Global warming--not convinced

[ELF]

Originally Posted by skewbe

Venus is hot because:
A. Free Will
B. Those damn politicians
C. The greenhouse effect
D. People needing, and dying from, medicine

I guess C. the greenhouse effect, Sooo.... I guess people used to live on venus?

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by ELF

I guess C. the greenhouse effect, Sooo.... I guess people used to live on venus?

Problem is that the op was not convinced of environmental change because he doesn't want to believe it, not because of the evidence, which I do not see that he has bothered to examine when forging his opinion.

The op basic argument at this point seems to be: Politics and money exist, therefore GW doesn't.

There would be nothing left in the universe if that were a valid argument.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

can't decide if you're insulting my intelligence or missing my points. so here it is in simple form: GW is aposed(and supported) by scientists with compelling data. because politics can be influenced by money, there are many issues(including GW) that can be "spun" to that advantage..

Jejejejeje. The only problem with that angle is it can be used with almost anything. Because you can be influenced by money, there are many issues(including GW) that can be "spun" to that advantage..

If you really think GW is BS, why not address pro-GW peer reviewed papers in a coherent matter? If it is indeed being spun around for profit, the papers published on it will not pass muster. Unfortunately I'm afraid you'll find that even if every scientist alive agreed GW was a problem that needed to be addressed ASAP, they still wouldn't let anything peer reviewed get past 'em if it was grossly inaccurate.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq

Jejejejeje. The only problem with that angle is it can be used with almost anything. Because you can be influenced by money, there are many issues(including GW) that can be "spun" to that advantage..

If you really think GW is BS, why not address pro-GW peer reviewed papers in a coherent matter? If it is indeed being spun around for profit, the papers published on it will not pass muster. Unfortunately I'm afraid you'll find that even if every scientist alive agreed GW was a problem that needed to be addressed ASAP, they still wouldn't let anything peer reviewed get past 'em if it was grossly inaccurate.

Bingo! We have a winner. The peer review process is brutal. It's difficult to establish your name as a credible source - but oh so easy to utterly destroy it. If it ever becomes evident that money is your driving power as a member of academia, making publications - you're abruptly tossed away.

I mean really, if the ultimate driving force is money - they'd actually cook something up that didn't come with extra baggage. They're not stupid. Appropriate citations include a volume/journal number, page range, etc.

I'm disappointed when, instead of attacking the theory, academia itself is hit.

[ELF]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

brilliant! sorry to drag you into this, but it's nice to see a fellow skeptic that's not afraid to use sarcasm. be careful though, they'll call you insane!

I do believe that we humans are changing/ affecting the climate to some degree. But we probably won't know how much is us and how much is natural, until its too late.