Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #61  
Old 01-23-2009, 06:49 AM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Here are some facts about air pollution...

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...rss-topstories

Of course, the pollution deniers will say the research is biased and Harvard is part of a conspiracy, some will even argue that an environmental epidemiologist at Harvard's School of Public Health isn't an expert on air pollution.


 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #62  
Old 01-23-2009, 10:06 AM
Bob Barr's Avatar
Bob Barr Bob Barr is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-17-08
Location: San Juan Bautista, California
Posts: 3,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferre View Post
Here are some facts about air pollution...

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...rss-topstories

Of course, the pollution deniers will say the research is biased and Harvard is part of a conspiracy, some will even argue that an environmental epidemiologist at Harvard's School of Public Health isn't an expert on air pollution.
Who are these "pollution deniers"? Do you have any quotes from them? Please don't try to confuse the issue by conflating air pollution and AGW theory.

Since the article you linked made no mention at all of carbon dioxide levels as "pollution", it's totally irrelevant to any discussion of Global Warming/Climate Change Theory just as the earlier mention of the ozone hole was.
 
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-23-2009, 11:51 AM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barr View Post
"Consensus" is a political concept, not a scientific one.
It is neither..it is a word meaning " 1. the judgement arrived at by most of those concerned or2. group solidarity in sentiment and belief....that would mean that it is not restricted in use by its application...

Assume for a moment that every scientist in the world supported Climate Change (interesting that it's no longer being called Global Warming) Theory. While that's an absolutely solid "consensus", it's totally irrelevant to whether the theory is true or not.

What is likewise interesting is that the sceptics seem hopelessly confused...they were in agreement that the earth was warming but claimed it is not based on man's influence....now they seem to be saying the earth is actually cooling...

The percentage of people supporting any theory has no effect whatsoever on the truth or falsity of that theory. If the observed facts show that the theory is false, it's false.

The problem is that the observed facts show that it is true...every 'scientific' theory so far proposed by the sceptics has been shown to be false...it's like shooting ducks in an arcade...

This happens regardless of how high a percentage of people believe that the theory is true.

That's why a clear understanding of the word consensus is important to the discussion....it doesn't simply mean 'the people'...
[/QUOTE]
 
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-23-2009, 12:04 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
More devastating news - the oceans have been cooling for years too.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/2...ng-since-2003/

Quote:
NASA data shows oceans cooling since 2003?
posted at 5:30 pm on January 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

This comes as no great shock, since the Arctic has the most ice in its cap since 1979. However, the data tends to support those who theorize that warming and cooling cycles are nothing more than that, and undermine the argument for global warming as a consequence of carbon dioxide. It also explains why the last two winters have gotten longer and colder instead of shorter and warmer:
Doh!
 
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-23-2009, 01:47 PM
Bob Barr's Avatar
Bob Barr Bob Barr is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-17-08
Location: San Juan Bautista, California
Posts: 3,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint View Post
It is neither..it is a word meaning " 1. the judgement arrived at by most of those concerned or2. group solidarity in sentiment and belief....that would mean that it is not restricted in use by its application...
Being a judgement, any "consensus" represents the collective opinion of a group of people. Opinion is not proof.

Quote:
Assume for a moment that every scientist in the world supported Climate Change (interesting that it's no longer being called Global Warming) Theory. While that's an absolutely solid "consensus", it's totally irrelevant to whether the theory is true or not.

What is likewise interesting is that the sceptics seem hopelessly confused...they were in agreement that the earth was warming but claimed it is not based on man's influence....now they seem to be saying the earth is actually cooling...
The sceptics don't "seem to be saying" that the earth is cooling; temperature measurements do. That's not opinion, it's demonstrable fact.

Quote:
The percentage of people supporting any theory has no effect whatsoever on the truth or falsity of that theory. If the observed facts show that the theory is false, it's false.

The problem is that the observed facts show that it is true...every 'scientific' theory so far proposed by the sceptics has been shown to be false...it's like shooting ducks in an arcade...
Sceptics don't need to prove an alternative theory to disprove one that can be shown not to work.

The recent worldwide cooling trend was not predicted by AGW theory so it's now being written off as a "temporary natural anomaly" by the AGW crowd.

Satellite temperature measurements of the atmosphere are also inconveniently failing to conform to Global Warming Theory.

IIRC (not certain), ocean temperature measurements have also been dropping for most of the past decade in contradiction of AGW theory. (I'll try to find a cite for that.)

<added> See the post above mine for a link to the report I was referring to. </added>

Quote:
This happens regardless of how high a percentage of people believe that the theory is true.

That's why a clear understanding of the word consensus is important to the discussion....it doesn't simply mean 'the people'...
I should have been more specific and used the word scientists in that sentence. One scientist with proof is worth thousands of scientists with opinions that conform to the "consensus".

Last edited by Bob Barr; 01-23-2009 at 01:50 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-23-2009, 02:14 PM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/sc...22climate.html

Quote:
“We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases,” said Eric J. Steig, a professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, who is the lead author of a paper to be published Thursday in the journal Nature.
 
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-23-2009, 07:23 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
The models are predicting negative warming? I'll be a god damn.

BTW - University of Washinton, Seattle?
Sorry, a little too close to kooksville to have any credibility.

Anyone tell the kook that the globe stopped "warming" in 1998? The paltry 1 degree celcius gain the last 100 years is all but wiped out from the cooling of the last decade.

Does this guy stand in the Sahara desert with an umbrella, complaining about the rain in his spare time?

Last edited by pgzn; 01-23-2009 at 07:27 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-23-2009, 08:10 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
[QUOTE=pgzn;1017462]The models are predicting negative warming? I'll be a god damn.

BTW - University of Washinton, Seattle?
Sorry, a little too close to kooksville to have any credibility.[QUOTE]

You could always move...

Quote:
Anyone tell the kook that the globe stopped "warming" in 1998? The paltry 1 degree celcius gain the last 100 years is all but wiped out from the cooling of the last decade.
How do you know that the 1 degree Celsius is paltry?...have you finished your research paper yet and has it been well received by the scientific community?...do you have a personal rivalry with Dr Steig?

Quote:
Does this guy stand in the Sahara desert with an umbrella, complaining about the rain in his spare time?
Why do you ask..afraid he might take your spot?
 
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-23-2009, 09:50 PM
Selif's Avatar
Selif Selif is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: Cherokee Village, Arkansas
Posts: 30
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by asavantage View Post
I just clicked that canibis site. I will probably register later and vote in favour. Its got to be better than boozing, though never had it myself. Does canibis not make a person uncaring about the problems around him?
In my (admittedly very limited) experience (30+ years ago), stoned is stoned whether you're on booze, crack, pot, gasoline vapors or anything else.

All such things are mind altering to some degree or another, which is why I choose to stay away from any form of "getting stoned".
 
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-24-2009, 05:03 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by asavantage View Post
(...) Does canibis not make a person uncaring about the problems around him?
Yes, that is correct, cannabis does not make a person uncaring about the problems around them. Quite the opposite in fact.
 
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-24-2009, 02:14 PM
Bob Barr's Avatar
Bob Barr Bob Barr is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-17-08
Location: San Juan Bautista, California
Posts: 3,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Regarding Stieg's work:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4...arming-up.html

Quote:
<snip>
But then a good many experts began to examine just what new evidence had been used to justify this dramatic finding. It turned out that it was produced by a computer model based on combining the satellite evidence since 1979 with temperature readings from surface weather stations.

The problem with Antarctica, though, is that has so few weather stations. So what the computer had been programmed to do, by a formula not yet revealed, was to estimate the data those missing weather stations would have come up with if they had existed. In other words, while confirming that the satellite data have indeed shown the Antarctic as cooling since 1979, the study relied ultimately on pure guesswork, to show that in the past 50 years the continent has warmed – by just one degree Fahrenheit.

One of the first to express astonishment was Dr Kenneth Trenberth, a senior scientist with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a convinced believer in global warming, who wryly observed "it is hard to make data where none exists". A disbelieving Ross Hayes, an atmospheric scientist who has often visited the Antarctic for Nasa, sent Professor Steig a caustic email ending: "with statistics you can make numbers go to any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage."

But it was also noticed that among the members of Steig's team was Michael Mann, author of the "hockey stick", the most celebrated of all attempts by the warmists to rewrite the scientific evidence to promote their cause. The greatest of all embarrassments for the believers in man-made global warming was the well-established fact that the world was significantly warmer in the Middle Ages than it is now. "We must get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period," as one contributor to the IPCC famously said in an unguarded moment. It was Dr Mann who duly obliged by getting his computer-model to produce a graph shaped like hockey stick, eliminating the mediaeval warming and showing recent temperatures curving up to an unprecedented high.

This instantly became the warmists' chief icon, made the centrepiece of the IPCC's 2001 report. But Mann's selective use of data and the flaws in his computer model were then so devastatingly torn apart that it has become the most comprehensively discredited artefact in the history of science.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4...arming-up.html
 
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-24-2009, 02:36 PM
Stalyn's Avatar
Stalyn Stalyn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 07-03-07
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Its might be a lie.
 
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-24-2009, 10:00 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barr View Post
Regarding Christopher Booker's work:

Comment: Christopher Booker has made quite a name for himself in the field of scientific critique. Unfortunately it is not for his scientific expertise but for his biased points of view. He is rather well known for his insistence that 'white asbestos' is identical to and no more harmful to humans than ordinary talcum powder. This despite the fact that their chemical formula are different....

His writings on Climate science are equally questionable. For one thing it is not his area of expertise and he has no credentials as a scientist to critique any report. Here is a critique of Christopher Booker



The Bias and Logical Fallacies of Christopher Booker’s ‘Freezing Heat’

Written by Gavin Hudson

The power of the pen, when used irresponsibly, serves not to illuminate and progress human discourse, but to confuse and stifle it. Christopher Booker’s article does a disservice to climate skeptics and climate activists alike.
Christopher Booker’s article, “The world has never seen such freezing heat,” published yesterday in the UK’s Telegraph, attempts to come across as a shocking exposé of a blunder big enough potentially to bring climate change science to its knees. It falls considerably short. Instead, the writing is simply the latest in a series of posts designed to push the author’s own personal opinion against renewable energy and climate change action. This may be of little surprise as Mr. Booker has previously summed up climate change as “chicanery.”

Unfortunately, the credibility of Mr. Booker’s article as a rational piece of scientific journalism falls apart as early as the first paragraph under the weight of his personal bias. Moreover, the writing is so riddled with logical fallacies that the article actually does an injustice to the “climate skeptics” whose arguments it seeks to support.

Before listing some of the article’s bias and logical fallacies, one brief contextual note is necessary. It’s important to understand that science operates by searching for errors in existing theories and using those errors to improve the theories. Therefore, so-called “skeptics” play an important role in honing the accuracy of any theory. By locating inaccuracies, scientists can correct the theory to better model observable phenomena. However, the logic used in Mr. Booker’s article assumes that an error in a theory discredits or invalidates the entire theory. This is bad science writing. It undermines the mechanics of the scientific process and does a disservice to anybody earnestly interested in progressing the scientific body of knowledge.

Bias in “The world has never seen such freezing heat”

The writer uses strongly emotive words rather than rational language to sway readers. Emotive words reveal the author’s bias and strip the article of credibility as far as scientific journalism is concerned.

First, consider the negative emotional words used to describe climate change data and scientists studying climate change: surreal, blunder, alarm, notorious, startling, “huge question mark,” suffered, freak, lamely, extreme, dangers, glaring, confusion, scare, episode, hastily, etc.

Now consider the positive connotations behind words used to describe climate change skeptics: “expert readers,” leading, detailed, “astonishing discovery,” fame, “expert debunking,” etc.

A sampling of the logical fallacies in “The world has never seen such freezing heat”

Logical fallacy #1: hasty generalization. The writer infers that a single error made by the GISS brings into question all data GISS has ever published. This reasoning says, “you were wrong about X; therefore you must always be wrong about everything.”

Logical fallacy #2: ad hominem. The author engages in personal attacks of climate scientists. First, he describes a GISS spokesman as “lame” and he describes the GISS as lacking resources and quality control; second, the author implies that Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is either naive or gullible with language like “Dr. Pachauri … may believe what Dr. Hansen tells him.” The additional inferred bandwaggon logical fallacy here is “reasonable people would not believe Dr. Hansen.”

Logical fallacy #3: non causa pro causa. This is one of the most common types of logical errors committed in the argument against climate change. It confuses coincidence with causation. The author reasons in the following way: The weather in a few local areas was cold. Therefore, the global climate must be cold. The global climate is neither caused by local weather nor does it directly dictate local weather from day to day. What’s more, the climate change model does not predict uniformly hotter weather around the globe; it describes the average temperature around the globe. In other words, October snow in London does not mean the average global temperature is colder than normal.

Logical fallacy #4: genetic fallacy. The author links Al Gore to Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Hansen to the error. This serves two purposes. Firstly, it seeks to discredit the GISS in the eyes of anyone who dislikes Gore, who is a somewhat politically contentious figure. Secondly, it says that if the GISS is wrong about climate change (see hasty generalization), then Gore must also be wrong to the delight of his detractors. Genetic fallacies attempt to undermine an argument by undermining somebody credited with giving birth to the argument. Although climate science did not originate with Al Gore, he’s sometimes seen as the father of the current push to respond to climate change scenarios.

Logical fallacy #5: straw man. This type of fallacy essentially says, “This person supports argument X and this person is clearly a bad person, therefore argument X is wrong.” The author attributes responsibility for the GISS to Dr. Hansen. In fact, he stops just short of attributing all climate change science to Dr. Hansen. Then, he attacks Dr. Hansen. First, the author attributes a large amount of the recent global concern over climate change to Dr. Hansen in the sentence, “If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr. Hansen….” (Note the heavily slanted use of the word alarm used to describe climate change science.) Then, he attempts to tie Dr. Hansen to “criminal” Greenpeace activity in order to discredit him, and by extension, the GISS, and by further extention, climate change.

Logical fallacy #6: proof by assertion. The author’s assertion that, “[global temperatures] have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped” is supported by no data other than the author’s own authority. This reasoning claims, “X is true because I say it is.”

http://ecoworldly.com/2008/11/17/the...freezing-heat/
 
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-25-2009, 08:37 AM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Snow falls for second time in recorded history in the UAE. Local dialect, having no word for "snow", doesn't even know what to call it.

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20...10/enewsletter

Quote:
“The snowfall started at 3pm Friday, and heavy snowing began at 8pm and continued till midnight, covering the entire area in a thick blanket of snow. Much of the snow was still there even when we flew back from the mountain this afternoon. It is still freezing cold up there and there are chances that it might snow again tonight.”
 
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-25-2009, 09:20 AM
herman333 herman333 is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-08-09
Posts: 63
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Definitely not a lie.

I don't think Al Gore was just fooling around when he made that documentary video. We can validate his claims. We can feel it. We can see it.
 
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-25-2009, 01:22 PM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
Snow falls for second time in recorded history in the UAE. Local dialect, having no word for "snow", doesn't even know what to call it.

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20...10/enewsletter
Quote:
Logical fallacy #3: non causa pro causa. This is one of the most common types of logical errors committed in the argument against climate change. It confuses coincidence with causation. The author reasons in the following way: The weather in a few local areas was cold. Therefore, the global climate must be cold. The global climate is neither caused by local weather nor does it directly dictate local weather from day to day. What’s more, the climate change model does not predict uniformly hotter weather around the globe; it describes the average temperature around the globe. In other words, October snow in London does not mean the average global temperature is colder than normal.
Quit it. Please.
 
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-25-2009, 02:53 PM
Bob Barr's Avatar
Bob Barr Bob Barr is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-17-08
Location: San Juan Bautista, California
Posts: 3,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
...describes the GISS as lacking resources and quality control;
You're faulting the guy for quoting GISS?

GISS described itself as lacking resources and quality control to excuse itself from responsibility for duplicating a large amount of its September Russian temperature data into the month of October just last year. GISS did not detect their error until it was pointed out to them. They blamed their lack of quality control on a lack of resources.
 
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-25-2009, 04:24 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferre View Post
Quit it. Please.
I know - reality is delivering a fatal blow to the global warming hoax, and I'm loving every minute of it. Adfter watching the lie perpetuate for 8 years, even though "warming" ended TEN years ago. It's been a long time comin' that the liars and hoax pushers get their day.

Example:

According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, there's one change that only 41% of Americans can believe in - manmade climate change. That's down from 47% just nine months ago

For starters, the rapidly expanding number of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) dissenting international scientists, many rising from within the alarmists' own ranks, has thoroughly shredded the misleading fallacy of "consensus." And a full decade sans warming and concluding with pronounced cooling despite ever-rising atmospheric CO2 levels has left Green House Gas (GHG) force-feeders with frosty egg on their faces. Remember the sea ice that doomsters warned would soon be gone? It's now at the very same level it was in 1979.

So 59% of Americans aren't buying it; climate experts across the globe aren't behind it; yet the alarmists continue to sell it and Democratic politicians remain steady customers.

With the clock running down, it's all hysterical hands on deck.


From - Climate: Change You Can't Believe In, January 25, 2009

It's over dude. And I love it!
 
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-25-2009, 04:54 PM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
So 59% of Americans aren't buying it
Very impressive, that's nearly the percentage of Americans who don't buy evolution.


 
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-25-2009, 04:59 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
What does it matter? I don't see the believers of that hoax trying to tax everyone for it. Believe whatever crazy theory you want, just leave my wallet alone in the process. Do you think the 59% that know man made global warming is a hoax care what you believe? No, they care what you want to do to them because of that foolish belief.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Global Warming is a Hoax cldnails Controversial Social Issues 261 11-05-2008 02:19 AM
Global Warming and the End Of The World.... TechWizard Controversial Social Issues 56 04-30-2008 12:47 PM
Global Warming, Pollution and Wildfires John Scott Controversial Social Issues 39 10-23-2007 02:08 AM
Is Al Gore a Global Warming Hypocrite? SemperFidelis Controversial Social Issues 56 07-10-2007 07:33 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC