Gatocamera wrote: maiden's virus wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Demogorgon wrote: The programme has been fairly slammed over here. It uses dodgy science and unproven claims to make its point.

Obviously it was only shown to generate controversy, but I hope nobody is taken in by it.

No more than the dodgy science and unproven claims made by global warming advocates trying to scare people silly.

It is ridiculous how little true critical examination of this problem there is. This is primarily a scientific problem, and it is only incidentally political.

are you kidding me? such research takes time(years) because you need to be able to compare. and i think the facts that are known show that global warming is indeed a danger for us, and if we don't take it seriously now we will end up even more fucked up then we will be in the future

Please. There has been some good research, but, as I said, most scientists skew the facts to fit whatever particular political ideology they are a part of.

Any serious scientist is not going to skew facts, but their interpretations of the data will undoubtedly be affected by their ideologies on a general level.

It is obvious that humans contribute to the gases that supposedly cause global warming. I just don't know what portion of it is caused by humans and what protion of it is the natural cycle. There is little, if anything at all, we can do about natural cycles.

Voodoo wrote: Any serious scientist is not going to skew facts

It happens more often than you'd like to think.

Gatocamera wrote: Voodoo wrote: Any serious scientist is not going to skew facts

It happens more often than you'd like to think.

I am not naive. Like I said, any serious scientist is not going to skew any facts. A misrepresentation of the facts will shatter a scientist's career if this act becomes known. It is the interpretation of facts that will differ from one to another.

Voodoo wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Voodoo wrote: Any serious scientist is not going to skew facts

It happens more often than you'd like to think.

I am not naive. Like I said, any serious scientist is not going to skew any facts. A misrepresentation of the facts will shatter a scientist's career if this act becomes known. It is the interpretation of facts that will differ from one to another.

I didn't say you were naive. But many are NOT called out on their distortions. As long as the data is correct, the correct interpretation will eventually arise.

Gatocamera wrote: Voodoo wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Voodoo wrote: Any serious scientist is not going to skew facts

It happens more often than you'd like to think.

I am not naive. Like I said, any serious scientist is not going to skew any facts. A misrepresentation of the facts will shatter a scientist's career if this act becomes known. It is the interpretation of facts that will differ from one to another.

I didn't say you were naive. But many are NOT called out on their distortions. As long as the data is correct, the correct interpretation will eventually arise.

Well, I certainly agree with this. Any misrepresentsations of the facts ought ot be brought forward. On an academic level, this will happen as soon as another academic discovers it. Through the media that serves the 'lay people' this may take longer.

What irks me are journalists that read some new paper and give us a fucked up summary of the original paper. Most people will not go and read the academic paper, regardless of its importance, because it tends to be esoteric - written for a specific audience. The nonexpert that summarizes a paper often throws in their own fucked up interpretations that are a product of their own ideologies.

Voodoo wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Voodoo wrote: Gatocamera wrote: Voodoo wrote: Any serious scientist is not going to skew facts

It happens more often than you'd like to think.

I am not naive. Like I said, any serious scientist is not going to skew any facts. A misrepresentation of the facts will shatter a scientist's career if this act becomes known. It is the interpretation of facts that will differ from one to another.

I didn't say you were naive. But many are NOT called out on their distortions. As long as the data is correct, the correct interpretation will eventually arise.

Well, I certainly agree with this. Any misrepresentsations of the facts ought ot be brought forward. On an academic level, this will happen as soon as another academic discovers it. Through the media that serves the 'lay people' this may take longer.

What irks me are journalists that read some new paper and give us a fucked up summary of the original paper. Most people will not go and read the academic paper, regardless of its importance, because it tends to be esoteric - written for a specific audience. The nonexpert that summarizes a paper often throws in their own fucked up interpretations that are a product of their own ideologies.

I've noticed this too. It seems as if people think reading a non-scientific report on a scientific paper will make them knowledgeable. I don't like putting faith into Joe the Journalist's ability to adequately and objectively report the findings of a new study, though. They ought to get some friend of theirs who is engaged in the field to translate the original paper for them into layman's terms if it is too hard to understand.

Cheery wrote: +1. And besides, even IF the greenhouse effect actually isn't as true and big as 99 % of the world's population and scientific community claims, it's still a good thing to get rid of oil power etc because sooner or later the oil supplies are going to be drained.
More to the point, global-warming, at this point, is likely self-sustaining. Were the nations of the world to suspend all of their industry overnight and all automobiles scrapped and recycled, that might be enough to stop the problem.

EDIT: Might NOT be enough.

Insidious Dreamer wrote: Cheery wrote: +1. And besides, even IF the greenhouse effect actually isn't as true and big as 99 % of the world's population and scientific community claims, it's still a good thing to get rid of oil power etc because sooner or later the oil supplies are going to be drained.
More to the point, global-warming, at this point, is likely self-sustaining. Were the nations of the world to suspend all of their industry overnight and all automobiles scrapped and recycled, that might be enough to stop the problem.

Agreed, and if it isn't, it will very soon become that. It's a positive feedback loop.