Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
Hahah..Another Gore prediction bites the dust...
Page <<first <prev 11 of 11
Dec 22, 2013 08:38:15   #
imntrt1 Loc: St. Louis
 
heyrob wrote:
There is your fallacy right there, if there are 12,000 scientists studying climate change, then you have to include me in that number. After all, I am a scientist, and I have studied the subject, never mind that it is not my field of work. Do you honestly believe that there are 12,000 climatologists on the entire planet? That's rediculas on it's face. Furthermore 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot and yours is proof. However, you used a somewhat honest word there, "likely" which is a bit like the word "but" it tends to discount the statement it is in reference to. I said it before and I'll say it again, science is not about consensus, and consensus is not science. Science is about provable facts, and the whole "man is the reason for the present climate change" theory has not provided even one provable fact. NOT A SINGLE ONE!

So to answer your question, "who should I believe ... heyrob or the 97% ..." well, since your "97% of 12,000" claim is nothing but BS, I suggest you open your eyes, and not believe that stupid statistic or me, but quit swallowing the Kool-Aid you've been gulping and pay more attention to those without a monetary profit interest in the debate. Like any true scientific mind, I seek the facts, not for some profit motive, but to know the truth. When I first began reading about Anthropogenic Global Warming, I had no preconceived ideas, but I did have an inherent distrust of the sort of media hype that was being spoon fed to the public.

I sat down to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" when it came out on DVD and I took notes of all the claims, and predictions Gore was peddling. I only got through about the first hour, and had so many notes that I stopped the DVD and began looking into the claims. It turned out that virtually nothing he claimed in that first hour was accurate, and in many cases were flat out lies. In fact, it turned out that there was a lie, misstated claim, or overblown scare tactic, on average of every 80 seconds, throughout the first hour of that, what can only be described as a crockumentary. I never wasted my time going back and finishing the show, I couldn't bare to watch the guy lie for another minute.

I understand that you have your beliefs, and I have no idea where you got your opinions from, or how much you've actually read and/or from what sources to come to your conclusions. Conversely you don't know my history either, but I do know that the vast majority of those who believe as you do, have obtained your information from sources who are not exactly unbiased. The fact that you would claim that there are 12,000 climate scientists out there, only exemplifies your ignorance of the facts. I can assure you that you would be hard pressed to find 5% of that number doing the sort of research that would make them subject matter experts in the field. And I might guess that your 97% figure might play into those who are receiving their funding from a political body, which would taint their credibility severely.

I found it amusing that the AGW alarmists tried to discredit prominent scientists who disputed the theory, people like Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg, and countless others, by claiming that they had ties to big oil, or other businesses that might have an interest in the outcome of the debate. While yes, many had at one time, had some connection to those businesses, none were currently receiving any funding from those sources. On the other hand, every prominent scientist on the AGW side of the debate were currently either working for or receiving funding from, some government entity. I find that fact more than just a little telling, and I believe that anyone with an open mind would as well.
There is your fallacy right there, if there are 12... (show quote)


Damn! Should I EVER start a debating team I want you as Captain. I always thought of myself as a very good report writer/Investigator in my years as a cop, however, my ego has been firmly placed where it belongs and I defer to your expertise in obtaining the facts and presenting them. In my years of Computer Forensics, our cases became very involved and we had to prepare credible reports that made sense to prosecutors and juries alike....put everything in layman terms. You, my friend, are a master at that. In my investigations, often I would start an examination on a Friday and let the computer run all weekend, software searching for what I suspected was there. Monday morning I would often be presented with over 750,000 "hits" for me to analyze and make sense of...then document. I had to research things all over the investigative map. One such investigation was conducted after a request from detectives looking into an unexplained death of a young man found dead in his home. Pathologists had not found a cause of death, no clues were present at the scene...so a search of the deceased man's computer was conducted by me. Past experience as a Medical Examiner Death Investigator, and an undercover Narcotics Investigator sent me on some preconceived paths during my search. Monday morning, after reviewing the results, I contacted the Detective assigned to the case and told him to have the Medical Examiner run tests for ingestion of Antifreeze, a test that is not normally done in Autopsy Exams, because of the expense involved. Bingo....cause of death was ruled as deliberate, self consumed Antifreeze, to take his own life. Even though the results showed the parents of the decedent that he had committed suicide, it gave them a little relief to know his cause of death rather than not knowing what took their son from them. The search of the decedent's computer revealed he had done a lot of research on ways to end his own life in a way that was hard to detect and easy to do. He seemed to zero in on using antifreeze.

Reply
Dec 22, 2013 13:25:12   #
heyrob Loc: Western Washington
 
imntrt1 wrote:
Damn! Should I EVER start a debating team I want you as Captain. I always thought of myself as a very good report writer/Investigator in my years as a cop, however, my ego has been firmly placed where it belongs and I defer to your expertise in obtaining the facts and presenting them. In my years of Computer Forensics, our cases became very involved and we had to prepare credible reports that made sense to prosecutors and juries alike....put everything in layman terms. You, my friend, are a master at that. In my investigations, often I would start an examination on a Friday and let the computer run all weekend, software searching for what I suspected was there. Monday morning I would often be presented with over 750,000 "hits" for me to analyze and make sense of...then document. I had to research things all over the investigative map. One such investigation was conducted after a request from detectives looking into an unexplained death of a young man found dead in his home. Pathologists had not found a cause of death, no clues were present at the scene...so a search of the deceased man's computer was conducted by me. Past experience as a Medical Examiner Death Investigator, and an undercover Narcotics Investigator sent me on some preconceived paths during my search. Monday morning, after reviewing the results, I contacted the Detective assigned to the case and told him to have the Medical Examiner run tests for ingestion of Antifreeze, a test that is not normally done in Autopsy Exams, because of the expense involved. Bingo....cause of death was ruled as deliberate, self consumed Antifreeze, to take his own life. Even though the results showed the parents of the decedent that he had committed suicide, it gave them a little relief to know his cause of death rather than not knowing what took their son from them. The search of the decedent's computer revealed he had done a lot of research on ways to end his own life in a way that was hard to detect and easy to do. He seemed to zero in on using antifreeze.
Damn! Should I EVER start a debating team I want ... (show quote)


Thanks imntrt1, while I had an all too brief stint as a reserve police officer in the late 1980's and early 1990's I was really nothing more than a beat cop. I was told however by one of my training officers, when I was pretty fresh out of the academy, that I should get on full time and work to become a detective, because I had such an analytical mind. I guess the way my mind works, I might have been good at it. It sounds like you had some pretty interesting assignments in your career.

As for the debate thing, believe it or not, I don't really like to argue in real life. I have several friends who know me and have read some of my comments on here and they can't believe that I get into some of these frays, because I would never do so in person. LOL

I just chalk it up to my ISTJ personality type, I have a "by the book" personality, and I don't suffer lies, or dishonesty well. I guess that is why I can be so passionate about Politics, and the Global Warming debate. Politicians aren't following the Constitution, and pseudo-scientists and their friends in the media are peddling lies for profit. Both situations go against every thread of my being and I just can't sit by and remain silent about it.

Reply
Dec 22, 2013 14:22:55   #
DaveMM Loc: Port Elizabeth, South Africa
 
joer wrote:
What if the climate change advocates are wrong. So we end up with new technologies, cleaner air and water, healthier children and generally the quality of life improves.

If they are right and we do nothing we bring down the worst plague imaginable on our children and their descendants. Your worst nightmare would be a cake walk a few generations in the future.

It seems like a no brainer to me.
This is a vast oversimplification, although I wish that it was fully true. The problem with this argument is that the cost of the so-called carbon reduction schemes is astronomical and will likely bankrupt our children.

Although I am an AGW sceptic I do firmly believe that we should make every effort to conserve energy and save fossil fuel for purposes where alternatives are not available. Waste which merely depletes future stocks is stupid. So is polluting the world in the name of 'civilisation'. However, I have no confidence in a system which only publishes papers which further 'prove' the accepted dogma. I have even less confidence in politicians who are pushing their so-called solutions. These 'solutions' will, I fear, merely lead to other, unforseen, major problems without achieving their stated goals.

Thank you, Heyrob, for your link to the Cargo Science article. This is a brilliant piece of thinking and is, I feel, completely applicable to the AGW debate.

Reply
 
 
Dec 22, 2013 14:27:50   #
heyrob Loc: Western Washington
 
DEBJENROB wrote:
when 12000 scientist who study climate change write papers about the subject and 97% agree that we are experiencing change and it is likely as a result of human activity .... who should I believe ... heyrob or the 97% ...


UPDATE: http://www.petitionproject.org/
While you claim 12,000 scientists are studying climate change and 97% agree with the "man is likely responsible" theory, here's the opposite contention. A mere 31,487 scientists, with degrees in related fields (I'm going to do may part to make it 31,488) are urging the government to disregard the BS that is the climate change hoax. While I'm still hunting for accurate figures on how many scientists can be considered "subject matter experts" (or SME's - pronounced Smees ) and who are working in the direct study of climate and promote the hoax, I've not found a reliable figure for that side of the debate yet.

Now with that said, I will admit that I don't really place a great deal of weight on this list either, for the same reason I stated earlier in regard to your post. Only a fraction of these folks actually work in this field of study, and therefore could be considered SME's in it. However, all of these folks, myself included, are educated in related fields and have the necessary training to see the proverbial turd in the punchbowl.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 11 of 11
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.