Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

[Bigity]

WTF does that have to do with anything? You said my stance was bunk because I found one guy that was against the 'consensus'. I said it's not just one guy, I just happened to post an article by one guy.

Then you get pissy about who knows what. I can find reports from groups on the other side, just as easy. Except you will refute them out of hand because they aren't on your 'side'. The fact that there is so much conflict over this, in the scientific community, is all the proof I need that the results are still out.

[Seraphim]

[quote="Bigity";p="716644"]WTF does that have to do with anything? You said my stance was bunk because I found one guy that was against the 'consensus'. I said it's not just one guy, I just happened to post an article by one guy.

Then you get pissy about who knows what. I can find reports from groups on the other side, just as easy. Except you will refute them out of hand because they aren't on your 'side'. The fact that there is so much conflict over this, in the scientific community, is all the proof I need that the results are still out.[/quote]

The people that believe in global warming do not benefit from this belief. No one is paying them to subvert their results. All of the studies that are contrary to it are. I'm yet to read an objective report from a team of renowned scientists.

[Bigity]

Of course they benefit. They get funding.

If you think global warming people aren't being paid or influenced to lean that direction, you are an idiot. There have already been articles posted on this very forum about this. No doubt it's happening on both sides, as politicians get involved.

I guess the Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isn't renown enough for you? Who is, Al Gore?

Posted Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:24 pm:

Here are 17,000 scientists that agree with the article.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/


Wow. The evil, big business run government must have alot of money around to pay off scientists to disagree with other scientists.

[Seraphim]

[quote="adciv";p="716544"]
Compost Heaps. No nead for slugs.
[/quote]

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse since you haven't replied to my previous retorts yet. But, this occured to me the other day and I wish to share it.

Compost doesn't magically decompose. Nothing magically decomposes. Whether you put it in a pile and call it compost or let it hang out whereever, something has to break it down.
These "somethings" are called "decomposer's." Decomposer's decompose thing. They take complex organic materials, and sometimes inorganic materials and break it down into non-complex organic substance, or their base elements. This is how dead leaves become usable glucose (or whatever) and nurture the soil allowing new life to grow. Glucose does not just spontaneously generate from leaves.
Decomposer's are often microscopic (though not necessarily "soil bacteria."), but often are not. Slugs, various arthropods, many fungi, are all decomposer's. They all decompose different things with different products. There is no all in one decomposer.
If one were to place non-living organic material in a pile without the above mentioned decomposers, that pile would sit there until the end of eternity, assuming there were no outside influence, such as massive amounts of heat/energy. Even in that case though, more CO2 and other toxic/waste products would be produced than usable glucose.
Therefore, while it is plausible to burn all dead plant material. Then, let other plants break down the CO2, and toxic materials into usable Carbon. It's much less fuel efficient, and potentially hazardous to human health, than simply having some mold grow on it.

[Blaze]

[quote="Seraphim";p="716647"]The people that believe in global warming do not benefit from this belief. No one is paying them to subvert their results. All of the studies that are contrary to it are. I'm yet to read an objective report from a team of renowned scientists.[/quote]

You don't SERIOUSLY believe there aren't very rich interests out there funding studies with the intention of proving global warming IS happening, do you?

Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if there's a media mogul out there somewhere funding this stuff, just to profit from the headlines.

[kaiju01]

Hehe, funny you should mention that, Blaze. He's not looking for proof though.

[Arres]

The more I read about it, the less I'm convinced that anyone knows what the hell is going on. Global Cooling in the 40's through 70's has obviously been debunked. It has now been shown to not even be a good argument as to why we shouldn't disbelieve Global Warming now.

According to those who believe Warming is a hoax, a single volcanic eruption puts out as much or more greenhouse gasses as we have, EVER. They also point out that things like the Kyoto Protocols are less about protecting the environement than they are about redistributing world wealth. According to one article I read China, India, Brazil, and Mexico are NOT included and 82% of the projected emissions come from those countries alone.

Those who are true believers point out the melting polar ice caps and temperature trends that they understand MUCH better now, and the RECENT spike is indicative of horrors to come. When you mix into this Global Dimming it gets a little more realistic. Potentially dimming could have masked Global Warming for a few decades, and since we disliked acid rain and have taken steps against aerosol particulates Dimming has reversed since the early 90's.

The whole thing is a mess. I don't trust the IPCC, as they are a branch of the U.N.. This is a society in my fledgling opinion, which has failed to be useful in just about any damn thing, and largely corrupt.

What I'd like to see is cautious, scalable solutions recomended. Things like Nuclear Energy, and reusable resources that are climate appropriate. Solar Power in SoCal and Wind power in the Midwest. These drastic solutions that seem to catch the popular eye concern me. When Global Cooling was the disaster du jour one of the reccomendations was covering the polar caps in ash in order to speed their melting. These sorts of drastic attempts at terraforming the ONLY PLANET we have worry the hell out of me.

[Martin Blank]

Arres, you and I are on exactly the same page.

If the IPCC report has done anything, it's brought out those who have the courage to argue against the consensus. Now, they may well be wrong, and we're heading into another era of swampy heat like the planet hasn't seen in perhaps hundreds of millions of years. But at least they're challenging the work, and forcing it to be reviewed. Remember a few years ago when the scare was a 10 degree F increase in 70-100 years? That's now considered to be extremely unlikely, partially due to those who challenged the science.

The current climate makes me think of how the Vatican treated Copernicus and Galileo.

[DontEatRawHagis]

[quote="Arres";p="717740"]The more I read about it, the less I'm convinced that anyone knows what the hell is going on.
[/quote]

This is one of the reasons I think this argument is so hard to sway either way. I believe that global warming is a problem that will effect people in the future, but everytime I hear people talk about I hear different arguements. Whether it be the causes or the people who discredit it.

Ive seen people contribute global warming to Chlorine Florine(SP) or C02. As for people saying that the past shows us that the world was extremely warm at one point, I dont know where they get this info. We didnt use any sort of temperature measuring back in the dark ages(If anyone did they would have been burned as a witch).

Got this a while back:

Ozone

I think one of the reasons people arent able to believe that Global Warming is happening is because they dont want to get rid of stuff their use to, for lack of a better example Oil and other fossil fuels. Also most companies dont want to lose profits.

[Deacon]

[quote="DontEatRawHagis";p="717813"]I think one of the reasons people arent able to believe that Global Warming is happening is because they dont want to get rid of stuff their use to, for lack of a better example Oil and other fossil fuels. Also most companies dont want to lose profits.[/quote]
That's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. Congratulations. Might as well say, "I think one of the reasons people aren't able to believe in God is because they don't want to get rid of the sins they're used to..."

[Martin Blank]

He's not far off, actually. People don't want to leave the life they know behind if they don't have to, and if there's doubt about global warming, they may hedge their bets. Why get rid of the car they like or spend tens of thousands of dollars retrofitting their homes if it doesn't do anything in the long run? I look at it differently, as I mentioned in reply to Arres: it's an opportunity to start shifting in a way that makes both economic and ecological sense.

[JudgeMental]

Deacon, have you ever been out in the real world? Hagis may not be too far off. Quite aside from scientific reasons, I wouldn't be surprised to hear of people who deny global warming mostly because they want to avoid responsibility for it.

Note that I am not stating that global warming is or isn't happening; I am merely speaking to Average Joe's reaction to the idea.

[Deacon]

No, y'all aren't understanding what I'm saying. "People aren't able to believe in global warming because convenience and corporate greed" isn't an accurate statement. It's much more accurate to say that until global warming (as it is popularly portrayed) is proven and man's contribution better understood, it's like asking someone to stop using deodorant because someone thinks it may cause Alzheimer's (no, I didn't just make that up). It's really the "People aren't able to believe in Global Warming" part of the sentence that is especially wonky, and the rest is just malformed icing on the flawed cake. On the other hand, I don't think that the way his wording results in likening it to a religious faith (perhaps accidentally) is actually very far off the mark.

[JudgeMental]

Erm, that paragraph makes my brain hurt.

It seems you're saying everybody should approach this particular issue with a logical, analytical standpoint. Apply scientific method, wait for the scientific community to come to some substantial conclusion, and in general be rational and informed about it. I would agree that this is a good ideal, but it seems you're... well, I don't really know WHAT you're doing... o_O

Note that I'm referring to Joe Average, not the actual scientific community itself. Obviously, that particularly community SHOULD be upheld to its own standards.

The sentence may be wonky, and what he's trying to communicate may be wonky. But as it so happens people are wonky too.

[DontEatRawHagis]

Deacon, you seem to me like the person who believes if everyone gets the facts straight than everyone will think the same way(Thats what it sounds to me).

That isnt the case. During the dark ages (I know I talk about them alittle much) a person who said that the world was round would have been stoned to death, its a similar today as some people are discriminated for their beliefs. It seems that the current(or before the reps losing the house and sen) government discriminates against stem cells and green house gases/global warming.

I could show definitive proof that (For lack of a better Example) the Bible is fake[Not meaning that the morals it gives are wrong] and that christianity is entirely fake, people will still go to church everyday because they wont believe that its not real. Thats what I like to call Ignorant Masses, people dont believe the minority they belive the majority or the most prominate.

Also thanks guys for sticking up for what I wrote sometimes my points dont come across, usually I have to dumb down my stuff so people get the points.