dearly me i have been through most of the rubbish on the internet and some of it made me belive that Co2 is causing global warming and others made me belive the opposite.
firstly i would like to put the point accross that whatever side of the arguement that you are on there always seems to be "experts" on both sides saying things that contradict each other and therefore im confused about the whole thing.
wither you belive the programme or not some fators remain apparent...1) research supporting the theory of nature causing global warming is well under funded and therefore cant be enough addition information to back up all the facts. 2) most of the funding (that has come from politicians) of the extremely popular theory that humans are causing global warming. and therefore more means more people who are "experts" and the more people say one thing it becomes more beliveable even though it might not be true.
however when people say that gloal warming is the hottest topic of discussion which (i agree). most of the people that talk about it fail to point out the fact that this topic (like anyother) is just like everyother topic of dicussion. there is always going to be someone who is an "expert" (whose support one side or the other) that claims to have all the facts and therefore he is right and the other person is wrong.
Aswell as the two "experts" that disagree with one another when you include the media and politics there is always going to be a mess! there is one and most relevant example that i can think of that is the topic of global warming and what is causing it. for someone who is like me and most of the people that i know who have no idea about the science of the issue. wherever you look on the internent, textbooks or listen to lectures from "experts that are in a similar field". when you put all the information together it is fussy at best because each side contrdicts each other and im sure that both sides can come up with extremely impressive graphs and case studies. (sorry im going on abit). the point im trying to make is that when both sides to have a vaild point how can the public make its mind up. and this is how it is like every other hot topic that has come and past because they are always two sides to very story wither science, media, the goverment or documentaries are invloved.
i love the fact that reading from both sides of the arguement and people coming out with all these websites like wikipedia.something or other? (actaully something i have found out from more than one source which inludes the site itself anyone me you and even your postman can post anything on that site and there are two many examples to name that have shown the information to be wrong on that site!). all the evidence that people come out with and they still beive that they are right and the other person is wrong when in most cases in life (not just the global warming topic) the answer is a little on both sides.
after all that typing that i have done one thing that no-one who has anything between their ears can disagree with. No matter what the politicians are funding more of or what the media (who cant really be trusted on reporting on anything that is true to a T). That the green message from everything from the media, polictians and green peace is that trying to cut down on wasted energy is a dam good idea for a number of reasons like evergy bills, health and helping to repair a part of society!
i like everyone on the issue have my own opnions and i have no PHD and no qualifications in anything that might make people belive that i am an "expert". the only answer that i can give to both sides of the arguement about global warming is time will tell (unfortunely)
Hi insanity is hereditary, like the name. Couple of points on your post:
1. You are right in stating global warming is a topic for discussion, and so both sides must have a chance for putting their points across. However, science is not a case of everyone having a valid opinion, it is the search for the truth about something, and although its not perfect, one side will be right, given enough time to look at the issue as a whole.
2. Funding has gone to scientists, and scientists don't know the answer to something until they have done the research. I can see why you believe the source of funding has skewed things, but that's only the case when the scientists chosen believe they know the answers before the research is completed. Anyway, why would any politician (or scientist for that matter) want global warming? It a pain in the arse for politicians because its such a hard sell, and I'm sure scientists would much rather be spending their time improving our lives rather than trying to avoid a disaster.
3. You are right that time will tell. I would argue that it would be better to be cautious, and i'm glad you can see benefits in the green message.
thanks for the reply but there are some of the points that i forgot to put on that answer your questions.
with such topics as global warming and you are right in scientific fact that someone will be right. however like i said before the answer would lie in a part of both sides of the argument. that is why you get all these different people coming out with really impressive research data that supports their opinion. what i am saying about the global warming issue is firstly that it is happening and would be stupid of me or anyone else for that matter to say that it isn’t. on the other hand the global warming issue is very confusing when the facts are laid out in front of you because everyone comes out "scientific facts" that contradict what the other person is saying.
As for your point about the polictians trying to sell the point of global warming it (to me) makes a lot of sense because the global warming issue comes into most sections of today’s society. in every industry there are always companies/ people who are out to make money that is no question! but like you said politicians and scientists would try and help improve our lives and they are (which you didn’t mention) for example with the global warming issue which is try and get people to cut down their emissions like dump your car and get a bike and get energy efficient light bulbs. they are making a lot of money because of the fact that "green technology" is really expensive. in my opinion if the government was REALLY serious about you and i cutting down on energy from every aspect of our life’s then they would make the "green technology" more readily available and therefore more affordable. there are more reasons for "green technology" and why politics play such a heavy part in it for example fuel supplies are getting low and places where they are available are very unstable i.e. middle east. and they are trying to get people to get other sources which cost you and i more and gives the government even more money. also you are right that global warming is a hard sell but not for the politians but for us. firstly id like to go off the point some what and say the only assure way of getting people (society) to do something is scare them because other methods are useless like suggesting using "green technology" is not going to do anything but forcing people to use it is going to get better results for them. however where politians have gone wrong in the "green message" is putting to many factors in the way of people and "green technology" for example the congestion in major cities in this country is a really big problem. and the governments answer is to but a box in very car that has very detail about you and your car in it and also allows other people to know your whereabouts. for me that answer is way to right wing and what they should do is improve the public transport (underground and buses) so that everyone can get to places where they need to be i.e. more buses in timing with the trains. however like out of those two answers to a big "green" problem which out f those makes the most money??
and finally your point about scientist trying to make our lives better. as you will of noticed there has been an explosion in "green technology" and like other products there is money to be made. and all of these "green technologies” that are coming out do not actually do as much as they advertise that they do. don’t get me wrong im not just saying it because i have an issue with "green technologies" i don’t but like every product there is always some form of the truth that is hidden simply so it is more appealing to you and i to buy it. however i do agree with the principles of the green message its a good way of tackling more than the "green issue". i just think and most people should agree like everything doesn’t appear to be what they say it is.
1) research supporting the theory of nature causing global warming is well under funded and therefore cant be enough addition information to back up all the facts. 2) most of the funding (that has come from politicians) of the extremely popular theory that humans are causing global warming. and therefore more means more people who are "experts" and the more people say one thing it becomes more beliveable even though it might not be true.
This is not true. There are a lot of expensive satellites in space carrying out observations of the sun and of the earth. These observations do not support one theory or the other, they are just observations. The results of these observations are published, and any scientist, whether "pro" or "anti" AGW can use the results if they support their position. So for example in the 1990's preliminary satellite observations appeared to identify a flaw in the AGW theory, though later on it turned out not to be the case.
yes that is true about the satellites however there is more than one way to get observations about the sun and our atmosphere such as weather bollons. and the only way you can prove something even more strongly is by getting the same data (in this case observations about the sun and atmosphere) in the same field and try out different methods of getting the information. And in the cases that are happening now methods are being used but they are exlusively for scienctist that are only researching into one aspect of the science. as everyone knows that our atmosphere is big huge in size and very complex and there are a number of scienctist that are specailising in one field which could help prove the theory of humans causing global warming maybe wrong but because they cant get the funding needed for every research project they can only part of the data themsleves (at best) and therefore have to rely on some other persons data which maybe wrong or in a different context. so in someways you are right about data that comes from satellites however that is only a part of the arguement that you have answered because there are different ways of researching our atmosphere for example all of the differernt methods need to be funded. Another example is cloud formations in collolation to solar activiaty really needs to be looked into however because of the lack of funding that area (which may be really helpful to some of the people that are doubtful about humans causing global warming) relvant research isnt there to answer the all important questions.
id just like to say im not saying that global warming is not happening im just saying that all the relvant areas of science needs to be researched before me you or your postman start saying this that or the other.
Originally posted by True Cynic: Anyway, why would any politician (or scientist for that matter) want global warming? It a pain in the arse for politicians because its such a hard sell, and I'm sure scientists would much rather be spending their time improving our lives rather than trying to avoid a disaster.
Are you kidding? The reason the causless need a cause is to say that the other side doesn't care. No society would knowingly give money to leftist groups unless they are disguised as "save the whales" or "save the polar bears". It's a well known method of animal rights groups to put out misinformation to try and get us to stop eating meat. They make up phony intrest groups with official names such as "Union of Concerned Scientists". They say things like "Cows are farting holes into the atmosphere....Let's get rid of cows!" Look at the main characters involved in the GW fiasco. In the US, they are known democrats and communists.
Are you kidding? The reason the causless need a cause is to say that the other side doesn't care. No society would knowingly give money to leftist groups unless they are disguised as "save the whales" or "save the polar bears". It's a well known method of animal rights groups to put out misinformation to try and get us to stop eating meat. They make up phony intrest groups with official names such as "Union of Concerned Scientists". They say things like "Cows are farting holes into the atmosphere....Let's get rid of cows!" Look at the main characters involved in the GW fiasco. In the US, they are known democrats and communists.
This is excellent stuff. I've always loved parodies, and this one is real class. I doubt that I could do better. Please keep'em coming.
