What do you think about the climate change?

[Harabec Weathers]

See this is one of the main reasons why I dont:

A) watch tv

B) Read the newspaper

C) Observe or take in any form of mass media what so ever.

Lots of people have lost the ability to formulate their own idea of what could or could not be happening. They see something on TV, or hear it on the radio or whats worse, reda it online and any itelligent arguement or debate worthy conversation immdeiately fleis right out the window.

 

For most people

Mass Media = Mind (F-word)

 

Lol please dont assume the word "most people" implies any here on the forums as no one fits into the catagory off the top of my head.

[Arthmoor]

Global Warming is real.

 

Man did not cause it.

 

Oil comes from long dead plants.

 

Someone should put two and two together and realize that at one time the northern arctic region was a tropical paradise and today is one of the world's largest oil reserves.

 

This has all happened hundreds of times before, and will happen hundreds of times more long after mankind is dead and buried. We're at the high side of the ice age cycle, nothing more.

[JimboUK]

Global Warming is real.

 

Man did not cause it.

 

Oil comes from long dead plants.

 

Someone should put two and two together and realize that at one time the northern arctic region was a tropical paradise and today is one of the world's largest oil reserves.

 

This has all happened hundreds of times before, and will happen hundreds of times more long after mankind is dead and buried. We're at the high side of the ice age cycle, nothing more.

 

There's oil around Antarctica too, maybe they'd like to explain that one.

[dezdimona]

Global Warming is real.

 

Man did not cause it.

 

Oil comes from long dead plants.

 

Someone should put two and two together and realize that at one time the northern arctic region was a tropical paradise and today is one of the world's largest oil reserves.

 

This has all happened hundreds of times before, and will happen hundreds of times more long after mankind is dead and buried. We're at the high side of the ice age cycle, nothing more.

 

There's oil around Antarctica too, maybe they'd like to explain that one.

beautiful...Now your on to something!

[JimboUK]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...global-warming/

 

I didn't think I'd see this story in the mainstream media, especially the lazy British part of it but here it is. Shame it's on their blogs and not the headlines like it should be but it's a start.

[Monarch_Anor]

Global Warming is real.

 

Man did not cause it.

 

Oil comes from long dead plants.

 

Someone should put two and two together and realize that at one time the northern arctic region was a tropical paradise and today is one of the world's largest oil reserves.

 

This has all happened hundreds of times before, and will happen hundreds of times more long after mankind is dead and buried. We're at the high side of the ice age cycle, nothing more.

 

There's oil around Antarctica too, maybe they'd like to explain that one.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm..._continents.png

 

Explained

[JimboUK]

Global Warming is real.

 

Man did not cause it.

 

Oil comes from long dead plants.

 

Someone should put two and two together and realize that at one time the northern arctic region was a tropical paradise and today is one of the world's largest oil reserves.

 

This has all happened hundreds of times before, and will happen hundreds of times more long after mankind is dead and buried. We're at the high side of the ice age cycle, nothing more.

 

There's oil around Antarctica too, maybe they'd like to explain that one.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm..._continents.png

 

Explained

 

Antarctica is roughly were it was, the others moved away, anyway it makes no difference it still shows that that part of the world wasn't always a frozen waste.

[Marxist ßastard]

Now that I'm not that good at physics, I do still remember the day our teacher told me about this in 7th grade. The sun sends sunrays to the planet and some other things happen in the process, which creates Co2.

 

Thank you. I mean, I can't see how anyone hasn't ever thought about this before. People like you and me – real Joes Six-pack who live on Main Street, far away from eggheads sitting in their ivory towers sipping imported beers – we know the truth. We have life experiences that those idiot scientists can't ever replicate, no matter how many millions of man-hours they put into their research. We know things that give us the right to directly criticize both long-established scientific fact and heavily researched claims which are under active debate. Things that can't be learned from books, or peer-reviewed journals, or completing a research doctorate in climatology, or spending most of your professional life researching the same phenomenon.

 

Things like a half-remembered factoid from a grade school–level class we took 12 years ago, told to us by someone who had (at the very least) a two-year liberal arts degree, earned a few more decades prior.

[Mr Ham]

Not sure what's more amusing; that people are decrying the death of anthropogenic global warming over the apparent fixing of a single institution's empirical data or that the scientifically illiterate are ridiculing the scientific community which has always aimed to aid them. I seriously hope people aren’t actually willing to discard decades of meticulous data collection and analysis over documents which most would hardly be bothered double checking. But no, decades of careful collection and analysis mean nothing now right? Of course, because a single institution represents the entire scientific community and their data represents the entirety of climatic data.

 

Even then, the wonder of empirical data is that it can easily be replicated. Cores drills can be redone, new atmospheric gas samples can be made, sediment can be re-examined. Of course, now that this fiasco is public, the general public are almost certainly going to proceed to claim that ALL climatic data has been fixed, whether or not it has any relation to the Hadley Institute and whether or not the documents in question are genuine.

[Sharkull]

Evidence of a correlation is not the same thing as proof of a causal relationship (read post #18's first paragraph). The Scientific Method cannot be applied after the events being analyzed. Predictions must be made before the controlled experiment (which would require a control group to properly rule out extraneous factors). Empirical data obtained outside the structure of the SM is just evidence of itself, not scientifically applicable towards a retrospective hypothesis. Such a hypothesis is simply one possible explanation for the data.

 

This doesn't stop some scientists and most media from pronouncing some things as indisputable... "Truth". That's not science. It's politics.