Correlation is not Causation

[KSG_Standard]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvObfrs3qoE]YouTube - ‪Why The Left's Global Warming Agenda Is Flat Out Wrong‬‏[/ame]

The video is the creation of Dr. Roy W. Spencer, former senior scientist for NASA...He IS a Climatologist.

 

[crazymike]

You mean Al's theory of dinosaur farts is bullsh1t??? I don't have to ride my bike 20 miles to work everyday?? You mean that they've brainwashed enough people into thinking that BREATHING is killing the earth??

NOOOOOO...

We're still gonna pay for it.

 

[Engel]

 

[AngryHatter]

Yeah...who cares how poorly we treat the only planet that supports life for miles around!

 

[Engel]

I believe in global warming but I have no political agenda whatsoever. It always becomes political. That's what I hate about these arguements. Money and politics have nothing to do with the environment.

 

[Roberteaux]

*Yawn*

On a long enough timeline, everyone's survival rate drops to zero
Narrator, from Fight Club

--R

 

[Lampens]

It starts with why the left....

Godamn man. You sound like a ****in broken record.

 

[bertzie]

I was expecting a video about science. You owe me 9 minutes of my life back.

 

[danohat]

I believe Santa Claus played a large role in global warming.

 

[No. 44]

I was expecting a video about science. You owe me 9 minutes of my life back.

From the video:

"...scientists have essentially ignored natural indirect sources of climate change generated by the climate system itself. The reason why is that we do not have sufficiently detailed and accurate global observations of the climate system over a long enough period of time to understand the role of Mother Nature in causing climate change. You cannot study that, which you do not have the data to study..."

So that's not about science?

 

[bertzie]

From the video:

"...scientists have essentially ignored natural indirect sources of climate change generated by the climate system itself. The reason why is that we do not have sufficiently detailed and accurate global observations of the climate system over a long enough period of time to understand the role of Mother Nature in causing climate change. You cannot study that, which you do not have the data to study..."

So that's not about science?

No. It's not. Science would be actual data. He hasn't debunked anything. All he's done is stated the obvious in that it could be.

 

[Mark_F]

I'm gonna give my take on 'global warming' here, feel free to disagree, but until something big happens i'll keep my opinion the way it is...

From the video, there isn't enough data to prove that man is having a massive effect re climate change. Fine, i get that, but that also means he has to write off everything else he says, as there also isn't the data to disprove mans effect on climate change... Way to go if you want to debunk something...

My personal opinion doesn't even involve climate change as the motivating factor behind the charges that we'll see in future, to me wether 'those that know better' believe it or not may not be the issue, could the move to 'greener fuels' etc not be more a case of weaning us off oil products? How much money do we send to the middle east (where most of the oil comes from), and how much of a hold over us do the middle eastern countries have?, I personally think the whole agenda here is to move us away from 'oil' based fuels (in our cars etc) onto something the west can have much better control over, and for the new sources to be developed, and new infrastructures to be sorted and put into place they need cash, and what can we do to get the cash without too big a fight? Tell us we're all gonna die if we don't.

As said, that's just my thoughts on it, if global warming was real, and the whole 'poisoning the planet' thing (which to an extent i DO think we are), then the whole electric cars thing will do far more damage than keeping old cars running will.

The things being looked at IMO are far worse environmentally than to keep going as we are, so to me it makes sense that it's more political than scientific, and more about where most of the oil etc comes from.

 

[No. 44]

No. It's not. Science would be actual data. [...]

Wrong.

Science is a method of acquiring knowledge using data. Before data are collected, it must be determined which data are relevant, and which are not. It must further be determined, how the data are to be collected. Finally these data are collected and can be interpreted, the result being scientific knowledge.

In the one small passage from the video I initially quoted, the climatologist pointed out that scientific knowledge about the subject in question is not yet possible, because the data haven't been collected.

That's actually very scientific, but you have a right to go on believing whatever you want...

 

[TeleDog]

Problem is that we share the planet with lots of people who don't care about ANYTHING AT ALL but themselves.

So, you go green, you take the heat and pay a hefty price, your economy suffers a bit for a while, and in the mean time China continues to pollute all the want because they coudn't give a rat's behind about any treaties... they swallow you whole economically...

So you end up like horse crap, green and messed up!

I'm not going to pretend the problem isn't real, it is IMHO, but without the cooperation of all other major industrial nations all you can do is become some sort of martyr for the entire green movement, and that makes no sense at all to me.

 

[Engel]

In the one small passage from the video I initially quoted, the climatologist pointed out that scientific knowledge about the subject in question is not yet possible, because the data haven't been collected. :

What the **** are all of the ice core samples that have been drilled out to determine climate in the past?

 

[moodyedge]

What the **** are all of the ice core samples that have been drilled out to determine climate in the past?

Mr Face, meet Mr Palm.








On a not completely unrelated sort of matter, theres this guy. Clever people can be just as stupid as anybody.

 

[Engel]

Mr Face, meet Mr Palm.

Point proven!

 

[allbusinessjoe]

Ahhhh. Just like back in the 40s and 50s when they thought smoking was completely harmless.

("truth in advertising" - vintage cigarette & tobacco ads)

Small Print from one of the ads:
"A responsible consulting organization reports a study by a competent medical specialist and staff on the effects of smoking Chesterfields...

'It is my opinion that the ears, nose, throat and accessory organs of all participating subjects examined by me were not adversely affected in the six-months period by smoking the cigarettes provided."

Unfortunately, time may be necessary to provide the proof to the naysayers. Albeit too late.

 

[moodyedge]

Ok smarty pants. Prove a point. I'm too lazy to research your photo of Dr. Viagra here.

Dr what?


That was Thomas Midgley who made amazing contributions such as leaded petrol and CFCs.

 

[Engel]

Ahhhh. Just like back in the 40s and 50s when they thought smoking was completely harmless.

("truth in advertising" - vintage cigarette & tobacco ads)

Small Print from one of the ads:
"A responsible consulting organization reports a study by a competent medical specialist and staff on the effects of smoking Chesterfields...

'It is my opinion that the ears, nose, throat and accessory organs of all participating subjects examined by me were not adversely affected in the six-months period by smoking the cigarettes provided."

Unfortunately, time may be necessary to provide the proof to the naysayers. Albeit too late.

Gotcha, thanks for the explaination. That sounds about right!