The View From Inside The Bubble
-
I don't work for a member of Congress. I receive my orders directly from Chairman Soros, the Bilderberg Group, and Interpol.
Now give me your guns and Bibles, capitalist. We can do this the easy way or the hard way.
-
The only way to be sure is for someone independent of the argument to conduct all of the research again and compare the results. It also calls into question any previous research projects that were conducted.
And all 5 studies came to the conclusion that the data was not misrepresented. What you just stated is the essence of science. There were thousands of years where everyone understood that the four elements were earth, wind, fire, and water. There were hundreds (if not thousands) of years where people understood that earth was the center of the solar system and the universe. Right now, there are about 50 years worth of research into the whole global warming idea. If AGW is, in fact, not true, then the truth will surface. However, it's not going to come out because the scientific community gave up on the idea, it will come out because the scientific community unraveled a different, better understanding of climatic cycles.
To say, "Oh, it's all probably bullshit, and even if AGW does turn out to be true, it's too late to do anything," is to be completely counter-productive. If naysayers are want their theory to become widely accepted, then they need to show mountains of evidence for it. As it stands, AGW proponents have a pile the size of Mount Everest compared to their opponents' molehills.
And all 5 studies came to the conclusion that the data was not misrepresented. What you just stated is the essence of science. There were thousands of years where everyone understood that the four elements were earth, wind, fire, and water. There were hundreds (if not thousands) of years where people understood that earth was the center of the solar system and the universe. Right now, there are about 50 years worth of research into the whole global warming idea. If AGW is, in fact, not true, then the truth will surface. However, it's not going to come out because the scientific community gave up on the idea, it will come out because the scientific community unraveled a different, better understanding of climatic cycles.
To say, "Oh, it's all probably bullshit, and even if AGW does turn out to be true, it's too late to do anything," is to be completely counter-productive. If naysayers are want their theory to become widely accepted, then they need to show mountains of evidence for it. As it stands, AGW proponents have a pile the size of Mount Everest compared to their opponents' molehills.
I'm watching my 6 month old son, so I don't have the time to look into the 5 investigations.
Also, I don't think that many people doubt the earth's climate is warming. They are doubting the cause. It is true that, historically, the earth's climate has been variable, with ice ages and warm periods. There was a warm period recently as the Vikings were able to colonize parts of Greenland that are now permafrost. But proponents of the MMGW theory purport that the earth is warming faster than it ever has before. Can this really be determined? Are the methods used to determine the earth's past climate really accurate enough to make such a determination? I am asking because it's something I would really like to know.
It doesn't help MMGW's cause that the main spokesman lived in a house that consumed electricity at a rate of 5 times the national average. I mean, if he was really so concerned about MMGW, wouldn't he practiced what he preached? So it is easy to see why many people think that MMGW is a ploy by certain people to advance their own causes, whatever they might be. In Al Gore's case, that seems like it was to get rich, and he did. So it's not fair to dismiss people's concerns about the motivation behind this issue.
:neutral_face: -
The science says the opposite. That's the problem with that point. It says that recent increases in temperature are being driven primarily by human activity, not natural causes. That's the whole basis for being concerned. And that's what the science is trying to determine, is determining, and has been determining.
Everyone is well aware that the earth has had variations in temperature in the past.
The Al Gore stuff is just a sideshow. He doesn't affect the science either way.
-
And all 5 studies came to the conclusion that the data was not misrepresented. What you just stated is the essence of science. There were thousands of years where everyone understood that the four elements were earth, wind, fire, and water. There were hundreds (if not thousands) of years where people understood that earth was the center of the solar system and the universe. Right now, there are about 50 years worth of research into the whole global warming idea. If AGW is, in fact, not true, then the truth will surface. However, it's not going to come out because the scientific community gave up on the idea, it will come out because the scientific community unraveled a different, better understanding of climatic cycles.
To say, "Oh, it's all probably bullshit, and even if AGW does turn out to be true, it's too late to do anything," is to be completely counter-productive. If naysayers are want their theory to become widely accepted, then they need to show mountains of evidence for it. As it stands, AGW proponents have a pile the size of Mount Everest compared to their opponents' molehills.
I'm watching my 6 month old son, so I don't have the time to look into the 5 investigations.
Also, I don't think that many people doubt the earth's climate is warming. They are doubting the cause. It is true that, historically, the earth's climate has been variable, with ice ages and warm periods. There was a warm period recently as the Vikings were able to colonize parts of Greenland that are now permafrost. But proponents of the MMGW theory purport that the earth is warming faster than it ever has before. Can this really be determined? Are the methods used to determine the earth's past climate really accurate enough to make such a determination? I am asking because it's something I would really like to know.
It doesn't help MMGW's cause that the main spokesman lived in a house that consumed electricity at a rate of 5 times the national average. I mean, if he was really so concerned about MMGW, wouldn't he practiced what he preached? So it is easy to see why many people think that MMGW is a ploy by certain people to advance their own causes, whatever they might be. In Al Gore's case, that seems like it was to get rich, and he did. So it's not fair to dismiss people's concerns about the motivation behind this issue.
I'm watching my 6 month old son, so I don't have the time to look into the 5 investigations.
Also, I don't think that many people doubt the earth's climate is warming. They are doubting the cause. It is true that, historically, the earth's climate has been variable, with ice ages and warm periods. There was a warm period recently as the Vikings were able to colonize parts of Greenland that are now permafrost. But proponents of the MMGW theory purport that the earth is warming faster than it ever has before. Can this really be determined? Are the methods used to determine the earth's past climate really accurate enough to make such a determination? I am asking because it's something I would really like to know.
It doesn't help MMGW's cause that the main spokesman lived in a house that consumed electricity at a rate of 5 times the national average. I mean, if he was really so concerned about MMGW, wouldn't he practiced what he preached? So it is easy to see why many people think that MMGW is a ploy by certain people to advance their own causes, whatever they might be. In Al Gore's case, that seems like it was to get rich, and he did. So it's not fair to dismiss people's concerns about the motivation behind this issue.
According to these investigations, as heck stated, the science that validated the experiments was unbiased. I'm busting my ass off studying for the MCAT and trying to pull a 4.0, I don't have time to read them either. The investigations, in my opinion, are largely irrelevant, even had they come to the opposite conclusion. It's going to take more than an email review committee to refute or support scientific work. If they had said that the scientists did fudge their data, then it'd be up to other scientists conducting different experiments to refute the original work to change my mind.
As for the methods they are using, they are as accurate as we know how to get. Are they accurate enough? I don't know. It's kind of wishy-washy, to be honest. The earth does have climatic cycles of cooling and heating, and I'm sure some of it that we're seeing today is due to those natural cycles. It is clear, however, that the levels of CO2 are off the charts and ridiculously higher than they've ever been. The problem is political, because if you gamble that we're going to have a horrible effect on the environment, and take expensive measures to prevent that effect, you run the risk of handcuffing yourself economically while China and India maximize profits, environment be damned.
And I've said it before, I'll say it again. Al Gore is a xxxxing joke. The Nobel Peace Prize is a xxxxing joke. To give that shit to Gore and Obama for what? A movie and winning an election? Bullshit. Al Gore is not the heart of the AGW proponents, the heart is in the science.
-
I'm watching my 6 month old son, so I don't have the time to look into the 5 investigations.
Also, I don't think that many people doubt the earth's climate is warming. They are doubting the cause. It is true that, historically, the earth's climate has been variable, with ice ages and warm periods. There was a warm period recently as the Vikings were able to colonize parts of Greenland that are now permafrost. But proponents of the MMGW theory purport that the earth is warming faster than it ever has before. Can this really be determined? Are the methods used to determine the earth's past climate really accurate enough to make such a determination? I am asking because it's something I would really like to know.
It doesn't help MMGW's cause that the main spokesman lived in a house that consumed electricity at a rate of 5 times the national average. I mean, if he was really so concerned about MMGW, wouldn't he practiced what he preached? So it is easy to see why many people think that MMGW is a ploy by certain people to advance their own causes, whatever they might be. In Al Gore's case, that seems like it was to get rich, and he did. So it's not fair to dismiss people's concerns about the motivation behind this issue.
According to these investigations, as heck stated, the science that validated the experiments was unbiased. I'm busting my ass off studying for the MCAT and trying to pull a 4.0, I don't have time to read them either. The investigations, in my opinion, are largely irrelevant, even had they come to the opposite conclusion. It's going to take more than an email review committee to refute or support scientific work. If they had said that the scientists did fudge their data, then it'd be up to other scientists conducting different experiments to refute the original work to change my mind.
As for the methods they are using, they are as accurate as we know how to get. Are they accurate enough? I don't know. It's kind of wishy-washy, to be honest. The earth does have climatic cycles of cooling and heating, and I'm sure some of it that we're seeing today is due to those natural cycles. It is clear, however, that the levels of CO2 are off the charts and ridiculously higher than they've ever been. The problem is political, because if you gamble that we're going to have a horrible effect on the environment, and take expensive measures to prevent that effect, you run the risk of handcuffing yourself economically while China and India maximize profits, environment be damned.
And I've said it before, I'll say it again. Al Gore is a xxxxing joke. The Nobel Peace Prize is a xxxxing joke. To give that shit to Gore and Obama for what? A movie and winning an election? Bullshit. Al Gore is not the heart of the AGW proponents, the heart is in the science.
According to these investigations, as heck stated, the science that validated the experiments was unbiased. I'm busting my ass off studying for the MCAT and trying to pull a 4.0, I don't have time to read them either. The investigations, in my opinion, are largely irrelevant, even had they come to the opposite conclusion. It's going to take more than an email review committee to refute or support scientific work. If they had said that the scientists did fudge their data, then it'd be up to other scientists conducting different experiments to refute the original work to change my mind.
But the investigations are not irrelevant, comrade, because the claim is that the discussion in the emails proves that they messed with the science.
All the investigations found that this claim is baseless.
-
I'm watching my 6 month old son, so I don't have the time to look into the 5 investigations.
Also, I don't think that many people doubt the earth's climate is warming. They are doubting the cause. It is true that, historically, the earth's climate has been variable, with ice ages and warm periods. There was a warm period recently as the Vikings were able to colonize parts of Greenland that are now permafrost. But proponents of the MMGW theory purport that the earth is warming faster than it ever has before. Can this really be determined? Are the methods used to determine the earth's past climate really accurate enough to make such a determination? I am asking because it's something I would really like to know.
It doesn't help MMGW's cause that the main spokesman lived in a house that consumed electricity at a rate of 5 times the national average. I mean, if he was really so concerned about MMGW, wouldn't he practiced what he preached? So it is easy to see why many people think that MMGW is a ploy by certain people to advance their own causes, whatever they might be. In Al Gore's case, that seems like it was to get rich, and he did. So it's not fair to dismiss people's concerns about the motivation behind this issue.
According to these investigations, as heck stated, the science that validated the experiments was unbiased. I'm busting my ass off studying for the MCAT and trying to pull a 4.0, I don't have time to read them either. The investigations, in my opinion, are largely irrelevant, even had they come to the opposite conclusion. It's going to take more than an email review committee to refute or support scientific work. If they had said that the scientists did fudge their data, then it'd be up to other scientists conducting different experiments to refute the original work to change my mind.
As for the methods they are using, they are as accurate as we know how to get. Are they accurate enough? I don't know. It's kind of wishy-washy, to be honest. The earth does have climatic cycles of cooling and heating, and I'm sure some of it that we're seeing today is due to those natural cycles. It is clear, however, that the levels of CO2 are off the charts and ridiculously higher than they've ever been. The problem is political, because if you gamble that we're going to have a horrible effect on the environment, and take expensive measures to prevent that effect, you run the risk of handcuffing yourself economically while China and India maximize profits, environment be damned.
And I've said it before, I'll say it again. Al Gore is a xxxxing joke. The Nobel Peace Prize is a xxxxing joke. To give that shit to Gore and Obama for what? A movie and winning an election? Bullshit. Al Gore is not the heart of the AGW proponents, the heart is in the science.
According to these investigations, as heck stated, the science that validated the experiments was unbiased. I'm busting my ass off studying for the MCAT and trying to pull a 4.0, I don't have time to read them either. The investigations, in my opinion, are largely irrelevant, even had they come to the opposite conclusion. It's going to take more than an email review committee to refute or support scientific work. If they had said that the scientists did fudge their data, then it'd be up to other scientists conducting different experiments to refute the original work to change my mind.
As for the methods they are using, they are as accurate as we know how to get. Are they accurate enough? I don't know. It's kind of wishy-washy, to be honest. The earth does have climatic cycles of cooling and heating, and I'm sure some of it that we're seeing today is due to those natural cycles. It is clear, however, that the levels of CO2 are off the charts and ridiculously higher than they've ever been. The problem is political, because if you gamble that we're going to have a horrible effect on the environment, and take expensive measures to prevent that effect, you run the risk of handcuffing yourself economically while China and India maximize profits, environment be damned.
And I've said it before, I'll say it again. Al Gore is a xxxxing joke. The Nobel Peace Prize is a xxxxing joke. To give that shit to Gore and Obama for what? A movie and winning an election? Bullshit. Al Gore is not the heart of the AGW proponents, the heart is in the science.
You know, the world needs more people that can look at an issue this objectively. Thanks for this post.
-
Actually, the earth is COOLING. Not warming. ***COOL-ING***
MMGW is being seen more and more, like a seriously flawed theory....
And the Arctic ice is EXPANDING....
And, the plain truth is, the debate was never over, as Shep insisted so many times. It was just beginning.
Now, read all the quotes by scientists who are legit skeptics:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/607
-
But the investigations are not irrelevant, comrade, because the claim is that the discussion in the emails proves that they messed with the science.
All the investigations found that this claim is baseless.
In context, yes, they are relevant to the media and every yahoo that's interested in the subject; a bunch of scientists looked at the language of the emails and suggested that they didn't make up their science. For me, personally, as a scientist, it doesn't hold much water because it wasn't a scientific experiment.
-
Well, if this were about science it wouldn't have been discussed on Andrew Breitbart and Michelle Malkin's websites, or Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh's or Glenn Beck's radio show.
This is about politics.
-
I hate that science is affected by politics. Explains why I loathe all things political.
-
I hate that science is affected by politics. Explains why I loathe all things political.
I hate that science is affected by politics. Explains why I loathe all things political.
Vapor, where are you hoping to go to Medical School?
-
At this point, I'd go to whichever place accepts me. My GPA is only 3.0 due to being a physics major/dicking around and partying too much my first two years. Even if I get a 30+ on my MCAT, it's a long shot for me to get into MD school. As far as my MCAT studies go, I have 4 weeks until the test and just scored a 30 on my last practice one (which was my goal). If I can get a 33-35, which I believe is totally possible at this point, I'd probably be able to get an interview at DO schools.
But... One of the profs I'm doing research with just asked me if I was interested in a Masters in Biology at UD. I never really considered it before this, but looking at it now, I'd jump all over it. Bio comes so much easier to me than physics does, and I know that I can pull off a 4.0 in bio courses if I'm not spending 25 hours a week studying physics just to get a B. So, if I do this two-year program, kick its ass, pull off a 4.0 at graduate level, and get out a publication or two in biosensors and microbiology/biochemistry, I think it'd make me a good candidate for wherever I want to go. Provided I score 32+ on the MCAT.
So, as of now, I don't even know if I'll be able to get that grad school position because I'm still waiting back on the biology office. If they don't make space for me, and I score well on the MCAT, I'll probably apply to MSU, NOVA, OU, and Toledo, but even applications are expensive. If I get into that masters program, and do as well as I want to do, I'll be applying to Case, UNC, Duke, Emory, they're all top 20 schools, but that won't be for another year or two.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login