quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
I think one of the most revealing comments about this topic was Owls:

quote:

Stupid Politics

A debate about a scientific theory ought on the face of it not be about politics at all, but clearly it is. Personally I find the case for anthropogenic global warming fairly persuasive, but then I would, wouldn't I. But why is it that the left tends to accept the theory while the right tends to reject it? I could speculate, but my speculations would be shaped by my politics. How do those of you on the right explain this politicisation of a scientific debate? Perhaps if we can find an answer to this, we might be able to be a bit more objective about the whole issue.

..... My short answer (with respect to politicization) is that an immensely great deal of money is potentially involved.

I thought the correct term was "climate change"?

quote:

Originally posted by joeap:
I thought the correct term was "climate change"?

..... Good point! Recent thermometer behavior has made "global warming" a difficult sell lately, so the marketers are trying to subtly re-package the scam.

I believe the term is 'moving the goalposts'

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
I think one of the most revealing comments about this topic was Owls:

quote:

Stupid Politics

A debate about a scientific theory ought on the face of it not be about politics at all, but clearly it is. Personally I find the case for anthropogenic global warming fairly persuasive, but then I would, wouldn't I. But why is it that the left tends to accept the theory while the right tends to reject it? I could speculate, but my speculations would be shaped by my politics. How do those of you on the right explain this politicisation of a scientific debate? Perhaps if we can find an answer to this, we might be able to be a bit more objective about the whole issue.

indeed...money.
If it is scientifically proven or disproven that the burning of certain fuels, and wide spread deforestation causes "climate change" it would dictate public perception of the companies involved.

I think global warming is a very real thing, and i was taught more about it in school where political agendas, hopefully, were left out.
My understanding of it is that the weather fluctuates under several frequencies, related to ocean currents, angle of the sun, as well as distance from the sun in orbit. It is possible to have a cooling trend over a ten year period, and still have warmer temperatures over a 50 year average.

There is also a strong correlation with C02 in the atmosphere given catastrophic events like valcanos and such, recorded in the carbon patterns of fossils and other crap that people see in the dirt under our feet. Its easy to make the conclusion that human beings contribute a lot of Co2, therefore contributing to the warming effects. Others think that global warming is actually a natural pattern and a cycle the earth goes through every 300,000 years. This is the core of the argument, because some also think a catastrophic event or high amounts of Co2 is was what initially caused the warming leading to a subsequent ice age.



Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation. Its very similar to how the public was sold the idea that cigarettes didn't cause cancer.
You believe what you want, but i don't smoke cigarettes. Although, the idea of having beach front property is nice too, but i would think getting hammered by 3 level 4 or higher hurricanes every year would get kind of annoying.

my two and half cents.

quote:

Originally posted by Choctaw111:

Wasn't it just back in the late 70's when scientists were warning of another Ice Age? Now look at what the scientists have gotten the world in a clamor over with this new warming stuff. Maybe we will have another Ice Age now

Not the 70's ice age chestnut again. Are you channelling Taggie?

Seriously the 70's ice age thing was a media construct, mainly resulting from a newsweek article.
The science of the time as seen in peer reviewed journals (not newsweek) showed a general consensus even then for 'warming scenarios'.

Please read the following paper reviewing the literature of the 1970s.

http://ams.allenpress.com/arch...0-0477-89-9-1325.pdf

[QUOTE]
and i was taught more about it in school where political agendas, hopefully, were left out.

Are you kidding? Teachers/Professors can be just as biased as you and I. Schools teach global warming caused by man starting at an early age.
When kids hear this thier whole life without an opposing viewpoint, most take it as gospel.
Sometimes, disagreeing with a college professors political views is begging for a lower grade.

quote:

Originally posted by pwengland:
[QUOTE]
and i was taught more about it in school where political agendas, hopefully, were left out.

Are you kidding? Teachers/Professors can be just as biased as you and I. Schools teach global warming caused by man starting at an early age.
When kids hear this thier whole life without an opposing viewpoint, most take it as gospel.
Sometimes, disagreeing with a college professors political views is begging for a lower grade.

Well as a UK science teacher I can assure you in my faculty we make a point of sticking with the science and avoiding the politics and the media 'cartoon' version.

quote:

Sometimes, disagreeing with a college professors political views is begging for a lower grade.

If that is true, you either don't know how to argue properly, or went to the wrong college.

quote:

Schools teach global warming caused by man starting at an early age. When kids hear this thier whole life without an opposing viewpoint, most take it as gospel.

Schools teach lots of things without an opposing viewpoint, particularly in science lessons. If you want schools to teach another scientific theory, you need scientific justification to do so. Most of the arguments I've seen so far against climate change in this forum seem to be little more than conspiracy theories.

Well, you said it in your own post, "theory".

quote:

Originally posted by K_Freddie:


and this is the cause of the Ice Age...

I actually like this a lot more and find it much more erotic than women running around with BAREly a thing on. It leaves so much more to the imagination. You know what I mean.
Check out her waistline. Like an hourglass

quote:

Well, you said it in your own post, "theory".

That is right: science is all about 'theory' - all scientific knowledge is provisional, and may be disproven at a later date. If a theory is incapable of disproof, it is not science. Do you want schools to stop teaching science, Pwengland?

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:

quote:

Well, you said it in your own post, "theory".

That is right: science is all about 'theory' - all scientific knowledge is provisional, and may be disproven at a later date. If a theory is incapable of disproof, it is not science. Do you want schools to stop teaching science, Pwengland?

Ok,but we're not ready to spend billions of dollars on other theoties are we?

People are invited to visit the following website -

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142

Read all three articles on the ten year effort to obtain the Briffa Yamal No. 1 data set, upon which the famous global warming "hockey stick" graph was originally founded. Draw your own conclusions about who is practicing legitimate science and who is indulging in "conspiracy theories".

quote:

Originally posted by pwengland:

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:

quote:

Well, you said it in your own post, "theory".

That is right: science is all about 'theory' - all scientific knowledge is provisional, and may be disproven at a later date. If a theory is incapable of disproof, it is not science. Do you want schools to stop teaching science, Pwengland?

Ok,but we're not ready to spend billions of dollars on other theoties are we?

I've no idea what the global science budget for the testing of scientific theories is, but if you want to see billions of dollars, or at least billions of Swiss Francs spent on science look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

You have not answered my question: do you want schools to stop teaching science?