Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Politics has nothing to do with Global warming- some have attempted to use the science, or their disbelief in the science as a political agenda.
I tire of hearing that global warming is something concocted by; 'One worlders' , 'Liberals', 'Socialists' and those opposed to the 'American Dream'.
Actually climate scientists come from a broad political spectrum. Some like Jim Hansen, who has been vilified is a independent who has voted for both Democratic and republicans for President. John Cook and Kerry Emmanuel are conservative republicans. The inventor of the 'Keeling Curve', Charles Keeling was a republican.
The main goal of all these people is the truth of science. Most are appalled by the politicization currently being employed by those who deny a problem exists.
I know why we use scientific method. Thank you for your in-depth insight.
Don't be embarrassed. Just try to grasp there are still over 500 tribes in the United States. Many go round and round with the feds when it comes to environmental protection, and blending Western scientific concepts with traditional approaches based on elder knowledge passed through the generations. My experience has shown me that many of the feds try very hard to grasp when tribes approach solutions and methods that are outside of the Western methods. I see this a lot in the non-Native world. It seems to be easier for us to work with accepted Western methods AND step back into traditional Indigenous thinking than it is for the non-NDN to go back and forth between two very different worlds.
Irrelevant to the scientific method. It matters not if someone objects to it, as an objection does not disqualify its process. You argue a case of insanity and that of irrelevant objection. The scientific method is an exact process to which removes or greatly reduces the chance of inserting bias and you argue that because some "tribes" do not accept such a process, that we should regress to indigenous thinking in order to appeal to them.
Pure garbage, delusional, absurd, and without any rational thought.
The fact that you might even suggest such... Wow....
Irrelevant to the scientific method. It matters not if someone objects to it, as an objection does not disqualify its process. You argue a case of insanity and that of irrelevant objection. The scientific method is an exact process to which removes or greatly reduces the chance of inserting bias and you argue that because some "tribes" do not accept such a process, that we should regress to indigenous thinking in order to appeal to them.
Pure garbage, delusional, absurd, and without any rational thought.
The fact that you might even suggest such... Wow....
Nomander, you are superb at inserting your own assumptions into someone else's comments.
As I said, I understand scientific method and why it is used.
I wonder why you put quotes around tribes? I bet we can't be fairly accurate if we assumed it was an attempt to denigrate.
I would say a few other things, but the since it's my personal perception of Nomander's style, I think it would not pass the rules of CD. I'll just say I really feel sorry for you.
Nomander, you are superb at inserting your own assumptions into someone else's comments.
As I said, I understand scientific method and why it is used.
I wonder why you put quotes around tribes? I bet we can't be fairly accurate if we assumed it was an attempt to denigrate.
I would say a few other things, but the since it's my personal perception of Nomander's style, I think it would not pass the rules of CD. I'll just say I really feel sorry for you.
sure, say some other things... Go off on your tangent about ethnocentrism, how everything is relative and all things are equally valid, blah, blah...
The problem with your statement is not that you "understand" the scientific method, but that you would even consider that methods aside from such are some how valid. Now you may argue that some "tribal" method follows similar processes to eliminate bias and consistently test for an outcome, but you would need to provide evidence of such a system and if it were such, it would simply be the scientific method anyway because the scientific method is not something special, it is a simplistic process of logical flow.
You go ahead and think your hateful thoughts, it matters not. Your position is not validated by your "excuses" or your "relativistic" abstracts of thought that follow no basis of logical process. /shrug
Perspective? If we want to put it into perspective, we wouldn't stop the data at 2008's arctic growth. If we wanted true perspective, we would also attempt to evaluate historical records within the context. There is a perspective there and it is the AGW perspective. /shrug
Hi, we are neither politically inclined nor we are spammers. We just care about the environment and wanted to share our opinions..
You mean you wanted to advertise your position. This is a discussion board, not a place you come and advertise your position and then leave the discussion. That is a spammer, junk post, etc.... /shrug
Politics has nothing to do with Global warming- some have attempted to use the science, or their disbelief in the science as a political agenda.
It has everything to do with it. This is why the IPCC was such a problem. Its entire purpose was to legitimize a political stance and urge governments into action. The entire AGW movement has focused specifically on such actions. Read the climategate emails, they were concocting political support and position in them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five Degrees
I tire of hearing that global warming is something concocted by; 'One worlders' , 'Liberals', 'Socialists' and those opposed to the 'American Dream'.
I have no idea if it is a conspiracy of such sort. I actually doubt it. What I think is that individuals in power have abused their authority and allowed their bias to influence their work because they personally feel their position is correct. There are political agenda organizations such as Green Peace, 1010.org, the Sierra Club, etc.. to which have manipulated media, facts, and government to achive their goals. Companies have bought into the fad because you can profit on people with such and there is a lot of money to be had from the government to which sponsers such policy. A business that didn't get on board with the "green" fad was losing money. No conspiracy, simply a bunch of self interested parties who arrogantly assume their position is correct and wish to demand the public submit to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five Degrees
Actually climate scientists come from a broad political spectrum. Some like Jim Hansen, who has been vilified is a independent who has voted for both Democratic and republicans for President. John Cook and Kerry Emmanuel are conservative republicans. The inventor of the 'Keeling Curve', Charles Keeling was a republican.
Hansen is a extremist activist who has been arrested multiple times for his political antics and he constantly the center of FOIA problems with his refusal to release his data and methods when requested. He is known for making wild idiotic political comments and was responsible for working with Al Gore to produce his fallacious garbage material. Sorry, but this isn't about left or right, it is about science and politics. Nobody cares what side of the political fence these people stand, if they promote conclusions when the science is not conclusive, they are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five Degrees
The main goal of all these people is the truth of science. Most are appalled by the politicization currently being employed by those who deny a problem exists.
Then why do they hide observed trends and data, avoid releasing their data (when they are in fact required by law in their public institutions). If they are so concerned about the "truth of the science", then why do they all talk about how concerned they are in the emails that the government is not acting quick enough or that the observed data isn't fitting into their expected results? A person interested in the truth of the science cares not of the outcome, but the establishment of that truth in the first place. Your "scientists" care GREATLY about the outcome of the science and it shows in their attempts to evaluate the results of the science.
Wow you should stop talking about others' lack of scholarly approach to questions. You proclaim yourself to be correct even when the data you referenced refutes your claim. Astounding hubris.
My data is not incorrect, it comes exactly from the same source you claim is correct. The problem is not the data as such, rather it is the absurd method used to proclaim a warmest year.
It is moving the pea, speaking in a manner so as to claim something that is illogically concluded. Saying that 2010 is the warmest year by taking its mean is ludicrous, and odd considering a crowd who so often likes to proclaim "weather not climate" as an excuse for any event that does not fit into their predictions.
As I stated, 2010 had a few exceptionally warm months and the rest was average to below average. The fact that those few warm months brings its mean above that of most other years is pure statistical deviancy in order to hold to a specific bias. The mean is irrelevant in the context they use it. Period.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi
