General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

............

p.s. It's very disingenuous of you to say you're not advocating either side when you clearly are.

Yes, I do have an opinion today. I can only try to stay neutral. I guess that is what I am saying. Not preaching. Only questioning.

I saw your other post about the diretor of the video. Not sure if that completely discredits it. IMO, the points needed to discredited. Quite a few scientists said some interesting things.

Just for info, here's a guy who's been through the video and pulled a bunch of the misrepresented facts out and highlighted them. You only have to look at the first two graphs to see what he's up to.

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

Classic stuff, including the old, "just show a slice of the graph and no scale".

I mean, just click on these two. The first is his representation of the (nasa) data in the second. It's a screenshot from the film:

http://www.durangobill.com/SwindlePics/SwindleFakeTemp.jpg
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

You do not like my debates in the past. I am not going back and arguing those.

I want to go back to the terrorist thread, I think I agree with a decent number of your points now and we could give these freedom hating hippies a run for their money.

Yes, I do have an opinion today. I can only try to stay neutral. I guess that is what I am saying. Not preaching. Only questioning.

I saw your other post about the diretor of the video. Not sure if that completely discredits it. IMO, the points needed to discredited. Quite a few scientists said some interesting things.

The quote I posted shows that he has grossly misrepresented what scientists have said through editing. I'm sure the scientists involved were pretty surprised at what they apparently said in this film too. He's made several. The one about how breast implants prevent cancer was a bit of a highlight.

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

Wow.

Haven't watched the video in the op, but saw the comment about CO2 increase lagging temp. This guy http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html discusses that at around the 9:30 mark.

I kinda of agree the video wasn't as compelling as I expected it to be. That's not to say it's terrible or useless but I viewed it as a pretty decent introduction to one side of the issue.

Also as a minor side point I dislike the limitations languages imposes on skepticism. The strict definition does follow that someone who is skeptical is a skeptic, someone who doubts... but I see being a skeptic overall is just a way of applying critical thinking and evidence to things. Being a skeptic isn't a position, it's reasonable that there are skeptics on both sides of some issues, and of course some in the middle. So when I see the title it irks me a little that at least to me skeptic kind of goes a long a lot more with science/rationality etc and belief more attached to faith/religion. Not sure if you were going for that Sneakers, and like I said it's obv not a big deal and that's just my interpretation of it. I guess this is just a rant on our lack/ambiguity of language for these things. And sorry for saying skeptic so much it certainly can be an annoying word misused in my cases ("hey man I'm just asking questions about the moon landing... I'm a skeptic!")

I think I agree with you. Using the word skeptic, I am implying being a doubter vs believer.

I do believe it is a scientist's role to be a skeptic and completely honest and neutral to the results. Absolutely. Create the hypothesis and prove or disprove it. Don't fix the data for the desired result.

My opinion, is that this is all about money. If GW gets debunked, a lot of jobs and business get shut down. There is huge investment in GW being proselytized. Everyone must be converted, or they are holocoust deniers (Gore) or believe in slavery (Gore). Anytime I hear that kind of talk, I become a skeptic. Something just isn't right.

The fact that it was warmer or colder in the past has zero relevance. There are only two things that matter.

A) If we increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will it then lead to an increase in temperatur?
B) Are we currently increasing the levels of CO2.

Cliffs:
A) yes
B) yes

I think I agree with you. Using the word skeptic, I am implying being a doubter vs believer.

I do believe it is a scientist's role to be a skeptic and completely honest and neutral to the results. Absolutely. Create the hypothesis and prove or disprove it. Don't fix the data for the desired result.

My opinion, is that this is all about money. If GW gets debunked, a lot of jobs and business get shut down. There is huge investment in GW being proselytized. Everyone must be converted, or they are holocoust deniers (Gore) or believe in slavery (Gore). Anytime I hear that kind of talk, I become a skeptic. Something just isn't right.

I really think you've got the money thing the wrong way around here. Considering companies like exxon pump millions into anti-climate change 'science' I'd have thought you'd have seen who stands to lose money here.

People working in physics labs don't care what the answer is, they just want to know the answer. They'll keep on researching things whatever that answer is. People working for massive petrochemical companies definitely want to know the answer. In fact they'll tell you the answer they've already decided upon and pay you to make shit up to match it.

Did you look at those graphs?

Dean Martin refutes global warming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crFQpOCDfEc

Everyone must be converted, or they are holocoust deniers (Gore) or believe in slavery (Gore). Anytime I hear that kind of talk, I become a skeptic. Something just isn't right.

Sure but one person doesn't make the movement, and I'd doubt there's many intelligent people on this subject that consider Gore a leader or an influential source on the real GW science that's going on. He certainly hasn't been accepted by these people as the figurehead (of course this may seem different to the general population). He's a dude with little scientific background that wanted to get his opinion out there, I'm not sure why his comments seem to form so many of your views on what we should be looking at - the real science. I'm sure there are people who have said silly things in the name of GW doubters, we wouldn't impose that they speak for everyone on that side.

The fact that it was warmer or colder in the past has zero relevance. There are only two things that matter.

A) If we increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will it then lead to an increase in temperatur?
B) Are we currently increasing the levels of CO2.

Cliffs:
A) yes
B) yes

A) no. CO2 follows, rather than causes temperature. That is the debate regarding Al Gore's famous hockey stick graph
B) it is minimal, meaning that for the purposes of GW, it is being blown out of proportion

This is from opposing scientists. If it was so crystal clear, a debate would be invited -- but is avoided by Gore. This makes me think GW is shaky science.

.

The fact that it was warmer or colder in the past has zero relevance. There are only two things that matter.

A) If we increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will it then lead to an increase in temperatur?
B) Are we currently increasing the levels of CO2.

Cliffs:
A) yes
B) yes

It really is this simple.

My opinion, is that this is all about money. If GW gets debunked, a lot of jobs and business get shut down. There is huge investment in GW being proselytized. Everyone must be converted, or they are holocoust deniers (Gore) or believe in slavery (Gore). Anytime I hear that kind of talk, I become a skeptic. Something just isn't right.

Really? The people who have the biggest financial stake in this are the ones who proposing that climate change is happening? As opposed to some of the largest companies on earth?

I am beginning to understand that you aren't Al Gore's biggest fan, but he's just a mouthpiece. He's not doing/interpreting the science.

The fact that it was warmer or colder in the past has zero relevance. There are only two things that matter.

A) If we increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will it then lead to an increase in temperatur?
B) Are we currently increasing the levels of CO2.

Cliffs:
A) yes
B) yes

Add a third and fourth question:
C) How much of a CO2 rise are we causing?
.......
D) Will an increase in temperature have more negative effects than the prescription of reducing the pace of industrialization?
.......