your thoughts on this so called global warming propaganda

[Mao]

our climate teacher said that if we act and it turns out that climate doesnt change the way we predicted, then its actually a good thing in a lot of respect because by investing in trying to stop CO2 emmisions you bring other benefits... don't remember what the benefits are right now and i can't be bothered finding out but yeah... i dunno this climate stuff is pretty complicated, the models he said aren't always right like they don't define the parameters well enough or don't put things... argh! .....ok ill stop my rumbling now...lol

it does increase sustainability, unless of course, it impacts some peoples hip pocket, in which case it is described as "path to financial disaster"

There's clear evidence Mao, everywhere, even scientists stating that we should not act, the way we have, on global warming as it is clearly a waste of money and is a path for financial disaster.

would you like to give me some examples?

and then answer this question: Einstien once said "God does not play dice", are we to believe that 1) God exists [even a scientist said so], and 2) throw away the entire study of Quantum mechanics [even a scientist said so]
?

[hard]

There's clear evidence Mao, everywhere, even scientists stating that we should not act, the way we have, on global warming as it is clearly a waste of money and is a path for financial disaster.

would you like to give me some examples?

and then answer this question: Einstien once said "God does not play dice", are we to believe that 1) God exists [even a scientist said so], and 2) throw away the entire study of Quantum mechanics [even a scientist said so]
?
[/quote]

www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507
http://hummersandcigarettes.blogspot.com/2008/07/30000-scientists-say-global-warming-is.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/261004notreal.htm

Mao if we are to believe in god, it doesn't mean you throw away quantum physics because its based on faith. Secondly, not A scientist but if SCIENTISTS said that global warming is false then yes, with their credible nature we should believe that since it can be proven. However if a scientists says that god is real or fake then no we can't take their answer as credible and believe it because it's not within their realm to actually know for certain.
Which leads me to conclude that by assuming something, it doesn't make it real however proving another can be seen as evident and there is enough evidence to suggest that global warming is not the cause of human behavior and that we should waste billions of dollars for an unproven field.

[Glockmeister]

Mao if we are to believe in god, it doesn't mean you throw away quantum physics because its based on faith. Secondly, not A scientist but if SCIENTISTS said that global warming is false then yes, with their credible nature we should believe that since it can be proven. However if a scientists says that god is real or fake then no we can't take their answer as credible and believe it because it's not within their realm to actually know for certain.
Which leads me to conclude that by assuming something, it doesn't make it real however proving another can be seen as evident and there is enough evidence to suggest that global warming is not the cause of human behavior and that we should waste billions of dollars for an unproven field.

I don't think you quite understand what Mao is talking about.

Einstein did not agree with the current interpretation of quantum physics that we use today. That what he meant when he said "God does not play dice"; that is quantum physics should be a deterministic model, rather than a probabilistic model (akin to playing dice according to Einstein).

Secondly isn't the IPCC a panel of scientists?

[hard]

to answer the above, yes i know what Mao was talking about but i was talking about the general idea of the whole debate rather than attacking that comment.
yes the IPCC is a panel of scientists or researchers, but why asking?

[Mao]

Mao if we are to believe in god, it doesn't mean you throw away quantum physics because its based on faith. Secondly, not A scientist but if SCIENTISTS said that global warming is false then yes, with their credible nature we should believe that since it can be proven. However if a scientists says that god is real or fake then no we can't take their answer as credible and believe it because it's not within their realm to actually know for certain.
Which leads me to conclude that by assuming something, it doesn't make it real however proving another can be seen as evident and there is enough evidence to suggest that global warming is not the cause of human behavior and that we should waste billions of dollars for an unproven field.

I don't think you quite understand what Mao is talking about.

Einstein did not agree with the current interpretation of quantum physics that we use today. That what he meant when he said "God does not play dice"; that is quantum physics should be a deterministic model, rather than a probabilistic model (akin to playing dice according to Einstein).

you didn't quite get my point either.

just because an authority [group, if you like] claim that something is not true, it doesn't mean they are right. especially when we come to science

look at how many scientists accepted special and general relativity when it first came out? look at how many scientists opposed quantum mechanics when it was first constructed [even its own founding fathers thought it was too extreme, such as Einstein and Schrodinger]. yet both of these are well accepted theorems now.

just because a particular group of scientists say "nah, not really" doesn't make them right

and on the note of "30000 scientists against global warming" - http://hummersandcigarettes.blogspot.com/2008/07/30000-scientists-say-global-warming-is.html

A man once came upto Einstein and told him that a book was coming out called "100 Scientists Prove Einstein Wrong" Einstein simply smiled and said "My dear fellow. It only Takes One"

its not the number that matters.

[Glockmeister]

to answer the above, yes i know what Mao was talking about but i was talking about the general idea of the whole debate rather than attacking that comment.
yes the IPCC is a panel of scientists or researchers, but why asking?

Cause couldn't we say that there exists a group of scientists that supports the global warming hypothesis, and then conclude that global warming is occurring? (this is using the same structure as your argument)

[Mao]

Which leads me to conclude that by assuming something, it doesn't make it real however proving another can be seen as evident and there is enough evidence to suggest that global warming is not the cause of human behavior and that we should waste billions of dollars for an unproven field.

assuming that you meant "not caused by human behaviour"

how did you arrive at that conclusion? from your links, I have seen scientists show that the current model to be incorrect, but not accounting for the current changes

the first link gives me a 404: www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507

second link is on a BLOG and am I supposed to take that as credible? http://hummersandcigarettes.blogspot.com/2008/07/30000-scientists-say-global-warming-is.html
i mean, hummers and cigarettes?
that and

The Heartland Institute, through its e-newsletter Environment & Climate News, is reporting that 31,072 American scientists have signed a petition rejecting the assertion that global warming has reached a crisis stage and is caused by human activity.

it says "reached a crisis stage", not "oh no, don't worry, it's not really happening at all, go back to your usual business"

third link is from 2004, and does not take into account current changes [such as the collapsing ice shelves recently]
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/261004notreal.htm

[hard]

i can' really wright for long right now because i'm doing something but in relation to the ice caps melting, all i can do is nothing but laugh. There is no proof suggesting this is because of human behavior, just a change in environment that has caught our attention. Oh yes and that's assuming we were alive back in the ice ages cough*.

[Mao]

i can' really wright for long right now because i'm doing something but in relation to the ice caps melting, all i can do is nothing but laugh. There is no proof suggesting this is because of human behavior, just a change in environment that has caught our attention. Oh yes and that's assuming we were alive back in the ice ages cough*.

actually, we were alive back in the ice ages. [and that was with europeans too, so not the beginning of evolution of homo sapiens]

and as I bolded above, because there is no proof suggesting it is, can you conclusively say it isnt?

[Collin Li]

Mao, what is your proposed policy?

If things are unknown and uncertain, what exactly do you do?

[costargh]

GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION !!!

















.... ok no.

[Mao]

Mao, what is your proposed policy?

If things are unknown and uncertain, what exactly do you do?

i know I wouldn't trivialise this issue

something is happening, we ought to be cautious rather than to take the risk and say "lets gamble this one on, our economy is worth quite a bit you know. I think the planet can survive this, i think...."

[costargh]

Mao, what is your proposed policy?

If things are unknown and uncertain, what exactly do you do?

i know I wouldn't trivialise this issue

something is happening, we ought to be cautious rather than to take the risk and say "lets gamble this one on, our economy is worth quite a bit you know. I think the planet can survive this, i think...."

Thats a 5 star politician answer. Avoided the question

[hard]

Mao, your saying that we're uncertain and unsure. right?
well then why shall we act on something that wastes OUR money, wastes OUR resources and wastes OUR time when there may be no light at the end of the tunnel. I don't want to know what could happen, i want to know what WILL happen and only then will i accept govt policies such as carbon offset scheme etc.

[Mao]

Mao, your saying that we're uncertain and unsure. right?
well then why shall we act on something that wastes OUR money, wastes OUR resources and wastes OUR time when there may be no light at the end of the tunnel. I don't want to know what could happen, i want to know what WILL happen and only then will i accept govt policies such as carbon offset scheme etc.

the reason is simple:

we can afford to lose a bit of money. the sun will still rise tomorrow morning if we've spent $2bn last night
but we cannot afford to lose the planet.

tell me, what good is money when there's no one alive to use it?