where are the Arabs happy?
- Thread starter David Morton
- Start date
I am absolutely amazed that nobody has taken David to task for suggesting that a nuclear strike on Israel may not be such a bad idea...
Does the lack of response, chiding, rhetoric suggest that everybody here agrees with him?
Is there a consensus?
That would mean, that everyone here has something in common with the aims of radical Islam..:stunned: And there's me thinking it was going to be a quiet news day.
I think we should be told....
Does the lack of response, chiding, rhetoric suggest that everybody here agrees with him?
Is there a consensus?
That would mean, that everyone here has something in common with the aims of radical Islam..:stunned: And there's me thinking it was going to be a quiet news day.
I think we should be told....
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
As in "yes" I think all of the scientists (a majority of them in the world) are all wrong, and I am right because I saw a picture of a glacier at Lake Louise?
This is why this becomes such a difficult conversation. Rarely is the actual science discussed, it's always stuff like "there are 4 more polar bears than last year!"
I've never seen a reaction to a scientific conclusion like this one really, except maybe in the history books where they went after Copernicus and Galileo for claiming the world didn't revolve around the Earth.
This is why this becomes such a difficult conversation. Rarely is the actual science discussed, it's always stuff like "there are 4 more polar bears than last year!"
I've never seen a reaction to a scientific conclusion like this one really, except maybe in the history books where they went after Copernicus and Galileo for claiming the world didn't revolve around the Earth.
I think there is a general mistrust of scientists full stop. Their reasons are not always altruistic - they compete for 'research grants', the Nobel prize for whatever and eternal recognition.
I don't understand the science and nor does Pete I would guess, but I do know that 99% of science is observation so that would makes Pete's glacier comment quite valid. True, a proper scientific conclusion should only be reached after many hours of observation, but I guess they probably shut the bar by then.
How can we debate a science which is yet unproven and that most of us have no intellectual understanding of?
How do we know that the Earth is not beginning a regular extinction phase all of it's own accord?
We don't, and there's the rub. No advocate of climate change can conclusively prove that what is happening is not normal and is purely caused by Mans' excesses, and nobody that pooh poohs the science of climate change can prove that it is natural.
So, no point in debating it really unless and until everybody agrees a common reference point which everyone can understand and works from.
I think they should hold a meeting about having a meeting to instigate a series of meetings to discuss this right away.
I don't understand the science and nor does Pete I would guess, but I do know that 99% of science is observation so that would makes Pete's glacier comment quite valid. True, a proper scientific conclusion should only be reached after many hours of observation, but I guess they probably shut the bar by then.
How can we debate a science which is yet unproven and that most of us have no intellectual understanding of?
How do we know that the Earth is not beginning a regular extinction phase all of it's own accord?
We don't, and there's the rub. No advocate of climate change can conclusively prove that what is happening is not normal and is purely caused by Mans' excesses, and nobody that pooh poohs the science of climate change can prove that it is natural.
So, no point in debating it really unless and until everybody agrees a common reference point which everyone can understand and works from.
I think they should hold a meeting about having a meeting to instigate a series of meetings to discuss this right away.
Peter Delaney
GT40s Supporter
Climate change - yes - bloody obvious as its been happening for millions of years - hot/cold/hot/cold......
Leading & Lagging Indicators :
Lagging = sea temps/levels, glaciers, etc - we are looking at the END results of recent climate change (warming).
Leading = sun-spot activity cycles - maybe we are looking down the barrel of the next ice-age ?
Leading & Lagging Indicators :
Lagging = sea temps/levels, glaciers, etc - we are looking at the END results of recent climate change (warming).
Leading = sun-spot activity cycles - maybe we are looking down the barrel of the next ice-age ?
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
So you are saying if the answer is never truly 100% "knowable," then science on that issue is bunk and not worth debating? Really?
You just tossed most modern science out the window.
And no, it's not a valid position to say in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary that it snowed a lot at my house this winter, thus global warming is a fraud.
Certainly some scientists can be swayed by money and grants and prizes. They are, after all, people. But when a list of scientists and scientific bodies like I posted above has reached a conclusion on something, "general mistrust of scientists" becomes kooky conspiracy talk.
In fact, if there is a conspiracy here, I'd say it is this. I saw a poll the other day that said 80% of white males who self identify as conservative don't believe the Earth is warming (much less that humans are causing it). That seems to me to be an anti-scientific conspiracy propogated by the babbleheads on cable news that this is all some Democractic policgy agenda when in fact it is coming (at least at first) from scientists.
You just tossed most modern science out the window.
And no, it's not a valid position to say in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary that it snowed a lot at my house this winter, thus global warming is a fraud.
Certainly some scientists can be swayed by money and grants and prizes. They are, after all, people. But when a list of scientists and scientific bodies like I posted above has reached a conclusion on something, "general mistrust of scientists" becomes kooky conspiracy talk.
In fact, if there is a conspiracy here, I'd say it is this. I saw a poll the other day that said 80% of white males who self identify as conservative don't believe the Earth is warming (much less that humans are causing it). That seems to me to be an anti-scientific conspiracy propogated by the babbleheads on cable news that this is all some Democractic policgy agenda when in fact it is coming (at least at first) from scientists.
David wants to destroy the entire area not just Israel. Nothing racist about he hates eveyone including himself (remember where your religious roots are). He seems to not have any issue with destroying history or changing facts (BTW China is currently the BIGGEST POLLUTER in the world Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions | Union of Concerned Scientists ). The U.S. is only per capita David but I suspect that you knew that when you posted that.
Damo - If the US is per capita, doesn't that make you the most selfish as well?
:lurker:
Jeff, what I said that endless debate on a subject we only know via media propaganda is pointless. Informed debate is not pointless and I never said that.
My point was (and is) to try and establish an datum for further discussion on the subject, otherwise it will become an endless cycle of rhetoric if it isn't already.
Information overload is as bad as lack of information.
You put forward your science and then tell us how you arrived at that conclusion. Somewhere along the way you are going to have to trust someone who has an agenda. Al Gore springs to mind.. and that makes the science fraudulent and untrustworthy.
The fact is we don't KNOW diddly squat even how the Earth was formed let alone how it's going to die.
If the Climate Change debate leads us to a less selfish lifestyle and a general acceptance that we are all in the same global boat (apart from David, who has built his own) then I believe the debate will have been worthwhile. If not, it's a load more hot air which will warm the planet even faster.
In the meantime and back to the Arab thing, take a look at this program. It is 48 minutes long and you may not be able to get it in your country. If so, let me know and I will host it. It is a very very worrying development.
This is the kind of thing that scares the shit out of me - a legalised Murder Incorporated - judge, jury, executioner. Some democracy....:shifty:
http://youtu.be/Cdk710ohVcg
If you are able to see it, I will wait patiently for someone to tell me that this is scaremongering by the left wing press.
Edit: Priorities spring to mind...have you any idea how much military action contributes to global warming? (if it's true that is
My point was (and is) to try and establish an datum for further discussion on the subject, otherwise it will become an endless cycle of rhetoric if it isn't already.
Information overload is as bad as lack of information.
You put forward your science and then tell us how you arrived at that conclusion. Somewhere along the way you are going to have to trust someone who has an agenda. Al Gore springs to mind.. and that makes the science fraudulent and untrustworthy.
The fact is we don't KNOW diddly squat even how the Earth was formed let alone how it's going to die.
If the Climate Change debate leads us to a less selfish lifestyle and a general acceptance that we are all in the same global boat (apart from David, who has built his own) then I believe the debate will have been worthwhile. If not, it's a load more hot air which will warm the planet even faster.
In the meantime and back to the Arab thing, take a look at this program. It is 48 minutes long and you may not be able to get it in your country. If so, let me know and I will host it. It is a very very worrying development.
This is the kind of thing that scares the shit out of me - a legalised Murder Incorporated - judge, jury, executioner. Some democracy....:shifty:
http://youtu.be/Cdk710ohVcg
If you are able to see it, I will wait patiently for someone to tell me that this is scaremongering by the left wing press.
Edit: Priorities spring to mind...have you any idea how much military action contributes to global warming? (if it's true that is
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
And I say that is lazy. The basic science is out there, just start with Mann on the one side and McIntyre on the other, and it's not hard to get a basic scientific understanding of this.
Getting lazy and relying on Fox News or its UK equivalement, and stories about five more polar bears! to reach your conclusion, and then claiming that all of the scientific data is a conspiracy is, frankly, stupid.
Do stop with the all the pro-AGW science has an agenda and is fraudulent. That's an offensive slap in the face to the majority of the world's scientists who are working to try to figure out what is going on.
I can't get that video. I'm glad. I'm sure it's just more "look at those crazy Muslim" hate.
Getting lazy and relying on Fox News or its UK equivalement, and stories about five more polar bears! to reach your conclusion, and then claiming that all of the scientific data is a conspiracy is, frankly, stupid.
Do stop with the all the pro-AGW science has an agenda and is fraudulent. That's an offensive slap in the face to the majority of the world's scientists who are working to try to figure out what is going on.
I can't get that video. I'm glad. I'm sure it's just more "look at those crazy Muslim" hate.
Jeff, what I said that endless debate on a subject we only know via media propaganda is pointless. Informed debate is not pointless and I never said that.
My point was (and is) to try and establish an datum for further discussion on the subject, otherwise it will become an endless cycle of rhetoric if it isn't already.
Information overload is as bad as lack of information.
You put forward your science and then tell us how you arrived at that conclusion. Somewhere along the way you are going to have to trust someone who has an agenda. Al Gore springs to mind.. and that makes the science fraudulent and untrustworthy.
The fact is we don't KNOW diddly squat even how the Earth was formed let alone how it's going to die.
If the Climate Change debate leads us to a less selfish lifestyle and a general acceptance that we are all in the same global boat (apart from David, who has built his own) then I believe the debate will have been worthwhile. If not, it's a load more hot air which will warm the planet even faster.
In the meantime and back to the Arab thing, take a look at this program. It is 48 minutes long and you may not be able to get it in your country. If so, let me know and I will host it. It is a very very worrying development.
This is the kind of thing that scares the shit out of me - a legalised Murder Incorporated - judge, jury, executioner. Some democracy....:shifty:
http://youtu.be/Cdk710ohVcg
If you are able to see it, I will wait patiently for someone to tell me that this is scaremongering by the left wing press.
Edit: Priorities spring to mind...have you any idea how much military action contributes to global warming? (if it's true that is
Jeff, you probably shouldn't jump to conclusions.... But then you know that, you're a lawyer... Let's just say that it's rather more US-centric.
It's a cycle, get over it!
Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective
Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Sure.
I'd put good money though on what the vid is. Some crazy folks who happen to be Muslim doing something that some white guy then applies to all of Islam.
I've seen that about 1000 times before.
I'd put good money though on what the vid is. Some crazy folks who happen to be Muslim doing something that some white guy then applies to all of Islam.
I've seen that about 1000 times before.
C'mon Jeff mate - that's not like you... It's not about that at all...
Guys,
I have kept my head low while reading this thread. As a PhD scientist, MD physician AND a fairly conservative guy (maybe pigeon-holed as an independent Republican?), I am the ultimate target for discussion! :thumbsup:
First, I want to thank all for finally proving my "Theory of Forum Entropy" and we shold now consider it a scientific fact.
Second, Scientists compete for funding not because they are money hungry....just hungry like everyone else. Research funding is their livelihood, their "job" so to speak. They do have a passion for what they do, testing theories to advance theory to fact or to refute theory. One observation makes for poor scientific technique (an N of one....not good for statistical analysis). Scientific results that are independently repeated make for a strong validation of a theory, such as that seen with the global warming issue. True, most of the data is retrospective and is "weaker" than prospective data, BUT the mass of data accumulated can be very powerful and compelling. True, the world has warmed and cooled in cycles and we may be in one of the natural swings. But consider what the world was like during those swings and what life was present - what life became extinct during those epochs. If we add to the rate of warming by human efforts we may be hastening our own extinction. I'm sure most of can "take the heat", but the little critters of the ocean and earth, those at the bottom of the food chain are actually pretty fragile and can't. So, what do we do? That's the toughest challenge, perhaps as challenging as trying to control what to do with the global economy.
Most scientists have "open minds" and have learned to expect the unexpected in their findings.
OK, you may fire at will.....
I have kept my head low while reading this thread. As a PhD scientist, MD physician AND a fairly conservative guy (maybe pigeon-holed as an independent Republican?), I am the ultimate target for discussion! :thumbsup:
First, I want to thank all for finally proving my "Theory of Forum Entropy" and we shold now consider it a scientific fact.
Second, Scientists compete for funding not because they are money hungry....just hungry like everyone else. Research funding is their livelihood, their "job" so to speak. They do have a passion for what they do, testing theories to advance theory to fact or to refute theory. One observation makes for poor scientific technique (an N of one....not good for statistical analysis). Scientific results that are independently repeated make for a strong validation of a theory, such as that seen with the global warming issue. True, most of the data is retrospective and is "weaker" than prospective data, BUT the mass of data accumulated can be very powerful and compelling. True, the world has warmed and cooled in cycles and we may be in one of the natural swings. But consider what the world was like during those swings and what life was present - what life became extinct during those epochs. If we add to the rate of warming by human efforts we may be hastening our own extinction. I'm sure most of can "take the heat", but the little critters of the ocean and earth, those at the bottom of the food chain are actually pretty fragile and can't. So, what do we do? That's the toughest challenge, perhaps as challenging as trying to control what to do with the global economy.
Most scientists have "open minds" and have learned to expect the unexpected in their findings.
OK, you may fire at will.....
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
