S.o.s!!

[Siamanto]

Re: S.o.s!!

Global warming is nothing but the modern version of one of the many millennial fears that recur every thousand years...there is no reason to believe these global alarmists...who want to control society, industry and individuals by what is nothing more than another variant of socialism.

And the above ideological - almost religious - statement is not the "expression of fear that recur" in dangerously conservative America? Should the CIA, as in the past and present, interrogate, incarcerate and murder those "out of space commies - or terrorists, to go with the flavor of the decade - who are plotting our destruction?"
Honestly, such religious beliefs scare me as much as the neo-con or Taliban fanatics do.

It is junk science and posited on nothing more than manipulated statistics and faulty computer projections of the future.

Such an ideological statement - not even philosophical i.e. epistemological - seems to be sooooooooooooooo popular among the scientifically untrained laymen. Ironic, but human???
Can you please give us some examples of the supposed "manipulated statistics and faulty computer projections???" Thanks!

If the weather channel cannot accurately predict the weather for next week, there is no reason to believe these global alarmists

It's not about "predicting" the earth temperature in the past; it's about "reading" the facts as recorded by Mother Nature. Don't you think that it would be wiser to educate oneself on the subject before making such pseudo-logical and pseudo-scientific statements?

A minimal scientific training - with some knowledge of the human body - would be enough to realize that those techniques are far more scientific, accurate and reliable than those used by the fortune tellers who are legally authorized to write (drug) prescriptions and broker your relationships with the drug industry.

[Anonymouse]

Re: S.o.s!!

And the above ideological - almost religious - statement is not the "expression of fear that recur" in dangerously conservative America? Should the CIA, as in the past and present, interrogate, incarcerate and murder those "out of space commies - or terrorists, to go with the flavor of the decade - who are plotting our destruction?"
Honestly, such religious beliefs scare me as much as the neo-con or Taliban fanatics do.

I find it amusing that you paint my views as "ideological" as if yours are made from the sweet purée of unfalsifiable zen and reason. I also find it ironic that you have the gall to call my views "religious" when it is precisely the almost automaton-like adherence to the global warming facade by most people, complete with its own religious imagery and zeal with Al Gore as the messiah.

You then go into a brash non-sequitur journey comparing my skepticism and refusal to accept the global warming facade on par with CIA torture chambers and neo-con wet dreams as if I support such things, nevermind how they tie in or relate to the global warming point. My guess is you did not think this through all the way and made some spurious analogy merely for the sake of smear and not for the sake of proving a point.

Such an ideological statement - not even philosophical i.e. epistemological - seems to be sooooooooooooooo popular among the scientifically untrained laymen. Ironic, but human???
Can you please give us some examples of the supposed "manipulated statistics and faulty computer projections???" Thanks!

Here you have appeared to create an intellectual Berlin Wall similar to what you did when we were discussing the French riots. When I proceeded to even make mention of my own views, you lambasted me and chided me for even daring to do so as I could not properly comment anything relating to France nor hold an opinion without having visited France.

Now you are doing something similar. You are trying to advance the ridiculous point that those who disagree with the global warming thesis are "scientifically untrained laymen" and if they were not they would surely agree with the thesis and see the truths as they are oh so self-evident. Hidden in this assumption is that the only way one would be able to disagree and even offer a valid opinion on this topic is if one at least as some scientific credentials. This is, my French-speaking earth zealot, pure horsepucky.

It's not about "predicting" the earth temperature in the past; it's about "reading" the facts as recorded by Mother Nature. Don't you think that it would be wiser to educate oneself on the subject before making such pseudo-logical and pseudo-scientific statements?

A minimal scientific training - with some knowledge of the human body - would be enough to realize that those techniques are far more scientific, accurate and reliable than those used by the fortune tellers who are legally authorized to write (drug) prescriptions and broker your relationships with the drug industry.

Maybe you should follow your own prescription and not jump to conclusions as that is not scientific.

Going to the point, global warming's high point I consider Kyoto and about the only thing Bush did right was to scrap Kyoto because it placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China – the world’s biggest polluter – and other polluting third-world countries to do a thing and essentially gave them a blank check. Furthermore, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don’t apply.

[Sip]

Re: S.o.s!!

Anonymouse, there is no use. I have been down this line before and once Siamanto's feelings get hurt, there is nothing to be "reasoned" with him.

[Sip]

Re: S.o.s!!

I see that Computer Science is not the only discipline where you shine by your mediocrity; specialists can estimate the temperature as it was for the last sever thousands of year. You know how to google, educate yourself.

There in lies the problem. You put too much trust in the googles and wikipedias. Talk to some REAL climatologists and you will soon realize man-made Global Warming is mainly a political agenda and has little "proof" in science. The "evidence" is very similar to reports that claimed we are moving towards the next ice age just what, 30 years ago?

Now again, man-made environmental screw ups are definitely a reality and I am not saying (as I said before) that we should continue burning of fossil fuels and dumping chit on the earth and arond the atmosphere. But I know I know ... I am a mediocre immature person that is not up to your level of wisdom.

And once again so that you fully grasp what I am saying (hopefully without having your emotions cloud what you are reading): I am not saying there is no evidence of the Earth getting warmer in the last century and in the last few decades. But trying to make the leap and connecting it to human activity is much like trying to decide what is happening in a soccer match with just a picture. Hope that is clear now.

... and if you want to bring math into it, you are trying to fit a large nth degree model with very localized and sparse samples and ANY idiot (even the very mediocre ones) will tell you that it is a futile attempt

[karoaper]

Re: S.o.s!!

Haha, this topic again. Guys, if the scientists are arguing about this, we lay-people should probably refrain from arguing 100% towards one or another side.

Having said that, the one cold hard fact is that the climate changes in the last 100 or so years break all previous records. I've talked to people in hydrology department, environmental engineering department and whatever sources I've found on the net. Now, whether these changes are man-made or not is where the argument lies, not in whether these major changes are occurring or not.

Even though the scientists may not know the very long-term cycle behavior, they can model the consequences when a new record in a certain aspect of the climate is broken. And we're getting very close to some limits, which could cause major changes in the environment of our planet earth. And what's more scary is that we're getting close to these limits at previously unseen rate.

Now, I have a partly-genuine question. I'm a little perplexed: what is the political motivation for "environmentalists" to fight for major business and industry policy changes. If they actually secretly believed that it's all BS, what corporation or a mogul or industry is looking to undercut the involved sectors of industry: namely the auto, energy, and lumber. Do the solar power industry folks have that much money and political clout as be able to influence the top politicians? The question is partly cynical, but partly genuine because maybe there are real reasons, but I'm not seeing. The only real thing I've ever heard anywhere, besides generic references to "political motivation" and "politicized climatology" was the idiotic statement by some Congressman that without the "scare-tactics" Weather Channel wouldn't have a good rating.

[Anonymouse]

Re: S.o.s!!

That's the thing Sip! Even if we assume for a minute, for the sake of argument, that there is global warming, there is absolutely no concrete or conclusive evidence that suggests man is the prime culprit.

[Anonymouse]

Re: S.o.s!!

Now, I have a partly-genuine question. I'm a little perplexed: what is the political motivation for "environmentalists" to fight for major business and industry policy changes. If they actually secretly believed that it's all BS, what corporation or a mogul or industry is looking to undercut the involved sectors of industry: namely the auto, energy, and lumber. Do the solar power industry folks have that much money and political clout as be able to influence the top politicians? The question is partly cynical, but partly genuine because maybe there are real reasons, but I'm not seeing. The only real thing I've ever heard anywhere, besides generic references to "political motivation" and "politicized climatology" was the idiotic statement by some Congressman that without the "scare-tactics" Weather Channel wouldn't have a good rating.

Well that's the thing Kar. Environmentalists are not truly concerned about the planet but about controlling people. It's just another avenue for the discredited ideology of Marxism. Since Communism fell now all these bumbling morons rush to environmentalism and the peak of their intents was manifested in the Kyoto Protocol, a stupid international treaty that only required the U.S. to cut emissions and left other countries such as China to do as they please. Furthermore this would have required massive outsourcing of companies as they would have to relocate to countries where Kyoto wouldn't apply to make money.

[karoaper]

Re: S.o.s!!

... and if you want to bring math into it, you are trying to fit a large nth degree model with very localized and sparse samples and ANY idiot (even the very mediocre ones) will tell you that it is a futile attempt

aren't ill-posed problems a b*tch?

[karoaper]

Re: S.o.s!!

Well that's the thing Kar. Environmentalists are not truly concerned about the planet but about controlling people. It's just another avenue for the discredited ideology of Marxism. Since Communism fell now all these bumbling morons rush to environmentalism and the peak of their intents was manifested in the Kyoto Protocol, a stupid international treaty that only required the U.S. to cut emissions and left other countries such as China to do as they please. Furthermore this would have required massive outsourcing of companies as they would have to relocate to countries where Kyoto wouldn't apply to make money.

I certainly understand that one of the uses of ideologies is to control people, though I wouldn't peg "environmentalism" as an ideal ideology (-1 point) for such a use. Of course, as with all ideology, there are always people who pick it up as a crusade for a lack of things to do. However, at the same token I believe it's absolutely true that there are scientists who are environmentalists, motivated only by their assessment of the effect of human actions on the environment.

I guess I would say that what you said is true or not depending on the actions/changes that people demand, not on the conclusions they arrive at or their scientific based (hopefully) arguments.

[Siamanto]

Re: S.o.s!!

I find it amusing that you paint my views as "ideological" as if yours are made from the sweet purée of unfalsifiable zen and reason. I also find it ironic that you have the gall to call my views "religious" when it is precisely the almost automaton-like adherence to the global warming facade by most people, complete with its own religious imagery and zeal with Al Gore as the messiah.

From the simple expression of ideological and religious convinctions, it degraded to pure calumniation and diffamation? From your over-reaction, Al Gore seem to exist in your world but does not in mine. I hear about the Environmental Issues at least once a day - i.e. News, debate, documentary, paper etc. - and only once or twice a year about Al Gore.
Try to think globally and free your mind from it's confinement to the US!

You then go into a brash non-sequitur journey comparing my skepticism and refusal to accept the global warming facade on par with CIA torture chambers and neo-con wet dreams as if I support such things, nevermind how they tie in or relate to the global warming point. My guess is you did not think this through all the way and made some spurious analogy merely for the sake of smear and not for the sake of proving a point.

Calling such alarmingly religious sentiments, reminiscent of American anti-communist phobia, "skepticism????" Nice try! Now, that is funny and amusing???
I'm sorry, but the following sounds religiously scary and neo-conish to me:

...there is no reason to believe these global alarmists...who want to control society, industry and individuals by what is nothing more than another variant of socialism.

Such an ideological statement - not even philosophical i.e. epistemological - seems to be sooooooooooooooo popular among the scientifically untrained laymen. Ironic, but human???
Can you please give us some examples of the supposed "manipulated statistics and faulty computer projections???" Thanks!

Here you have appeared to create an intellectual Berlin Wall similar to what you did when we were discussing the French riots. When I proceeded to even make mention of my own views, you lambasted me and chided me for even daring to do so as I could not properly comment anything relating to France nor hold an opinion without having visited France.

Now you are doing something similar. You are trying to advance the ridiculous point that those who disagree with the global warming thesis are "scientifically untrained laymen" and if they were not they would surely agree with the thesis and see the truths as they are oh so self-evident. Hidden in this assumption is that the only way one would be able to disagree and even offer a valid opinion on this topic is if one at least as some scientific credentials. This is, my French-speaking earth zealot, pure horsepucky.

What an pertinent argument about the "manipulated statistics and faulty computer projections???" I'm convinced now!!!
If you are so confident of yourself, why do you have to desperately calumniate with "cheap shots?" Can't you simply provide examples of "manipulated statistics and faulty computer projections???" Something to think about!

Honestly, do you have anything relevant to add that is not simply an emotional outburst and/or ranting about Al Gore who means little outside of the US? Again, the issue is neither about Al Gore, nor US domestic politics.

Maybe you should follow your own prescription and not jump to conclusions as that is not scientific.

So I should simply join with you the neo-conish anti Al Gore, anti-Green, anti-commie, anti-terrorist, anti-humanity sect???
Thanks for the invitation!

Going to the point, global warming's high point I consider Kyoto and about the only thing Bush did right was to scrap Kyoto because it placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China – the world’s biggest polluter – and other polluting third-world countries to do a thing and essentially gave them a blank check. Furthermore, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don’t apply.

Those are political issues and convictions - i.e. ideological of nature - and are of no scientific value. Of course, I'm neither saying that I agree or disagree with you on the subject; I'm just saying that they are of no relevance as to the empirical existence of Global Warming and other environmental issues.