A Solution To Global Warming

Kaiku is a speculation merchant though. When he is on TV that is not science. I happen to like him because he brings science to the masses, I happen to dislike his science but that is by the by. Even Kaiku has admitted that String theory for example has not lived up to the hype and that M theory is lacking somehow, although that is not his science exactly. If you want to see his science you probably should read his published papers not rely on the media.

who the hell cares about opinions?

And who the hell said AGW was a scientific fact? It’s a theory, it is not evolution which could be accorded the term fact. Even fact is not an absolute term in science, it does not for example mean it is true.

ALL of what you hear from the media and magazines is there only to inspire you in a chosen direction. On occasion, that direction happens to concern truth. But YOU have no way of knowing when those occasions are.

I also agree but then the general public do not do science, the Scientists do and we have to credit them with some discretion.

The issue of global warming is directly connected to the issue and incentive for global governing.
Thus nothing you hear is going to have any actual creditability.

You DO NOT EVER hear from the real scientists.
You hear only what is presented to you to hear by the media of varied sorts.
When you actually see a scientist saying something, you only see what he is saying that happens to agree with what is supposed to be believed.
You do not see all he says that might express his total disagreement with what you are supposed to believe.

You have to actually interview a scientist yourself to discover what he really meant by anything he might have said prior.

Yeah actually that is horse shit cause I have spoken directly with climatology scientists so alright most people don’t but if you put the effort in you can speak to the Scientists.

You need to try harder I think. If you can’t talk to the real Scientists I can only assume either you haven’t tired hard enough, or that you are a little lazy.


When I am talking directly with a climatology expert, on a forum about AGW I can see exactly what he means. This is not that hard to do. I myself can give you links to forums or science blogs etc, where accredited experts do discuss the issues face to face, both deniers and AGW proponents. It may take some time to fish them out but you only have to ask. Frankly if you are not talking directly with the people on the ground you aren’t that interested. If you are not that interested you are a layman always, and since you don’t do science or influence politicians no one cares.

Or you simply have a distorted view of reality and who a “real scientist” actually is concerning any issue.

I edited.

And yes I have actually met climatology experts, they were weaving magic spells and saying things that simply weren’t true, because they are liars and sorcerers. :wink:

A Scientist on climatology and specifically the field of AGW, is a person who has a PhD in a relevant field who has done research in said field, and most likely has published papers in journals and is a member of an accredited institution. Although not always, it tends to depend on your country of origin.

throughagreenlens.com/2009/07/24 … -debunked/

This link might interest you:

You need to not be so gullible I think, in the same way the media can lead you to false conclusion on the pros of AGW it can lead you to false conclusions on the cons.


Ultimately though an opinion in science is worth about as much as a pile of crap. I could get 30,000 signatures on a petition saying evolution is false. No one would care.

There is a simple flaw in your retort (minimum)…

A scientist knows what “science” is and looks like, right?
The petition stated that global warming reports were not scientific.
They don’t have to be climatologists to see whether a report is scientific.
Hell I can do that much.

Additionally, anyone can look into Quantum Mechanics, and if they know a little math, can tell that almost the entirety of QM is no more than speculation and literal superstition. Yet what YOU see as “what most scientists believe” would imply that QM is the best science we have. Yet it isn’t actually science AT ALL.

In addition;
"I heard that most Mexicans believe in X. I met a few Mexicans and they believed in X.
Therefore, “most Mexicans believe in X”.

How scientific is that assessment?
Yet that is your claim for veracity.

A scientist who is not in climatology is no more credible than a mathematician who says that evoltution is false. You can have an opinion, opinions are worth shit.

If the petition was signed by 30,000 climatology experts on AGW someone would care. The fact that it is not means it is worth as much as a book with no prose in it. It’s empty and lacking definition or reason. It is empty.

There are probably a few million people in science who know nothing about evolution who would sign a petition saying they think it is false. As I say no one would give a shit for two reasons 1) opinions are worthless 2) and let me reiterate this: if you have no knowledge of a subject beyond the layman why on Earth would anyone care?

Prove it. I have had enough of you making assertions you can’t back up, either prove why anything about QM is wrong or superstition or likewise no one cares.

I would agree some interpretational sides of the argument are philosophy but then Bohm and others never won a a Nobel prize for his interpretation so who cares? So… What is it you dispute exactly?

Simple way to reveal a truth…
“Where are the 30,000 climatologists that signed the petition stating that global warming IS caused by industrial nations?”

Of course, you overlooked the point (no surprise).
A scientist knows what science looks like… no matter what field of science it is.

You never answered my questions. Why does anyone give credence to opinion. Surely science is about peer review? Are you really expecting me to take the opinions of a little less than 30,000 Laymen over the scientific process?

Hell no, money where their mouth is too. Publish refutations, learn the field, no one cares if some MD from hampton wick thinks it is false. No one cares if some MD from Hampton Wik thinks it is true either for that matter.

If I got a petition from 1 million nobodies who think AGW is true does that beat your those who think it is false. No it is 1 million nobodies no one cares about.

The ONLY thing YOU have is opinions from which you make your statements of your opinion.
In MY case, on a few Physics and Psychology issues, I AM the “scientist”. My opinions have a foundation in direct experience that is independently repeatable. MY experience with news reports (as a psychologist) as to what “science says” is that such reports LIE. Without reading the actual experiments themselves and knowing what to look for, you are stuck with mere reported opinions of others.

Have you actually tried to “publish a scientific paper”?
In order to get it published, YOU have to be “one of them”.
If you don’t believe that, which you probably don’t, just try it.
Until then, you have only opinion that what you are hearing has any credibility at all.

You have a religious Faith in “Science”… that isn’t even Science.

Er no I have a wide dearth of scientific papers I could quote if you were to ask and a wide circle of Scientists I talk to on the subject. What are you talking about here because your just not making any sense, I ask you for evidence and you turned around and said that is my opinion? I asked first for evidence. What are you doing here, just dicking with me?

No I have no faith in science whatsoever, what I have faith in is God or maybe belief or maybe the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. Science however is not a faith based deal. If you are just going to mess me about and not answer any of my questions or do anything I ask then just get bent. :slight_smile:

You have been asked to provide backing for your assertions, you have failed, not just here but on every thread you have been asked to do that. If you continue to fail to back up what you say why should I even talk to you? Honestly I am doing all the work here and all you are doing is saying no you are just wrong, you really are because I say so. Either back up what you claim or I wont bother replying any more.

I don’t have an opinion, I have an accord with verifiable science. Something you seem very reticent to produce even when asked several times. So what have you got for the 3rd time?

We have established what science is about, let’s stop dancing around the issue.

Then why argue that mine is wrong?

You have your reasons for believing what you have stated.
I stated my reasons for believe what I believe.

It isn’t my fault that my way doesn’t require as much “work” as yours.

Ok if you continue to talk around me I am going to ignore you, I am asking you questions or I am asking you to prove things, and why then you maintain your opinion. I am not arguing about opinions in and of themselves, I am asking what yours are based on, because people don’t formulate opinions based on faith alone (the subject is not religion), and I presume you have a reason to believe what you do. I am asking you to validate your opinion with evidence, I have been asking that for nearly two pages now. Continue to talk shit at me and I will ignore you from now on, it’s that simple. I will not talk to people who have absolutely no evidence for anything they claim, and base there opinions there in on nothing. Such people are not worth my attention. Show me some evidence for anything you say or don’t at this point I really couldn’t care a rat tailed shrew for anything you think, because its all based on hot air.

Show me some evidence. How many times can I say this before it sinks in?

Please remain civil guys - thank you

We are remaining civil, please point out any part of anything everyone has said that is not civil?

Clearly you either don’t know what civil means, or you are making a stand against heated debate. Either way why should I care unless you justify it?

Civil? What is civil? What I said on another thread was far from civil and yet you took no notice of that? What do you think civil is, and don’t just ignore this because mods can’t discuss issues, cause that just makes you wrong because you can’t justify your self.

Has James complained that I am being rude?

If so then it is not civil. But I probably wont give a shit anyway, cause James seems like an adult who can take it. For which I offer my respect. :slight_smile:

No-one has complained about either person, and I did say ‘remain civil’ didn’t I? :wink:

Heavy handed, if no one is being uncivil why say remain civil? We’re not 8, we don’t need to be told to remain civil when we already are. Do we? Or are you just being patronising?

Nothing to see here. No one did anything wrong. Move along. It’s amazing how we can actually do things within the rules at our respective ages without being molly coddled by people that are younger than us isn’t it. Gotta love the internet. :slight_smile:

To use an analogy STFU and drive. :slight_smile:

When you get to my grand old age only then can you patronise me. The term patronise definition look it up. :slight_smile:

Glad to see you took it so well hahw :confused: My request for civility to remain has never been seen in a negative light before, and has never even been worth a reply to before… as you were :wink: