-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
The Vice President Is An Idiot.
- Thread starter Coldkilla
- Start date
Ah, except neither you nor the VP are scientists. Cheney IS right, there is a debate over whether global warming is caused by human actions and is a cause for concern, but it's not a scientific debate. With few exceptions, it's scientists on one side vs non-scientists on the other side. The "debate" exists largely because people like Cheney keep saying it exists. But science is not a democracy, and I guess the idea that their opinion is meaningless unless backed up by scientific fact just bugs Cheney-types.
What i don't get is why the OP labeled the VP a moron, he is saying there there is simply debate over natural or man made warming, and a the end, the contributes both. I think this is a very realistic viewpoint to take. No i'm not a scientist, the whole issue has become more politcal concern than scientific facts anyway. I know for sure Al Gore is not a scientist.
Lemon law
Lifer
On things like global warming---Cheney is a mere idiot---on other issues Cheney is a morally bankrupt idiot.===short term Cheney dismisses all concerns all the way to the bank.
Long term Cheney and his ilk will doom us all.---anyone with concerns about a future should reject Cheney and all his works.
Long term Cheney and his ilk will doom us all.---anyone with concerns about a future should reject Cheney and all his works.
Well I'll certainly agree with the point I bolded, and that's really what bugs me about this whole debate...it takes something that really belongs in scientific circles and turns it into a political circus. For what it's worth, Al Gore's participation in the debate bugs me just as much as Cheney's...neither of them really know what they are talking about, and while I'm tempted to give Al Gore a thumbs up because I (partially) agree with his conclusions, I really dislike his methods.
I'm an engineer and a scientist (although not in the environmental field), and I work pretty hard to stay on top of my field. But, like most folks in my position, my decisions are constantly being questioned by people with business or law degrees who can barely program their VCR or perform long division. Now the smart folks like that listen to the people who DO understand the science, but not all of them are smart. The current debate about global warming seems to be a similar situation in the worst case scenario, it's ALL the stupid folks who think global warming causing cooling in some parts of the word is the punchline for a joke, rather than accepted scientific theory. The voices of reason saying MAYBE we should listen to the science are few and far between, and the folks arguing that humans aren't harming the environment don't let a complete lack of scientific support stop them from opening their mouths at every possible opportunity.
You suggested that Cheney is taking the "realistic" viewpoint, and while he might be taking the middle ground, I don't find his stance to be admirable in the least. In fact, while it might appear he's being reasonable, he's really just using a clever way to argue against science. He's suggesting that a debate between experts in the field and non-scientific people with other motives is a debate of equals, and that the only logical conclusion is that the truth lies somewhere between the two. It's the same silly argument the media uses all the time, where a debate between group 1 saying that the moon is made of rock and group 2 saying it's made of cheese results in headlines that say "group 1 and group 2 disagree on lunar composition". It's a favorite tactic of people too lazy to find out the truth, or people who have a vested interest in the non-factual conclusion.
I would say it is a favorite tactic of those with a big vested interest counting on those with a more generally vested interest in the status quo to resist change as long as they can maintain a fictional notion of debate. The haves and those who feel they are winning in the present system, regardless of what it is, do not like bad news that can shake that system.
A major problem we have is that scientists seem to be paid to prove global warming is man made not paid on the premisis for non-bias research. If i got paid to research that the moon was made of cheese then turned around in my final report and said it was rock, my supporters would expel me out of the scientific community due to this being such a political issue now. Science means nothing at this point to any politician
With few exceptions, it's scientists on one side vs non-scientists on the other side.
There are noteworthy scientists who side with us "non-scientists" too. what ticks me off is the enviro-nuts trying to silence them, and accusing them of all being on the payroll of big oil, which is, first of all untrue, and second of all, they're getting mega millions themselves to prove global warming. i saw the governor of Oregon a few weeks ago wanted to strip the state climatologist (an honorary title given to the professor of climatology) of his title, b/c he was a "global warming denier," he just didn't believe there was nearly enough evidence to supoprt man's contribution to a warming planet... same thing is happening in NJ. There are astrophysicits being totally ignored in this debate too, who are claiming the real culprit is the sun itself (solar warming), a solar trend that also explains why the surface temp of mars is also rising. But what do they know? They're just astrophysicists. they aren't up for an academy award like al "pseudo-science" gore. That's the ultimate form of junk science: eliminating competing ideas via threats in order to claim "consensus."
as my good buddy rush is quick to point out, there's not such thing as consensus science. Sceience is not driven by consensus, its driven by hypothesis, obervation, and comparing data. the enviro-nuts will disregard any data that seems to disprove their FACT (i.e. the ice in antarctica is growing, as well as in greenland). this new form of science, starting with a presupposition, and then disregarding any data that disproves your theory, is disturbing.
again, liberals will stifle real debate by any means necessary.
There are noteworthy scientists who side with us "non-scientists" too. what ticks me off is the enviro-nuts trying to silence them, and accusing them of all being on the payroll of big oil, which is, first of all untrue, and second of all, they're getting mega millions themselves to prove global warming. i saw the governor of Oregon a few weeks ago wanted to strip the state climatologist (an honorary title given to the professor of climatology) of his title, b/c he was a "global warming denier," he just didn't believe there was nearly enough evidence to supoprt man's contribution to a warming planet... same thing is happening in NJ. There are astrophysicits being totally ignored in this debate too, who are claiming the real culprit is the sun itself (solar warming), a solar trend that also explains why the surface temp of mars is also rising. But what do they know? They're just astrophysicists. they aren't up for an academy award like al "pseudo-science" gore. That's the ultimate form of junk science: eliminating competing ideas via threats in order to claim "consensus."
as my good buddy rush is quick to point out, there's not such thing as consensus science. Sceience is not driven by consensus, its driven by hypothesis, obervation, and comparing data. the enviro-nuts will disregard any data that seems to disprove their FACT (i.e. the ice in antarctica is growing, as well as in greenland). this new form of science, starting with a presupposition, and then disregarding any data that disproves your theory, is disturbing.
again, liberals will stifle real debate by any means necessary.
While I won't disagree that it's reached the level of political debate even among scientists, I think that the degree with which it has done so has been greatly exaggerated by people seeking to discredit the scientific process. Accusations of "group-think" and biased research are pretty effective tools in this debate, but I think that reality is not quite what the anti-science folks would suggest.
Obviously it's hard to say which scientists are on the take and which are pursuing scientific fact (an uncertainty that anti-science types are able to take advantage of), I'd say that it's pretty unlikely the group-think is the dominant force on the science side of the debate. Mostly because the type of accusation you're making approaches conspiracy theory levels of silliness. Think about it, you're suggesting that the great majority of the scientific community, both scientists and their patrons, got together and decided that they are going to present a unified front in perpetuating an unscientific lie. Despite the fact that this kind of think is something they've fought against their entire careers, and despite the fact that nobody has been able to present a decent motivation for them doing so. I don't have to poll every scientist on earth to find that conspiracy theory a LITTLE hard to believe. It's much more believable as the kind of "attack the messenger" lie that is so popular with folks who can't argue against the facts.
It's much more believable as the kind of "attack the messenger" lie that is so popular with folks who can't argue against the facts.
________________________________
that's what i'm saying, they (the global warming proponents) are seeking to discredit scientists who do have their own facts and figures that don't support the theory of man-induced global warming. Some are demanding that climatologists who do not accept global warming should be de-certified. meanwhile, they want to give al gore an honorary doctorate in climatology... sigh
personally i think some of these climatologist GW-deniers are real heroes, even though they may be committing career suicide.
________________________________
that's what i'm saying, they (the global warming proponents) are seeking to discredit scientists who do have their own facts and figures that don't support the theory of man-induced global warming. Some are demanding that climatologists who do not accept global warming should be de-certified. meanwhile, they want to give al gore an honorary doctorate in climatology... sigh
personally i think some of these climatologist GW-deniers are real heroes, even though they may be committing career suicide.
tomywishbone
Golden Member
I don't think cheney's an idiot, as much as he is a madman. Somtimes you like an idiot, you always hate a madman.
DealMonkey
Lifer
Cheney and Gore cancel themselves out on this issue FTW!
imported_Infidel
Member
What is your motive for spreading lies? What is your "FACT" that leads you to try to mislead people with false information? Neither you, nor your cause is noble.
Antarctic Ice
Greenland Ice
Solar Influence
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
