Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BodyProSite on December 05, 2009, 06:06:18 PM
-
Maybe obama should hold a beer summit, with al gore, and his bought and paid for scientist, and then wait for the next i.e. (crisis) to happen and the public may forget the huge lie.
-
no proof of a 'massive lie'. the emails that you talk about bring into question only two scientists, which doesn't necessarily disprove global warming.
-
then why the massive cover up? hmmm let me guess , they were just bored and wanted to play a game ???? dont think so , but just stay in denial , its the first step in the liberal train of thought
-
then why the massive cover up? hmmm let me guess , they were just bored and wanted to play a game ???? dont think so , but just stay in denial , its the first step in the liberal train of thought
what massive cover up?
-
what massive cover up?? lol well appearently you have been asleep for the last 2 weeks wow. deny deny deny , not surprised though
-
no proof of a 'massive lie'. the emails that you talk about bring into question only two scientists, which doesn't necessarily disprove global warming.
Like I have said in the past, those that worship at the church of global warming will not believe anything to the contrary
-
It is true, I haven't followed the story closely. but from what I have read it is two scientists whose emails came into question. Apparently they were manipulating the data in some way to make more of a case for global warming.
Sounded pretty shady, but I also read the emails could have been misinterpreted. Why can't you guys wait until after the investigation to come up with conclusions?
Or do you already have sufficient proof to call this a "massive lie" ? So I ask you again, where is the evidence?
-
yep or are realy just to stupid to understand any common sense
-
maybe you should take it upon yourself to actually read some of what really came out rather than the paragraph the msnbc decided to show for one day , while they were busy covering the important tiger woods breaking news
-
Like I have said in the past, those that worship at the church of global warming will not believe anything to the contrary
The majority of scientists are on board with the so-called church.
I believe you are guilty of exactly the same thing you are accusing the other party of. It seems you don't want to believe in global warming. :)
-
It is true, I haven't followed the story closely. but from what I have read it is two scientists whose emails came into question. Apparently they were manipulating the data in some way to make more of a case for global warming.
Sounded pretty shady, but I also read the emails could have been misinterpreted. Why can't you guys wait until after the investigation to come up with conclusions?
Or do you already have sufficient proof to call this a "massive lie" ? So I ask you again, where is the evidence?
There is at the very least a cover up, there has been a FOIA request for this information for years. They refuse to release the data. Then after this breaks suddenly it was lost. Over an over again things have been proven to be false, the hockey stick a bunch of bullshit. But for some reason there are those who just want to believe that man is evil and is destorying the planet.
-
maybe you should take it upon yourself to actually read some of what really came out rather than the paragraph the msnbc decided to show for one day , while they were busy covering the important tiger woods breaking news
I did.
Where is the "massive" cover up? Have you read the full emails? How familiar are you with GW science?
You obviously have an agenda if you're going to take one incidence of what appears to be fraudulent and extrapolate it to say the whole thing is a farce.
-
There is at the very least a cover up, there has been a FOIA request for this information for years. They refuse to release the data. Then after this breaks suddenly it was lost. Over an over again things have been proven to be false, the hockey stick a bunch of bullshit. But for some reason there are those who just want to believe that man is evil and is destorying the planet.
this is something i can work with, I will look into this.
-
the scientist you speak of just joined tthe bandwagon because of the two origional scientist words due to their statue in the science world, so yes i do agree that most scientist support the theories, but they are supporting corrupt and hidden findings, once again turn of that dude racheal maddow and read soething unbias. Fyrther more i do not belong to right or left, right has problems also , just a far cry from the number that the left has. I support polititians that want wahts best for america, and legal americans first, then everyone else, someone that wants to uphold the founding fathers views. not this socialist shit happening today
-
The majority of scientists are on board with the so-called church.
I believe you are guilty of exactly the same thing you are accusing the other party of. It seems you don't want to believe in global warming. :)
Maybe you should do a little research and see how all these scientist peer reviewed the data. They were given only the part that pertained to there specific area, which may have amounted to a few paragraphs, not the whole document. Thus the conscensus, and not fact. No I don't believe in man made global warming, I believe the earth goes through heating a cooling cycles naturally and has since its inception. I believe the Al Gores of the world are just out to make a buck off natual phnomena by trying to blame it on man. Why has Al Gore suddenly backed out of Copnhagen? This should be his moment in the sun (pun intended), but all over the sudden with climategate Al just can't seem to make it. If CO2 is such a bad thing and a polutant then all that believe that man is causing this ,should find a new form of repiration or simply stop breathing - because they should all do their part.
-
If al gore honestly believed any of the trash he pushes he wouldnt have a house that consumes more in a week then i use in a month , or have huge combustion engine powered boats and fly on the largest private jets money can buy when he is the only one traveling , the proof is in itself, people with common sense have seen it for years, its amazing there are still mongoloids that buy into the crock of shit and want hard working tax payers to fund this shit
-
the scientist you speak of just joined tthe bandwagon because of the two origional scientist words due to their statue in the science world, so yes i do agree that most scientist support the theories, but they are supporting corrupt and hidden findings, once again turn of that dude racheal maddow and read soething unbias. Fyrther more i do not belong to right or left, right has problems also , just a far cry from the number that the left has. I support polititians that want wahts best for america, and legal americans first, then everyone else, someone that wants to uphold the founding fathers views. not this socialist shit happening today
you make 1001 assumptions about me, but then you ask me to be unbiased and objective. lol.
-
what have i said other than you are a lib?
-
i said you dont have common sense, but thats not an assumption you prove that when you actually ask ( what big cover up)
-
Maybe you should do a little research and see how all these scientist peer reviewed the data. They were given only the part that pertained to there specific area, which may have amounted to a few paragraphs, not the whole document. Thus the conscensus, and not fact. No I don't believe in man made global warming, I believe the earth goes through heating a cooling cycles naturally and has since its inception. I believe the Al Gores of the world are just out to make a buck off natual phnomena by trying to blame it on man. Why has Al Gore suddenly backed out of Copnhagen? This should be his moment in the sun (pun intended), but all over the sudden with climategate Al just can't seem to make it. If CO2 is such a bad thing and a polutant then all that believe that man is causing this ,should find a new form of repiration or simply stop breathing - because they should all do their part.
you have some very good things to say; for example that concensus does not make it factual. I don't agree with the bashing so much.
My background assumption was a belief that scientists are doing what they are supposed to do- i.e. evaluate scientific data objectively. That is why we rely on what scientists say instead of listening to some joe-schmoe or some politician with an agenda.
I think this has to be debated amongst the scientists pretty much, because the rest of us are ill-equipped to deal with the matter properly... so we're basically stuck with having to rely on our scientists and ofcourse our own common sense. IMO, it is better for society if we form a concensus around the opinions of scientists so we don't get paralyzed by a clusterfuck of opinions.
-
i said you dont have common sense, but thats not an assumption you prove that when you actually ask ( what big cover up)
calm down you're gettin too heated up; not good for you (or the environment).
-
i agre with you , we should however a majority of the scientists just took these guys work for it and jumped on the global warming train with no evidence being viewed because the two main guys were so well respected, so they didnt know they were being shammed. you say we should wait for the scientists, well wqait for what ? al gore to buy of 2 more well respected guys to shovel a bunch of crap to get a sertain group of people rich,
-
i agre with you , we should however a majority of the scientists just took these guys work for it and jumped on the global warming train with no evidence being viewed because the two main guys were so well respected, so they didnt know they were being shammed. you say we should wait for the scientists, well wqait for what ? al gore to buy of 2 more well respected guys to shovel a bunch of crap to get a sertain group of people rich,
I highly doubt this is how it all went down bro. Look up what "peer review" process means... it is what ensures our scientists are doing what they are supposed to do, and doing it well. I'm sure it has its flaws but we've managed to produce some brilliant science despite that.
Let me also also take a step back from this and say it was pre-mature for me to jump into a debate as I do not have enough information surrounding the issue. My apologies.
-
i know what this means i have a bachelors in organic chemisty
-
i know what this means i have a bachelors in organic chemisty
I see, just out of curiosity.. are you american?
-
when there is pretty much unlimited funds like al gore has he can convince the scientists and staff involved in the peer review to say what ever he wants it to and then when the 2 or 3 main people get their money and give their word they are believed throughout the entire scientific community and nobody knows any different
-
yep i am , and not a rep or dem , i just want a congress to remember the founding fathers and constitution and what they stand for, those are what made america such a desired place to want to be and so prosperous, where people got givin the chance to earn what they want , not wait around for it to be givin to them
-
I see.
Hopefully the truth of the matter can be decided scientifically rather than politicising the issue.
-
i agree , i just think its going to be very hard to find a credible scientist for the group of people that are still adimate about global warming, now it will be looming on the minds of many even if the guy is not hiding anything or lieing
-
i did study alot of volcanology or volcanos and there is mounds of evidence showing the warming and cooloing pahses the earth goes through some take 10 years some takes hundreds, so that is why i do not buy into global warming the earth has warmed itself for millions of years and cooled itself for millions of years, how can you say things humans do cause it? it happened millions of years before humans existed?
-
This is the cover of the Nov. 13, 1972 TIME magazine speculating the coming of the 2nd Ice Age:
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1972/1101721113_400.jpg)
The arrival of another ice age has long been a chilling theme of science fiction. If the earth's recent history is any clue, says Marine Geologist Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami, a new ice age could become a reality.
Writing in Science, Emiliani reports that the earth has undergone at least eight periods of extreme cold and seven of torrid heat in the past 400,000 years.
His conclusion is based on cores of ocean sediment from the Caribbean. Composed of the remains of tiny sea animals, the layered sediment provides a record of climatic changes. When the oceans warm up, there is a decrease in the ratio of the isotope oxygen-18 to ordinary oxygen in the shells of the little creatures; when temperatures go down, the concentration of oxygen-18 goes up.
Moreover, the proportions are preserved after the creatures die and sink to become layers of sediment. Thus, because these layers can now easily be dated, the shells can be studied to establish past temperature trends.
Scientists once held that there were four ice ages, each as long as 100,000 years, separated by warm periods of at least comparable duration.
But Emiliani's investigations, and also those of Columbia University's David Ericson and Goesta Wollin, have shown that the ice ages were as short as 10,000 to 20,000 years. Moreover, Emiliani says, the climatologically comfortable intervals between them were also geologically brief. Thus, Emiliani warns, the present period of "amiable climate," which has already lasted 12,000 years, may soon come to an end, perhaps within the next 2,000 or 3,000 years.
In what direction will the earth's climate then turn? Emiliani refuses to speculate. But if man continues his "interference with climate through deforestation, urban development and pollution," says Emiliani in typical scientific jargon, "we may soon be confronted with either a runaway glaciation or a runaway deglaciation, both of which would generate unacceptable environmental stresses."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html#ixzz0YsUNulNz (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html#ixzz0YsUNulNz)
-
I’m not a scientist, but Emiliani started by explaining the earth has undergone at least 8 periods of extreme temperatures – both hot and cold.
Then he informs us that the “present period of amiable climate, which has already lasted 12,000 years, may soon come to an end, perhaps within the next 2,000 or 3,000 years.”
Okay.
He finishes by saying that, “if man continues his interference with climate through deforestation, urban development and pollution, we may soon be confronted with…unacceptable environmental stresses."
So, the extreme, earth-altering weather cycles from the last 400,000 years happened naturally. Now he’s warning us that they’re due to change again.
He’s not sure how they will change, but he warns that urban development and pollution could cause something that is due to happen naturally soon, anyway.
:-\