Printable View
yeah robert...He was making a mockery of the way scientific info is squewed
by big bucks, and confidentiality agreements. Articles like that just hurt the efforts made by people that are taking a more serious stand on these issues.
Of course serious people are boring. So be it.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
For those that say "well, what does it hurt to take precautionary measures, even if man made global warming isn't true", pay special attention to the last 15 minutes of the video.
This thread is filled with such enlightened people who all possess information the rest of humanity lacks.
Few people on here have even the slightest grip on the science yet will defend their point endlessly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fencewalker
I believe you use this as a cop out. When ever science says something that you donā??t agree with, Bing. Play this card.
Well I hope that works out for you.
You know you can track the funding of any study. Have you done this, or do you just assume?
Wow. You know me so well to make that statement. :wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by harris7
Nothing like making an uninformed generalization about somebody based on your own bias. Hope that keeps working out for you. :p
Yes, but there are some true scientists that will keep on harping on the man made global warming propogandists until they realize it. ;)Quote:
Few people on here have even the slightest grip on the science yet will defend their point endlessly
i love this dude
i love how people post news stories on this forum, and try to pass them off as fact.
does anyone know how badly the media is biased... anyone?!?!?!
i think it would be best for people to do REAL research, instead of posting a headline like "Global Warming isn't Caused by Human Activities" and then going "see! see! I was right!!!"
I love how some people act like the "media" is an entity all of it's own and not made up of individual people. Sort of like "The Government" (que ominous music). For instance, the video linked has scientists (former head of NASA's meterological dept, one of the authors and contributors of the IPCC report as examples) among other people voicing their opinion. But since it was distributed via the media, we should ignore it?
Btw, how should people do their research if they don't avail themselves of the job the media does in informing? The internet is another form of "the media", what with online papers, radio stations, tv stations and blogs.
Just can't trust anybody, can we?
Generalized dismissal of an entire profession based on a cookie cutter stereotype may seemingly make life easier, but does a disservice to the actual individuals that make up said profession and makes the pursuit of knowledge and the truth a bit...Problematic.
The same with "if somebody disagrees with me, they are..." liberals, neo-conservatives, etc. etc.
Much easier to dismiss the debate (argue the messenger, not the message mindset) instead of actually debating the points.
Btw, I completely agree everybody should research and try to gain knowledge on every subject they are interested in, from as many different, independent sources they can find. Where did I learn that? Broadcast Journalism school. :)
Made by nature, well yes your right to a certian extent, but the rate of global warming has increased dramatically since the onset of industrialization.
Mankind is pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and that helps nature with global warming. altho most scientist in the world NOW know that global warming is real some still say its all bullshit.
But then again you could smash a turd and roll it in nuts and bake it and tell people its a turd rolled in nuts they will argue that its really a brownie.
I say go ahead and take a huge bite!
my contrabution to blobal warming is when i toke on my bowl i release a lil CO2.
Yeah I guess I came off as kind of harsh. The media shouldn't be totally passed up I suppose, as that's how we all at least initially learn about an issue. When I hear about something about drugs, or the environment or something of interest, I usually go look into it farther. I hit up the internet, try to find academic studies if I can, and draw my own conclusions. I rarely take something at face value, but I think a lot of people do (and that's what the problem is). That's why it bothers me when someone cites ONE source, and tries to make is sound like it's legit or 100% correct or convincing.
There are a lot of scientists out there who aren't real scientists at all...For example (im using this cause it's something close to all of our hearts) the DEA's info about marijuana. They have a whole PDF file on their website about negative cannabis 'facts'. Read it for yourself, and as I'm sure you already know, they aren't "facts" at all. They are statements made by paid-off "scientists". I did a lot of digging into this because I wrote a paper on Cannabis last semester...the only studies I could find that were truly anti-cannabis happened to be funded by some other anti-drug organization (i cant remember who at the moment). Do you see what I'm getting at? I guess I should have elaborated earlier...
on that note i dont know of any pro cannibus sites that list any negitive effects, besides memory loss.
and ummmmmmmmmm i forget