just back from a tour round the camp. A little mobile police station just opposite with 6 of the Met`s finest and everything very good humoured and well intentioned.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]thanks to people like vasco de Gama , Columbus,Drake people learned the world wasnt flate. Dont think you could call any of them left wing, dread locked, dole scamming eco warriors ![/quote]
Gallileo was locked up under house arrest for daring to suggest that the earth wasn't at the centre of the universe.
The IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) has conducted tens of thousands of experiments and taken numerous readings and has ascertained that human activity is likely to be 90% responsible as a factor in causing global warming. At the time they published their last result the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) who are funded by several large oil enterprises offered scientists $10,000 to publish reports and get articles in the press that effectively rubbished the IPCC findings.
Groups like the AEI are called in the US "Astroturf" groups - they pretend to be full of knowledgeable concerned people with expertise who are independent but are usually fronts for individual groups or organisations with a commercial imperative to promote. In this case they want to persuade enough people that global warming and climate change isn't a problem. Switching subjects here - their tactics are identical to pro-tobacco groups. For generations they denied that there was a link between tobacco smoking and diseases like lung cancer. Then once it had been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there was a link they switch tactics to fighting bans on it's use. Similarly with Climate Change groups like the AEI have denied that there's a link, however we just have to look at the masses of evidence - that the world is warming, that glaciers are melting, the Jet stream is running further south as a result, sea levels are rising etc as well as the masses of statistical evidence and we can all conclude that GW is very much a reality. Then they will switch (and there are signs of this) to a new tactic - saying that reducing carbon emissions will cause economic hardship, complaining that those who are protesting are as in this thread "cruddies" etc as though their views don't matter and so...there's nothing that can or should be done, so we'll have to carry on using carbon based fuels. Unfortunately these people are incredibly wealthy and have the means to buy up the political process and the media etc, they've been doing it for years and where money goes, so too do most of our politicians. The Iraq war is case in point - is there anyone left alive who thinks that this wasn't about grabbing Iraqi oil?
Organisations like the AEI rely on "useful idiots" to get their point across, unfortunately we humans are slow to adapt and change our habits and fundamentally conservative, especially once we are in a comfort zone. If we don't do something about global warming now and start developing alternative technologies and reducing energy consumption/learning how to conserve it better, then by the time we do, it'll be even more expensive. The likes of Exxon-Mobil though will have pocketed a few hundred more billions though in the meantime thanks to the useful idiots....
Playing Devil's Advocate though BFR whats the difference between the Oil companies "sponsoring" scientific research, and these scientists slewing their findings to ensure further grants, than the non-naysayers sponsoring scentific research, with the opposite happening?
[quote][cite]Posted By: Charlton Dan[/cite]Playing Devil's Advocate though BFR whats the difference between the Oil companies "sponsoring" scientific research, and these scientists slewing their findings to ensure further grants, than the non-naysayers sponsoring scentific research, with the opposite happening?[/quote]
A lot...prior to publication all scientists have their work peer approved, that is other qualified scientists and mathematicians etc run their eyes over the research and findings and check the methodology used etc and then pass it off as legit or not, and this is not restricted to this topic but every area of scientific discovery and research. The IPCC research has been thoroughly vetted and peer approved - by experts in their field. Of course they could be wrong - but the mass of evidence is becoming overwhelming that human activity is a factor in GW, now we have to determine how much of a factor, and what needs to be done and how best to proceed. On the other side of the coin I fail to see how denying that the sea levels are rising, or that glaciers are melting etc counts as scientific evidence, neither is using lazy rhetoric about environmental terrorism or whatever catchphrase the GW deniers are using this week.
I understand that but surely then these alternative views are discredited at peer review are they not and therefore it would offer no benefit for these naysaying organisations to spend millions of dollars on something that will never be published.
Comments
A little mobile police station just opposite with 6 of the Met`s finest and everything very good humoured and well intentioned.
Gallileo was locked up under house arrest for daring to suggest that the earth wasn't at the centre of the universe.
The IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) has conducted tens of thousands of experiments and taken numerous readings and has ascertained that human activity is likely to be 90% responsible as a factor in causing global warming. At the time they published their last result the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) who are funded by several large oil enterprises offered scientists $10,000 to publish reports and get articles in the press that effectively rubbished the IPCC findings.
Groups like the AEI are called in the US "Astroturf" groups - they pretend to be full of knowledgeable concerned people with expertise who are independent but are usually fronts for individual groups or organisations with a commercial imperative to promote. In this case they want to persuade enough people that global warming and climate change isn't a problem. Switching subjects here - their tactics are identical to pro-tobacco groups. For generations they denied that there was a link between tobacco smoking and diseases like lung cancer. Then once it had been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there was a link they switch tactics to fighting bans on it's use. Similarly with Climate Change groups like the AEI have denied that there's a link, however we just have to look at the masses of evidence - that the world is warming, that glaciers are melting, the Jet stream is running further south as a result, sea levels are rising etc as well as the masses of statistical evidence and we can all conclude that GW is very much a reality. Then they will switch (and there are signs of this) to a new tactic - saying that reducing carbon emissions will cause economic hardship, complaining that those who are protesting are as in this thread "cruddies" etc as though their views don't matter and so...there's nothing that can or should be done, so we'll have to carry on using carbon based fuels. Unfortunately these people are incredibly wealthy and have the means to buy up the political process and the media etc, they've been doing it for years and where money goes, so too do most of our politicians. The Iraq war is case in point - is there anyone left alive who thinks that this wasn't about grabbing Iraqi oil?
Organisations like the AEI rely on "useful idiots" to get their point across, unfortunately we humans are slow to adapt and change our habits and fundamentally conservative, especially once we are in a comfort zone. If we don't do something about global warming now and start developing alternative technologies and reducing energy consumption/learning how to conserve it better, then by the time we do, it'll be even more expensive. The likes of Exxon-Mobil though will have pocketed a few hundred more billions though in the meantime thanks to the useful idiots....
A lot...prior to publication all scientists have their work peer approved, that is other qualified scientists and mathematicians etc run their eyes over the research and findings and check the methodology used etc and then pass it off as legit or not, and this is not restricted to this topic but every area of scientific discovery and research. The IPCC research has been thoroughly vetted and peer approved - by experts in their field. Of course they could be wrong - but the mass of evidence is becoming overwhelming that human activity is a factor in GW, now we have to determine how much of a factor, and what needs to be done and how best to proceed. On the other side of the coin I fail to see how denying that the sea levels are rising, or that glaciers are melting etc counts as scientific evidence, neither is using lazy rhetoric about environmental terrorism or whatever catchphrase the GW deniers are using this week.