1LT V6 - Global Warming Score? 3!

[ttazzijr700]

We gotta get old Al in here for this one.....

[navmaxlp]

Originally Posted by stovt001

Not trying to discredit academic research, but it seems any evidence against global warming is dismissed without thought by the believers as being the result of funding from groups with an economic interest in seeing the global warming scare go away. Now isn't it just as possible that all reports in support of global warming that are embraced with an equal lack of though are supported with funding from groups that stand to make a killing off of legislation pushing green products and services? This is how fear mongering has always worked.

Everytime I hear this debate, I am reminded of "Eugenics". Eugenics was the belief that there were certain humans that were genetically inferior and if they were removed from population by sterilization and euthanasia, humanity would only be breeding acceptibly intelligent offspring. The philosophy was widely accepted by science and was very popular in the early 1920s. Certain countries took the idea to extreme levels and the effect was one of the reasons for World War II. This being when Germany used the idea of eugenics to rationalise the extermination of the jewsish population. Once the world saw what this philosophy actually entailed when acted upon, they dropped the idea. I'm not saying global warming is a myth or that it is wrong. I'm just saying, there are times when "science" views things as truth then corrects itself when it finds out that it is wrong. My 2 cents

[patriotpa]

Originally Posted by blaSSt

Totally meaningless since man does not have the ability to affect global temperatures, positive or negative.

[mikenmar]

Originally Posted by navmaxlp

I'm not saying global warming is a myth or that it is wrong. I'm just saying, there are times when "science" views things as truth then corrects itself when it finds out that it is wrong. My 2 cents

That's true.

However, the poster indicated that "science" supports the proposition that "man does not have the ability to affect global temperatures".

If "science" really supports that proposition, surely the poster should be able to cite a single article in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that affirms that proposition.

[navmaxlp]

Originally Posted by mikenmar

That's true.

However, the poster indicated that "science" supports the proposition that "man does not have the ability to affect global temperatures".

If "science" really supports that proposition, surely the poster should be able to cite a single article in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that affirms that proposition.

What I'm saying is; science, at times, sites certain practices, research and methodology as being legitimately scientific when it is in fact flawed. You can find "scientific" information supporting both sides.

Links a plenty: (scroll down to the links below the graph)
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_T...showtopic=2050

Again, I'm not saying I do or do not believe global warming has or is occuring. I'm saying that sometimes you can't trust "scientific" research especially there is opposing evidence. Again, studies can be flawed

[Super83Z]

Originally Posted by mikenmar

Can you cite something for that proposition? Say, an article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

How about this:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Last I checked there aren't any Camaro's on Mars or humans for that matter. The ice caps on Mars are melting too, that is no opinion or anything like that.

[respect is earned]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

I, as a man, am completely insignificant in my affect on the environment. Men and women over the course of industrialization have had an impact. It may or may not be responsible for global temperature change. Since there is not a satisfactory measure of change or the experience of humans from the last ice age available, it is difficult to say whether there is a difference since the last time the temperature rose.

I will, however, assure you that human interference in the state of nature has changed Earth forever. We have developed technologies that have never before existed in nature, and those technologies have the capacity to bring incredible damage to the environment, other species, and other human beings. If you don't think that this is true, then you are ignoring obvious cases of human-caused damage. For example, if an oil tanker spills oil all over an island, many of the creatures exposed to the oil can die. Without human interference, this would not have been possible because that oil would have been deep underground. In another example, I will point to the damage caused by nuclear waste. Nuclear waste would not exist on Earth without human intervention. Finally, I will point to basic industrial toxins. Without humans mining coal or oil, there would be no coal-based or gas-based production. Without this production, there would be substantially less carbon in the atmosphere. Most of that carbon would be buried in the ground. With that in mind, it is impossible to argue that human beings over time have no impact because human beings are the only creatures on this planet to manufacture the toxins that we discuss in the same sentences as global warming.

I am not saying that global warming is a result of human intervention. I am saying that human intervention does exist. Without human intervention, we'd all be in jungles fighting over food and water instead of why my Camaro is cooler than your Challenger or Mustang.

nicely put blur

[Aversion]

"I'm just saying, there are times when "science" views things as truth then corrects itself when it finds out that it is wrong. My 2 cents"

That's pretty much how science works. Always has and it's brought us a long way. Unlike say religon that pretty much doesn't correct itself when its wrong (no offence to anyone on that one).

[Vash]

Meet after midnight for the rally... sports cars only.. no cat converters allowed.

If you see skynet bots fire a rocket at an SS then scatter.

This is a message from 20 years in the future to the illegal sports car underground.


(satire... with a touch of the matrix, terminator, 1984, manchurian candidate etc tossed into the mix).

[mikenmar]

Originally Posted by Super83Z

How about this:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Last I checked there aren't any Camaro's on Mars or humans for that matter. The ice caps on Mars are melting too, that is no opinion or anything like that.

Where does that article state that "man does not have the ability to affect global temperatures"?

[navmaxlp]

"That's pretty much how science works. Always has and it's brought us a long way. Unlike say religon that pretty much doesn't correct itself when its wrong (no offence to anyone on that one)."


Science is the search for truth. Things shouldn't be cited as fact when there is a doubt.

[Vash]

Sorry I should of said I think the forced global warming score thing will lead to banning of sports cars in general. If it continues on it's Fedzilla path.

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by blaSSt

Totally meaningless since man does not have the ability to affect global temperatures, positive or negative.

[Aversion]

Originally Posted by navmaxlp

"That's pretty much how science works. Always has and it's brought us a long way. Unlike say religon that pretty much doesn't correct itself when its wrong (no offence to anyone on that one)."


Science is the search for truth. Things shouldn't be cited as fact when there is a doubt.

There will always be doubt. I agree that it should not be cited as fact. On the same note it should no be ignored or trivialized because there is doubt. Doubt alone does not make something untrue.