upgrade the risks? Greenpeace vs. large corporates, who do you think have more power honestly??
A survey made in USA said:
\"Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.\"
\"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete references to \"global warming\" or \"climate change\" from a report.\"
Bah! Is all I have to say.. hide your heads in the sand all you want. But don\'t try to say that the research is on your side, and give good explanations why the scientists on the subject don\'t support your view when all you\'ve got on your side is the very people interested in downplaying the risk of said phenomenon!
How\'s that for getting it to page 20? Hmm.. I tried not to be my usual diplomatic self!
Emotions are great for fueling discussion!Originally posted by Avelorn
Okay I\'ll join in then:
@Evil Dave: Your wrong about that scientists haven\'t thought about Water vapour, it\'s an old argument and it is accounted for in all reports I\'ve read on the subject. The amount of water vapour will of course increase as the earth heats up and will propell the increase even more as in a \"feedback loop\". Same with the \"400 gigatons of methane\" locked in the frozen arctic tundra. The concrete/asphalt heating is also rejected as not an important factor by the IPCC report for example. But my guess is that as each of the oilcompanieshiredscientists arguments are rejected new will come...! They are only smoke-screens of course, blowing things that are unclear out of proportion and trying to diffuse the picture. Much like politically or economically fueled research actually! Everytime you destroy their argumentation they always seem to come up with new ones. They have a vivid imagination I give them that!
@Philologus: Saying that there is a breach between climatescientists in how they view the global warming is a gross overexaggeration. The Oregon petition is old, many have changed opinion since.. and actually any mumbojumbo-scientist could sign the petition even if they haven\'t even touched the subject in question. There is a hard core of sceptics but they are pretty easily countable. Just trace their payments from Exxon! lol And honestly because the empirical data and science most often gives arguments to leftish views might give you a clue to why I am leftish!
And how does the pressure work? Who are interested in downplaying the risks and why would anyone want to upgrade the risks? Greenpeace vs. large corporates, who do you think have more power honestly??
A survey made in USA said:
\"Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.\"
\"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete references to \"global warming\" or \"climate change\" from a report.\"
Bah! Is all I have to say.. hide your heads in the sand all you want. But don\'t try to say that the research is on your side, and give good explanations why the scientists on the subject don\'t support your view when all you\'ve got on your side is the very people interested in downplaying the risk of said phenomenon!
How\'s that for getting it to page 20? Hmm.. I tried not to be my usual diplomatic self!
By discounting the scientists paid for by grants from Exxon, you must also discount scientists paid for by grants by environmentalists, Leftish Governments that would benefit, and Governments that generally like to place the blame on America,
By suggesting scientists have been corrupted by who provides their grants, you are implicating all scientists, who must receive their grant money from someone. (Which is actually a phenomenon I\'ve been witnessing for years. There is a very, very fine line between Politics and Science, and very often the line gets blurred.)
Everyone has an agenda. Everyone.
philologus
Subgenius
@Avelorn: There were scientists who asked their names be removed from the IPCC report for the same reason. As I stated before the last IPCC report (a decade ago) contained the signatures of gynecologists, landscape architects etc. who didn\'t touch the core science in question. I have no delusions as to whether or not people are being bought to provide research. My problem is that a number of individuals here believe that the UN \"science\" is irrefutable or beyond reproach. I don\'t give credence to ANYONE without the benefit of data. I am as skeptical (maybe moreso) of the UN as anyone else. I have yet to meet a researcher who is not driven by some kind of agenda. There are a lot of scientists from tiny countries with no budget for research who are eager to be included by the UN in a group of \"The world\'s greatest climatologists\". Finally, my issue with \"leftist ideologies\" was summed up nicely at the end of your post. These ideologies are driven more often than not by emotion. Once everyone is worked into a lather about what has been established as \"fact\" any arguement to the contrary will be greeted by more emotional responses. This is evidenced by your statement that:
\"The real world and solutions to real problems do tend to have a distinct leftish bias.\"
\"The real world and solutions to real problems do tend to have a distinct leftish bias.\"
i have no idea where this tpoic is going eny more however i figured since every 1 is posting here and it is gun related i might as well ask... does ANY ONE know how to make ballistics gel? also does any one know how long the stuff lasts? what im looking for is something to use for WW1 displays over along period of time.. worst comes to worst il\'l make the stuff shoot it then take pics ASAP eny help apreciated
Well, a quick search yeilded:
http://www.myscienceproject.org/gelatin.html
and
http://how2dostuff.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-make-ballistics-gel.html
Both have recipes and photos.
Having ended last week a bit testy & humorlessly, I thought I\'d try starting this one out trying to be helpful
http://www.myscienceproject.org/gelatin.html
and
http://how2dostuff.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-make-ballistics-gel.html
Both have recipes and photos.
Having ended last week a bit testy & humorlessly, I thought I\'d try starting this one out trying to be helpful
I need cites.
Dave, I\'m honestly not sure where you\'re getting your information from. The fact that water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas, and is a significant one at tbat is mentioned in virtually every single piece of literature I have read on the subject. It seems like you\'re probably getting some your information from journals, right? Just try to avoid the rest of the crap from idiots like Crichton out there, and read the ACTUAL peer-reviewed science. Like you said, there have been studies out there that have found living trees to be greater producers of methane than dead. They\'re there for everyone to read if they care to search for \'em. One of the studies was published in \"Nature.\"
There seems to be this view from a few people on here that \"science\" as a whole is this giant conspiracy perpetuated by an illuminati-like cabal of scientists. There is no such thing as \"science\" says this and \"science\" says that. That\'s a rather shallow way to look at it, possibly influenced by the medias portrayal of it as a whole.
Sure there\'s the IPCC, but they certainly don\'t speak in terms of black and white. Their results are grouped according to Most Likely, Likely, Uncertain, with corresponding percentages of likelihood. There is no hiding. It\'s easy to find if you care to look.
It\'s not a conspiracy, as some would seem to love to believe. As I said, Dave\'s reference to methane can be found in Nature, a very popular journal. Go out and buy if you care to read it. \"Science\" isn\'t cowering in fear.....\"oh noes, what if them common folks discover we don\'t know everything about global warming!?!\" Oh wait....they don\'t. And there\'s certainly no attempt to hide it.
There will always be some slant, to be sure. Every human experience is subjective to some degree, there\'s really no avoiding that.
But if you REALLY want to get away from bias, and stop getting spoon-fed bullshit, just stop watching the freaking news, and stop reading books and magazines and internet articles that only cater to your
view and branch out for god\'s sake. Get educated. Read some GENUINE scientific literature, and you\'ll find that those \"scientists\" are far more open-minded than you give them credit for.
EDIT:
@philologus, seriously, \"leftist ideologies?\" Gimme a break. I don\'t give a shit what ideology you care to define yourself and others by. I\'m looking at the science, and I hope you would too. If you\'ve honestly, TRULY educated yourself about the issue, and you come to a different conclusion about it than me, than that\'s fine. That\'s life...
I never said it was a conspiracy, Nelson, but my colleges and I have noted a propensity for exaggeration, to outright manipulation of data, to outright lying to get the funding.
Global Emergencies have a tendency to get the money flowing so to speak.
And no one wants to cut off their money tree.
Global Emergencies have a tendency to get the money flowing so to speak.
And no one wants to cut off their money tree.
Well, I\'ve read a whole lot of interesting posts concerning this so called global warming nonsense and quite frankly more than a few have made me laugh. A lot of the peeps on here have taken this climate thing to heart and no matter what they\'ll always spout the crap they\'ve been brainwashed too, Jesus wept, come on wakey wakey, its time to stop believing what youve read or been told by some talking head on the telly its all complete poo, mostly written by those who want you to believe that the planet faces some kind of forthcoming global meltdown overheating disaster. Some times I wish I could give the whole world one giant slap and roughly shake them screaming \"Get a grip of yourself, your scaring the children\" some people are so gullible and thats the worry me thinks, the more people that fall for this nonsense the more popular it will become, until one day after spending billions of pounds sticking bloody windmills all over the place the powers that be will be like \"Oops yeah sorry, but we needed the money from you poor saps to keep us in tea and toast\" next thing it\'ll be iminent alien invasion. I despair, I really do.
Hmm, that sounds surprisingly similar to what I just said.
Stop getting your information from the media and stop stroking your bloody ego by reading books that pander to your viewpoint and your viewpoint alone.
I\'ll take the step if you will. Recommend me one piece of global warming literature to read, and I\'ll recommend one to you to read. I\'m serious. Quite frankly, I doubt either of our opinions will change, but it\'d be a healthy excercise anyways. Open our minds to the other world, at least. It can only be good. Whadda ya say?
And maybe those people just need a hug to calm em down, no need for a smack. I\'d certainly be incredibly concerned if I ever met someone who thought we were in imminent danger of a complete global meltdown. That would suggest a bit of lunacy, and a PROFOUND misunderstanding of the science going on.
EDIT:
Gullible? Listen to yourself much? You\'re spewing just as much hot-air as a lefty, tree-hugging, mama-loving, pot-smoking emotional, ad nauseam, hippie.
Who\'s right? I don\'t know, I\'m honestly not thinking of this as an issue of right or wrong. We\'ll see as more and more information comes in, maybe we\'ll never know the full story. But hindsight is 20/20, we can always say \"oh, well, they were so stupid, how could \"science\" have possibly thought that?\" It\'s the best we can do at the time with the information we have. And given that, we should at least start attempting to make a difference.
Would a few more renewable energy sources such as windmills really be that offensive to you? Maybe some more nuclear power plants? Less dependence on fossil fuels? Maybe start looking towards the future? There are far greater wastes of taxpayer money going on out there.
fortunesfool
New member
I\'ll start by saying that I deliberately don\'t watch the news or read newspapers. Period. I found that the moment I did that my life was so much more fun (as well as full). As for books, the only ones I read are Sci Fi/Fantasy, Classics, and Bibliographies of people like Mark Twain or George Washington. This beginning was just by way of showing how unbiased I am media-wise.
Being in the medical field, I\'m aware of quite a bit of research (although, I\'m not certain, I would think that there is even more than other branches of science.) and nearly all of it is crap... Point in case. I recently finished a bit of research on leg lengths and out of 60 resources that I cited in my bibliography, maybe 5 of them were actual good and honest research. The others were marred by bad premises, statistics, methodology, or had a bias. Notwithstanding the \'bad research\', each of these articles were printed in peer reviewed high name publications.
My faith in science is highly lacking. I\'ve found it to be a highly critical environment in which charged ego\'s face off. That\'s not even counting when money and politics enter the game.
What\'s even worse is the basic premise of research can be called into question. One of my favourite bits of research was deliberately done to take the mick out of the gold standard of double blinded randomized control trials. In fact here\'s the link if you want to have a good chuckle:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7429/1459
I guess the purpose of this little rant of mine, is that science in my opinion is only as strong as the scientist doing it. And to be completely honest, all of the scientists I\'ve met in real life have failed to inspire much trust in me (ok there was this one guy...).
That said, I agree with Evil Dave.
I\'m not saying that a few carefully situated wind farms is a bad thing but near where I am the local countryside is ruined, what once was a pleasant moor is now a building site, out of all the dozen or so potential sites they could have built on they picked the one that most visitors see on postcards, makes me cranky.
I\'m not opposed to nuclear power, if you bothered to look at previous posts I see it as the only way we can generate enough power for the future.
I\'m sorry too, this whole thing makes I mad, I think I\'ll go wrap one up and relax.
I\'m not opposed to nuclear power, if you bothered to look at previous posts I see it as the only way we can generate enough power for the future.
I\'m sorry too, this whole thing makes I mad, I think I\'ll go wrap one up and relax.
