Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Three Quarters Believe Global Warming a Natural Occurrence?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Three Quarters Believe Global Warming a Natural Occurrence?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:45 am Post subject:

saw6436 wrote:

When I was a middle school student we were taught that a Global Ice Age was coming. Your local weatherperson has a hard enough time predicting rain for tomorrow. Just how easy do you believe predicting weather for the entire planet would be. Then spread that prediction out over 5, 10, 15, 25, 100 years.

Scare tactics and fear mongering work. We have thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of "scientists" and others whos income is driven by "Global Warming". Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what that means.

Really who has more to gain here, scientists or the engery industry?

Scientists--amdittedly, global warming is probably considered a sexy issue, and there are research grants around for those who want to sex up their studies. Yet let's look at what a scientist is--someone whose only concern is for the disinterested pursuit of knowledge. Of course there are exceptions, maybe even large amounts of them, but what guides science is truth, not profit. They have careers because of their ability to verify truth--things as they are. In fact, let's see some proof that climatologists and geologists are marketing hysteria for grants funding--on a large scale. Someone provide documents.

Now, the other side. The energy industry. Their only goal--the only goal of any business-is profit. Not sustainability. Not research. Not information. Not even providing energy. Profit. If they could make the most profts by not even producing energy, they would. Energy is just another commodity, like beaver pelts or ivory or African slaves. Why wouldn't they have a huge interest in sowing dissent about global warming and its causes? Every scientist I've seen quoted in any journal or newspaper of repute has worked for the engery industry at one point or another.

In fact, the National Academy of Sciences, which had denied that climate change was mad made for over two decades, finally reversed its position in 2005. A national pro bono advisory board under a conservative administration reversing a position after eight years of Clinton/Gore "hysterics?" Come on. I hate to be an elitist (although I most certainly am), but why not let those who are qualified do the research before using logically fallacious claims that you can't substantiate.

cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject:

"The public is the only critic whose opinion is worth anything at all." (Sam Clemens)

Lie Bot

Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Location: Somewhere with Seoul!!!

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject:

contrarian wrote:

The GHG and GW things are huge socialist scams to redistribute world wealth

Sad

You can say that again. Have you heard of Hitler's big lie? That's what GW is just the leftist version.

sundubuman

Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:54 am Post subject:

jkelly80 wrote:

Really who has more to gain here, scientists or the engery industry?

If these are the only entities that you can conceive that may be in this game.....

you are a slug.

How about the United Nations (global carbon tax)?????

or even national and regional/state governments??

The latter are foaming at the mouth with possible new revenue sources via taxation of carbon. Have you taken a close look at your local/state/national governments' pension plans???

They are underfunded, and a carbon tax looks mighty yummy.

jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:28 pm Post subject:

sundubuman wrote:

How about the United Nations (global carbon tax)?????

or even national and regional/state governments??

The latter are foaming at the mouth with possible new revenue sources via taxation of carbon. Have you taken a close look at your local/state/national governments' pension plans???

They are underfunded, and a carbon tax looks mighty yummy.

That may be true. In the case of the UN, that's definitely true. The UN has zero authority when it comes to taxation, however, and almost zero prestige. So screw that global carbon tax. However, there may be many public bodies at other levels with a vested interest in generating more tax revenue, so maybe a local or national carbon tax could be in the wings. But these are political acts. The American public votes with emotion, not data. Al Gore may be in the hype business, but the US NAS is not (not yet at least). There may be carbon taxes, and these may be bad ideas.

Maybe they'll enact them in order to fund pensions, or infrastructure upgrades, or slush funds for crooked pols, or plans to shoot talking monkeys into space. But you'll need to show some sort of collusion b/w these groups and the US National Academy of Sciences, beyond the fact that their raison d'etre is not profit. I doubt this, however.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject:

jkelly80 wrote:

Really who has more to gain here, scientists or the engery industry?

So one is either with "the scientists" or against them (or one is either against "the Exxon propaganda machine" or for it), is that it?

jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

jkelly80 wrote:

Really who has more to gain here, scientists or the engery industry?

So one is either with "the scientists" or against them (or one is either against "the Exxon propaganda machine" or for it), is that it?

I don't know, Gophy, is that what it looks like? How superfluous of you.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject:

Thanks for clarifying. For a moment I thought you had reduced our options to yet another either/or dichotomy on a major political question. So, for the record, you do recognize that one can question global-warming politics without necessarily standing with "the corporations," who, incidentally, you also must recognize are not monolithic, either, right?

spliff

Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject:

Global warming is good.

jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Thanks for clarifying. For a moment I thought you had reduced our options to yet another either/or dichotomy on a major political question.

So, for the record, you do recognize that one can question global-warming politics without necessarily standing with "the corporations," who, incidentally, you also must recognize are not monolithic, either, right?

Coporations, no. But the energy industry is rather monolithic, actually. BP maybe is a little greener.

I'm not talking about personal doubts. I have doubts myself. I'm talking about prominent advocates and skeptics, people who are trained in such things. The International Panel on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization, the US NAS, all say its man made. GW skeptics--such Frederick Seitz, Fred Singer, Robert Bailing and Patrick Michaels--all have received money from Exxon Mobil.

cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject:

jkelly80 wrote:

Gopher wrote:

Most (credible) Global Warming experts from either side of the
argument have received money from big oil at some point in their career.

The loudest mouth pieces receive funding from politicos.

I still have much affection for scientists that remain open minded.

"There is enough evidence to prove.."

and

"There is enough evidence to disprove.."

are both statements of dishonesty.

Len8

Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Location: Kyungju

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:17 pm Post subject:

They say that if people stopped smoking, we would have a great reduction in global warming.

The_Conservative

Joined: 15 Mar 2007

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject:

jkelly80 wrote:

[ Yet let's look at what a scientist is--someone whose only concern is for the disinterested pursuit of knowledge. . .

So before they were scientists they had opinions and agendas...but once they became scientists...this magically disappeared?

You have very romantic ideas about scientists..kind of how doctors were perceived until people realized that the majority of them were paid mouthpieces for the drug companies.

Scientists "disinterested pursuit of knowledge" that's a laugh.

They get research grants to fund their topic of study and are not above manipulating the research to get the results they think they should get. If you did an experiement and it turned out "wrong" wouldn't you change the way you performed it...particularly if you thought that if you published your orginal results you'd get shouted down as a "denier" or a "shill of the energy companies" and lose your credibility?

All are powerful motivaters for scientists to toe the line.

They are NO more ethical than any other group. Period.

contrarian

Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject:

Three quarters of those polled think that global warming is a natural occurance. That is not surprising. It is a natural occurance totally unrelated the any anthropomorphic causes. The other "stupid" 25% just don't get it.

jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject:

The_Conservative wrote:

particularly if you thought that if you published your orginal results you'd get shouted down as a "denier" or a "shill of the energy companies" and lose your credibility?

That's a false premise until you can prove that credible peer-reviewed research is being shouted down as denialism, AND that a large portion climatologists and geologists think such thoughts before publishing research.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe