Originally Posted By jonvn "For about thirty years there were fairly regular reports issued that stated we were either about to be burned up, or were entering a new ice age." OK, enough with the ice age stuff. It's not true. Global cooling was never presented in scientific, peer-reviewed documents. It was a theory that was put forth, but never was accepted are basically believed. Here is an article about it: <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/ind ex.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn "When as our economy ever suffered from businesses becoming more efficient and technologically advanced?" Of course not. Not only that, but environmental activity has helped spur development and growth, in that new companies and technologies emerge where they otherwise would not have. To constantly suggest our economy is going to be ruined is ridiculous. It will cost some companies money to upgrade. But that money doesn't get put in a lead box and shot to the moon. That money is then spent on workers and material and product. It's amazing that this other canard about the economy being destroyed is so often repeated. It's another false claim.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I guess you just don't believe in science then.<< Actually, what we are dealing with here is semantics, not science. I said: "there were no scientific measurements being taken thousands of years ago." And I stand by that statement.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>When as our economy ever suffered from businesses becoming more efficient and technologically advanced?<< What surprises me again and again is how established businesses often miss the boat when changing paradigms present new opportunity. When ADA regulations kicked in, I was working on a large public building. We suddenly had to change all of the signs on the bathrooms to make them compliant. After the contractor complained about all the work that had to be done to create the new signs, I pointed out that there was a whole new market for ADA compliant signage. Sure enough, today there are companies who produce whole lines of merchandise that did not exist before.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I guess you just don't believe in science then. " I was "discussing" this with another person on another board, and he came out with the statement that he doesn't believe in carbon dating, either. So, there are people who simply don't believe that science works, I guess. Of course, he was discussing this over the internet and using a computer, but people don't often see things very clearly....
Originally Posted By jonvn "I said: "there were no scientific measurements being taken thousands of years ago." " No, but through ice core samples, you can go back a very long time and get the same sorts of information you could have if you did take measurements back then.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "I'm down with a treehouse. But it better have monkey butlers. And a strawberry daquari machine" Monkey butlers. Now THAT'S funny. <snicker>
Originally Posted By planodisney I believe in science, and radio carbon dating, but scientific answers change, and always have as more knowledge is gained. As far as radio carbon dating, while I believe in it, I do find it somewhat questionable that we take known dated items, capture the variables and information pertaining to known item, and then believe that we can simply extrapolate that out over time without any of the variables changing according to variables and knowledge we dont have. Not saying it isnt possible, I am just questioning the accuracy. Also, i was watching CNN this morning, actually might have been MSNBC, and the host was questioning a GOP rep. about Global warming, and the host, definitely not conservative, stated that this administration has spent more on the study of the effect of greenhouse gasses, and on alternative fuels than every other administration combined. Can anyone confirm that?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << If you tell the local factory it can't run 24 hours a day because it just used up it's " carbon credits " that factory is going to suffer. That is where the global warming socialist crowd is trying to push all of us. It is a total joke. >> So, meanwhile the factory in Japan that invested in more efficient manufacturing practices gets more business because the ignorant managers of the U.S. factory didn't see the benefit of making their plant compatible with a changing world. Sounds an awful lot like what has happened to the Detroit automakers even without Kyoto. Maybe you're right -- we can't compete with our more technologically adept counterparts as it is, we certainly shouldn't encourage our domestic manufacturers to try and do better than the international competition! Let Toyota and Honda continue to take the lead on hybrid vehicles -- I'm sure it's destroying their business. Nope, wait a sec, they're profitable and gaining market share! So much for that bogus argument!
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn "I believe in science, and radio carbon dating, but scientific answers change, and always have as more knowledge is gained." So we'll just go ahead and ignore what it says because we don't like it, and there's a chance it might change in the future? That about it?
Originally Posted By jonvn "So much for that bogus argument!" yes, it's completely illogical and specious. Even a cursory examination shows it to be full of holes. Surprise.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn "this administration has spent more on the study of the effect of greenhouse gasses" They may have. It doesn't mean a lot, because the situation has only been recognized as very serious until recently. They have been working on the issue for some time, even while denying it exists. The main thing they have been trying to do, and even that is falling away, is trying to claim that it isn't human in origin, which pretty much flies in the face of the actual science on the matter. In fact there was just a news article saying that there were political people from the Admin trying to influence the scientific findings. Which is just galling and sick. But, hey, they lied about the reasons for us to go to war, why not lie about this as well?
Originally Posted By planodisney I didnt say anything about ignoring facts, but if it makes you feel better to put words in other peoples mouths to solidfy your biases, have at it. I was just trying to add something to the conversation. I would be for taking better care of our environment even if it wasnt a global warming issue. It isnt science that is sometimes wrong, but the people who use science can be. Is that equally offensive to you jonvn.
Originally Posted By jonvn I don't have biases. I simply asked for a clarification of what you said, because it sounded ridiculous to me. Science is often wrong. But the thing with science, if done properly, is that if it is found to be wrong, then you go with what is then felt to be right. As more and more data appears one way or another on a particular matter, a point of view or concept or hypothesis becomes more and more likely the truth of a situation. The whole point of scientific investigation is that anything can be proven incorrect. You just have to show why and have valid data. "Is that equally offensive to you jonvn." What is offensive to me is that people will simply ignore the facts as we know them, and go off and say something does not exist when the truth is we know full well what is happening, and to a large extent why. But since that does not fit in with some people's little idea of the world, the informatin, the science behind it, and the major import of it is completely dismissed. That is offensive, in that it supports stupidity and ignorance.
Originally Posted By planodisney And I believe that blindly accepting all conclusions of scientists, while accepting that this knowledge could very well change or even be disproven in the future, is beyond stupid and ignorant. Why have scientific conclusions become off limits to question? If scientists felt that way, we would be stuck with the conclusions of generations of scientist from the past. Oh, and just a little piece of advice, from someone who used to be just like you. I have no idea how old you are, but the older you get, you realize that you dont know EVERYTHING. When we come to this realization, we are forced to admit that some of our beliefs, conclusions asd opinions are just flat out wrong. That includes absolutely everyone, including you and me. It helps us get rid of that condescending attitude of intellectual superiority. My beliefs dont come from lack of knowledge, lack of education or an unwillingness to accept truths because they dont fit into my belief system. They come from my life experiences.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Why have scientific conclusions become off limits to question? >> I think it's appropriate for scientists to question the conclusions of other scientists. That's what happens in peer-reviewed journals. Why don't the opponents to climate change science do their own calculations and have them peer-reviewed and published in the same scientific journals that they challenge?
