Article about Americans disagreements with scientists findings

[cbrunny]

You'd have more success arguing with a brick wall.

I know. It's sad. If I had anything better to do today I would do it, but I think it's still worth the world knowing that he is an idiot.

 

[BoberFett]

Anyway, this is something that always comes to mind whenever one of these insipid arguments comes up. We trust scientists and the scientific method to improve our homes, our roads, our cities, and we let them build our phones, computers, medical devices like MRI machines, and TVs. We have, for the most part, no problems with any of those things, but for some reason when the exact same kinds of people use the exact same kinds of methods to tell us something about our history, our future, or what the fucking weather is like, THEN we raise hell.

Technically speaking, scientists do lots of discovery and theory, and engineers apply those findings into the specific technologies you mentioned.

 

[Paratus]

there is no way you can possibly show that to be true.

I would love to see a CO2 level somewhere around 600ppm. there is a very good argument that the low CO2 levels of around 275ppm is nearing plant starvation levels. Optimum growth in a garden is around 1500ppm. That could be too high.

~600ppm would really improve agricultural output, increase forest growth and generally be a good thing. It may even contribute to some small rise in temperature though we still do not know how much the effect of CO2 has in the atmosphere.

Most recent studies continue to revise downward the forcing that can be attributed to CO2. Current estimates are 1.5C/century with at least one study (will try to find reference) indicating as low as .5C/century - essentially nothing but noise in regard to overall warming since the end of the LIA.

Hey guys! We TOTALLY don't know that CO2 affects the environment but we TOTALLY know doubling it would be SUPER DUPER AWESOME for our agriculture!

I for one can't wait for dphantom to link me the great awesome productivity boost with NO negative side effects shown in what I am sure is peer reviewed research.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hey guys! We TOTALLY don't know that CO2 affects the environment but we TOTALLY know doubling it would be SUPER DUPER AWESOME for our agriculture!

I for one can't wait for dphantom to link me the great awesome productivity boost with NO negative side effects shown in what I am sure is peer reviewed research.

It could be argued that smallpox was a beneficial disease viewed from a particular point of view. After all primitive cultures needed to modernize and that couldn't happen if they remained intact.

 

[maddogchen]

look at how many scientists the cigarette industry rolled out saying that smoking is not bad for you

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

look at how many scientists the cigarette industry rolled out saying that smoking is not bad for you

Promise margarine is good for you. Butter is bad. Eating lots of carbs is good. Eggs and shrimp are evil. These are establish facts promoted by scientists. Well... wrong.

 

[Paratus]

It could be argued that smallpox was a beneficial disease viewed from a particular point of view. After all primitive cultures needed to modernize and that couldn't happen if they remained intact.

Well yes it was very beneficial to the Spaniards in America in the 1500's. Not so much for the native Americans.

Deniers in this thread won't accept global warming is negative even with support and context. Not sure why I should be expected to accept a blanket statement that higher CO2 is good for agriculture that lacks support and context.

Maybe I missed your point?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Really?? You can't be this dense. He's a hypocrite dummy! He's pulling the ol' "global warming" BS and at the same time he is polluting the planet. Same with Leonardo Dicaprio.

Oh right... so because he is a hypocrite the entire thing can be discredited?

Are you really this dense?

 

[maddogchen]

Promise margarine is good for you. Butter is bad. Eating lots of carbs is good. Eggs and shrimp are evil. These are establish facts promoted by scientists. Well... wrong.

Not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that cigarette smoking is not bad for you?

 

[Ruptga]

You know, I just froze my ass off outside trying to smoke. If this global warming were true shouldn't I be in shorts? After all Al Gore predicted some catastrophic shit that would occur today back in the 80's.

If you spent even a quarter of the time that you spend shitposting on learning about the world you live in then you would never say something this stupid. All the facts and explanations you (and the handful like you) have asked for in this thread are out there. Many of them have already been posted, and most of them are a five second Google search away. You've already been led to water several times, now drink and prove you're not the retard we all know you are.

Or go back to yelling about Al Gore, regurgitating ignorant arguments that were refuted years ago, and pretending that you're privy to knowledge hidden from people that have lived their professional lives under scrutiny researching just one or a handful of parts of this entire topic.

I know. It's sad. If I had anything better to do today I would do it, but I think it's still worth the world knowing that he is an idiot.

I realize I'm biased, but pretty much everyone already knows. It's hard not to notice. In fact you'd have to be willfully ignorant to have not caught on. :sneaky:

 

[dphantom]

Well yes it was very beneficial to the Spaniards in America in the 1500's. Not so much for the native Americans.

Deniers in this thread won't accept global warming is negative even with support and context. Not sure why I should be expected to accept a blanket statement that higher CO2 is good for agriculture that lacks support and context.

Maybe I missed your point?

Which would you prefer, warming or cooling? It will be one or the other. I pick warming as its negative effects are less than those of cooling.

 

[Grooveriding]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzhT_7g0qpA

 

[cbrunny]

I realize I'm biased, but pretty much everyone already knows. It's hard not to notice. In fact you'd have to be willfully ignorant to have not caught on. :sneaky:

lol i'm thinking more about future generations or the aliens that find the AT forum server backups in thousands of years. We aren't all idiots.

 

[dphantom]

Hey guys! We TOTALLY don't know that CO2 affects the environment but we TOTALLY know doubling it would be SUPER DUPER AWESOME for our agriculture!

I for one can't wait for dphantom to link me the great awesome productivity boost with NO negative side effects shown in what I am sure is peer reviewed research.

Additional CO2 does help flora so that seems to me to be an effect on environment. I am unsure where you think I said anywhere there are no negative effects. Every change has positive and negative effects.

I could get peer reviewed papers but am not sure you are actually interested in such. Rather, just the hyperbole and your narrow point of view.

 

[cbrunny]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzhT_7g0qpA

oh that was a great documentary. Those images are both the coolest things ever and the scariest. It's actually really something worth watching.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I just had to view your post. I'm still keeping your ass on ignore.

The fact is the science of global boring isn't set in stone. There are scientists that say there is global warming and scientists that say otherwise.

Medical science has created pills for ailments. You see the commercials all the time. Side effect may include this and that up to and including sniffing your carpet and licking your dogs balls. Then you see the lawyer commercials. "Did you take such and such pill?" "Call or law offices at 1-800-screw-you." The facts are science is just that, "SCIENCE" outcomes change and so do predictions all the time. Since the biggest hypocrite A-hole leftist Hollywood elitists are touting "Global warming" along with Al Gore who has a huge carbon foot print, excuse me for being skeptical. This idiot just last week said he wants cites changed where no one drives a car at the cost of some 90 trillion. And I'm stupid?!

BTW, like it matters science is my forte and is my strong suit. But I'm smart enough not to use it for an all encompassing answer to everything. While I bet math can answer more than science.

So your arguement is if "there are some people that say the Earth is round and some that say the Earth is flat", makes the space station now circling the planet a fake?
There is no Math in Science too?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that cigarette smoking is not bad for you?

No, I'm saying that established science isn't the Bible that people believe it is. In the case of cigarettes there's no serious contention about negative effects and nothing has been misrepresented or misinterpreted. That does not however that science is always right, and those I mentioned are examples. In the case of lay skeptics vs the majority of medical scientists the first were right. An all too common problem is that it isn't science which is wrong, but the culture of science and that's because of the fallible nature of humans, which are all the scientists there are. Take the dietary cholesterol scare I still see on the forums from time to time.

Those who first linked cholesterol to stenosis and plaques were looking at serum cholesterol. That's not something you get from eating eggs or other cholesterol containing food. That's dietary cholesterol. A major player in the discovery went to a conference and at a break he went socializing. The buzz was all about how we need to eat less cholesterol containing food. The researcher started to explain how that was wrong, and he was shut up by those who cited his research as proof. They had no idea who they were talking about, but they were scientists dammit and they were right.

Some healthy skepticism is always appropriate even about "scientific proof".

Another example is the fable of Galileo, this noble soul, this marvelous intellect standing against the oppression of science by religion on principle in face of the danger. Bullshit. Galileo was a dick. He was not only a dick, but a monumental egotistical prick who punished his own daughter because she wasn't man enough. Get thee to a nunnery. One of his friends was the frigging Pope who had absolutely no problem with science, but he did have political problems with some of the old guard cardinals. In those days "problems" sometimes translated into assassination or exile. Not fun in either case. So Urban urged restraint until he could get things sorted out. Of course Galileo being the bright fellow he was understood, and promptly wrote a dialogue in the style of the Greeks lampooning and making an idiot of Urban, his greatest supporter. With Urban being backed into a corner, Galileo was tried and put in house arrest for screwing over the Pope. So yes, he was tried by the Church, but the reasons for it weren't scientific. That was the excuse for prosecution for being douche. Don't even get me started on what he did to poor Kepler, the only man he truly was afraid of.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Better be kidding.

You know, I just froze my ass off outside trying to smoke. If this global warming were true shouldn't I be in shorts? After all Al Gore predicted some catastrophic shit that would occur today back in the 80's.

Still don't know the difference between weather and CLIMATE. 2014 was the warmest year on record, did not know those bright young men in their clean white coats allowed you outside to smoke. Especially without your pants!

 

[Thebobo]

Wikipedia? Credibility score zero.

Just you saying so does not make it so. Please provide proof. Is conservatipedia more your style lol?

 

[Linflas]

Still don't know the difference between weather and CLIMATE. 2014 was the warmest year on record, did not know those bright young men in their clean white coats allowed you outside to smoke. Especially without your pants!

By 0.02 c which even NASA was forced to admit is within the margin of error. Yet every time there is a major weather event including the fizzle of a blizzard in NYC last week the sky is falling crowd conflates weather with climate so neither side has a lock on that particular fetish.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Still don't know the difference between weather and CLIMATE.

Or health care reform vs the ACA

Seriously, people don't bother to understand the underlying principles behind terms used nor do they bother to understand the topic at hand. They go with whatever supports their opinion without considering particulars and concepts as they exist. To do otherwise might lead to changing their minds, and that's the last thing we can stand. There's a sig to the effect of "if you make the people believe they are thinking they will love you, but they'll hate you if you really make them think."

 

[dphantom]

Still don't know the difference between weather and CLIMATE. 2014 was the warmest year on record, did not know those bright young men in their clean white coats allowed you outside to smoke. Especially without your pants!

No it was not. The recorded temperature fell well within the margin of error of the instrumentation. It was warm but may or may not have been a record and does nothing for the trend from 1996-current of essentially flat temperatures.

 

[cbrunny]

Just you saying so does not make it so. Please provide proof. Is conservatipedia more your style lol?

what?

 

[dphantom]

Hey guys! We TOTALLY don't know that CO2 affects the environment but we TOTALLY know doubling it would be SUPER DUPER AWESOME for our agriculture!

I for one can't wait for dphantom to link me the great awesome productivity boost with NO negative side effects shown in what I am sure is peer reviewed research.

I won't waste anymore time doing research for you. I never say anything I cannot back up with data. Try it some day.

One example below. I am sure there are more as well as others that may disagree on some points presented. It is called science.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108

 

[CountZero]

Yeah... like shrimp on tread mills?

Ahh, no way you work in science in any way and drag that shrimp on treadmill crap out.

Shrimp on treadmill was a small part of a very large study on water quality impact to shrimp and related species working on the economic impact to businesses that rely on those species. The treadmill piece was all of $1k out of the full grant.

Basically a study spent 0.2% of their budget on a treadmill in a study to measure the impact on American business and you drag that out as an example of what not to finance, pathetic.

That shrimp treadmill crap is nothing more than sound bite fodder for the brainless masses that have come to conclusions first and wait for sound bites that will back those up no matter how wrong they are. If you do actually work in science and this is your approach it is a sad day for science.