Al Gore nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

You guys are correct!
You guys probably won't get any response from the Pro-global warming or
Pro-Gore people.
Just think how close Gore was to being president, now thats scary!
Remember America is bad and any country other than America is good!

 

:lol: good stuff

 

Yet, another mistake about global disaster prediction, by leading scientists. http://www.reason.com/news/show/34758.html

Did that happen and nobody knows about it? I guess not, I guess it was just "leading scientists" making horrible mistakes and predictions.

 

there are virtually infinite examples of the consensus being wrong about various things.

that doesnt mean we cannot ever accept anything, but it does mean we shouldnt force collective action based on the current thought. if you read about the world, and decide it would be a good idea to reduce your "carbon footprint", thats nice, but you are not justified asking anyone else to do anything.

also the UN is a political organization, and as such should always be discounted immediately. by their nature, science and the UN should never mix. the UN is necessarily always pushing to impose thier will on various countries, and they really shouldnt have any authority whatsoever. the UN is often a place where 3rd world countries go to lean on the first world. and there is a reason 3rd world countries are 3rd world. they are terrible at everything.

many other factors are in play here, for instance a committee approach doesnt work in science, and also there is always a tendency for any given generation to overstate their importance as well as invent doomsday scenarios. people love to be frightened. even if nothing real is available to frighten themselves, they will find something. the gimp gave a couple great examples, and we could come up with many more.

string theory is an example of scientific question that is being handled correctly, for many years it was on the upswing, and people were really buying into it. now it is facing more doubt and people are not so sure if it has a chance to be the sort of holy grail unifying thing they once hoped. it is open to inquiry, and it waxes and wanes in popularity. if string theory were subject to politicalization like global warming, i am sure the whole issue would be co-opted by people looking to use it as a way to enact policies favorable to them. with string theory there are not people yelling all the time about what % of scientists believe this or that, because they dont give a damn who buys into it. when science is detached and objective, it works. when it is political, you can throw the results out and forget you ever heard of it.

when it becomes politically valuable for somebody to buy into your theories, the show is over, the issue is hopelessly muddled.

 

It is my opinon that we COULD be going through a warming period increased by the sun not man such as what is happening on Mars.
Does your group of scientists believe that greenhouse gases and man is effecting the climate of mars?
Notice below it says think?
Its not a fact that man has caused this like those on the other side try and make it out to be!

Here is an interesting site on Global Warming by the EPA
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/history.html
The Earth has warmed about 1ºF in the last 100 years. And the four warmest years of the 20th century all happened in the 1990s. Periods of increased heat from the sun may have helped make the Earth warmer. But many of the world's leading climatologists think that the greenhouse gases people produce are making the Earth warmer, too.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0505...050516-10.html
East Antartica glacier is growing

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._southpole.htm
NASA website on Mars Ice caps melting.

 

so your contention is that you favor no action to reverse global warming, you just hope people "listen"? why do you care if anyone listens?

 

when you say "address", who should do the addressing? if you mean "red55", then thats fine, but i suspect you mean "we", as in the government.

this is the politics i am talking about, are you not indicating that you favor some sort of collective action? well, that is politics!

no, my contention is that i do not use speculative science to control people and enact policy to restrict them.

i have been reading about the nature of dark matter. i read it, and that is all, i do not ask anyone to "address" it. i do not presume to force my will on anyone. if you care about dark matter or particle wave duality or atom smashing or any other scientific topic, good for you, i appreciate that you are intellectually curious. that is plenty different than asking for anyone to address anything. i do not care who addresses what, and i do not like to be told what i need to to address by governments or the UN. that's freedom, yall!

global warming is different than other topics in science because it is usually presented as alarm, as a call for collective action. well, i am not a collectivist, so no thanks.