Mingan on 12/3/2008 at 23:17
Who the fuck is Balzaq? Do you mean Honoré de Balzac?
Also claiming that having consensus means that 100% of the people in a given field agrees is patently ludicrous. It never happened, and never will.
Also note that most of the contradictory reccommendations are journo's doing(more often than not, on demand of the editor; editors do not aim at truth, they want to sell copies). They read some research paper and somehow become an expert in the field. They pick up some suggestion, hesitantly made in the research, and spew it back as the word of god.
If people read the paper instead of sensationalist articles in tabloids, maybe they'd understand better what's what.
heretic on 14/3/2008 at 19:32
(
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c9a_1204651019) This should be interesting.
"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue..."
(
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html) ...
Ben Gunn on 14/3/2008 at 19:43
Shhhh.. there is a consensus
Starrfall on 14/3/2008 at 19:57
Sue the people who sell carbon credits for what?
Also shut the fuck up about the consensus already no one cares.
Ben Gunn on 14/3/2008 at 20:39
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Sue the people who sell carbon credits for what?
Also shut the fuck up about the consensus already no one cares.
No one cares? Im so relieved. Everywhere I go here ppl are waving the "consensus" in my face. But I guess your'e too dumb to notice irony anyway so why do I bother.
As for your question- Carbon credits are maybe kosher but they still stink. Stink far worse than the catholic practice of confession which is at least consistent with the church's BS logic.
FFS, your carbon is still out there but only god knows where your money goes.
Starrfall on 14/3/2008 at 20:41
Sorry I'll clarify: no one cares about what you have to say about the consensus.
Chade on 14/3/2008 at 22:45
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Stuff
I have suddenly become a less nice person, it seems. Fair enough.
Let's agree that not knowing much about something makes it easier to hold extreme opinions on it. I have extreme opinions on a lot of stuff I know little about. So does everyone. Here at TTLG for instance, we all like to rip into development companies which we know next to nothing about, and we all have very extreme opinions about it. Most people don't know a lot about science. This is not being condenscending. It is simply real life.
I have no doubt that many people treat science as a holy scripture, but I don't think this is all that common. We live in an age of great cynicism towards science. In my experience, it is more common for people who don't know much about science not to appreciate the rigor with which these ideas are investigated and debated once they have been introduced. I think this makes it easier to believe that the consensus on global warming is something of a fad.
You point out that there is not a 100% agreement on global warming among scientists. Well ... yes. This is exactly the way it should be. Without disagreement, the agreements that do arise aren't meaningful ...
Ben Gunn on 14/3/2008 at 23:59
You are supposed to not give a fuck about what I say regarding the concensus. It's either that or Starrfal suffers from what I call EGBD. Ender's Game Bugs disorder,- in which the patient sees himself as part of a hive mind and can only speak in "we"s. Often has its roots in the patient's low self esteem. It is not uncommon that an EGBD patient looks in the mirror only to see a large, disgusting insectoid.
Quote Posted by Chade
I have suddenly become a less nice person, it seems. Fair enough.
Remind me, when did I say you are a nice person? Just kiddin- you were soft-spoken enough and I wouldnt even have brought it up unless certain folks didnt choose to read in my "stuff" things I didnt put there.
Quote Posted by Chade
Let's agree that not knowing much about something makes it easier to hold extreme opinions on it. I have extreme opinions on a lot of stuff I know little about. So does everyone. Here at TTLG for instance, we all like to rip into development companies which we know next to nothing about, and we all have very extreme opinions about it. Most people don't know a lot about science. This is not being condenscending. It is simply real life.
I hardly think TTLG forum is a fair represantaion of our society but maybe you are right, we do live in cynical times. (Damn you, BalzaC and your outdated insights!)
Quote Posted by Chade
Without disagreement, the agreements that do arise aren't meaningful ...
Can you explain this one? My mind just went into an infinite loop.
Chade on 15/3/2008 at 05:16
Well, I'm not saying anything particularly clever. Just that you can't be certain of the validity of a big and complicated idea unless it goes through a sort of "trial by fire" first.
Given the size and complexity of the forces underlying global warming, you would expect the idea to go through one heck of a big trial. Anything less and you would have to wonder if the idea had not been tested rigorously before being accepted.
If there was a 100% consensus on global warming, it could mean one of two things:
1) The different facets of global warming had all been discovered, understood, and conclusively shown to be true in a period of approximately 30 years.
2) The entire scientific community was subverted by politics.
Both scenarios are equally ridiculous, IMO. Luckily there is no 100% consensus, or I wouldn't have the faintest idea what to make of it!
zombe on 15/3/2008 at 14:39
Quote Posted by heretic
Over 19000
scientists have
signed petitions to the contrary
What? That is a contradiction in terms.
