Nathaniel wrote:the pollution from our autos and industry like i said has %100 capability to cause a global warming trend. but we do not know wether the amount we are introducing into the environment is enough to be causing our current warming trend.
ive said it MULTIPLE times. i am not sure what part you are confused at what i am saying...
as for funding... u TOTALLY misunderstood the word funding.
i am talking about WHO funds the reseach data u could be looking at. if u do not know WHO funded the research u basically have to throw away the results from your mind. since it could be a TOTALLY biased set of bad science data. and fact is ALOT of the science out there is BAD SCIENCE. meaningpurposely finding an answer that is WANTED by their founding bodies.
Quote:
Dude, I can read just as well as you. You said that NOBODY on this thread was saying that humans are behind global warming, when in reality there are SEVERAL - REREAD my post!. That was the beef I had with your reply to my rant. You keep saying capability/possibility multiple times, but then use words such as FACT and IS when only 'maybe' and 'possibility' are valid in this debate. NOBODY knows for sure - circumstantial evidence does not equal FACT. The only fact we can be sure of is that we're not sure of anything.
Quote:
As for the funding issue, you either don't have the first clue about what you're talking about, or you work in/went to school in the scientific version of hell. It doesn't matter one tiny bit WHO funded the research. Good science is done by intelligent scientists (people), not by the organizations who fund it. For instance, when I did my masters I was fully funded by NSERC - no I don't know the people who run it personally, but they didn't come to me giving me a list of the final results they wanted me to publish, either. My supervisors didn't interfere in the least even when I found things never before observed - they did their best to help me out and keep me focused, but didn't do any thinking for me - it's called good science, and the VAST majority of research is done this way! Any biases put into good research are put their by the scientists who are doing that research. Purposefully finding an answer WANTED by their founding bodies? You don't seriously think that's common, do you? I'm a scientist who has worked both in academia and in industry, and the only thing WANTED by the people who signed the cheques were answers to different problems. How many "scientists" do you know who ignore blatant evidence to come up with an answer their boss likes? Other experts in that field CERTAINLY wouldn't find it hard to call them on it and reveal them as frauds (that's what editors, reviewers, symposiums, conferences are there for).
Yes there are bad scientists out there, and yes there is a fair-share of bad science, but the whole purpose of having a scientific community is to weed these guys out.
Open your mind - shoot your TV.
unholysavage wrote:Nathaniel,
The stupid quote function just isn't working for me today, so bear with me. The first post of this thread had a link which stated that human climate change caused a shift in global warming trends (within the last 3-4 years if I remember correctly), resulting in a runaway global warming trend that's melting the permafrost. I read that as saying that humanity was the sole reason why this natural cycle was supposedly thrown off-course. You can argue this point, but I think it shows that at least 1 person on this thread seriously believed it to be true.
Quote:
As for greenhouse gases, we're releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? Holy crap, batman!! I had no idea we were doing that! Just about everything on Earth does, and it's been that way for billions of years.
Quote:
Now for the twist - how the hell can you say with certainty that humanity is truly altering these natural cycles, and that our emissions are really affecting anything?
Quote:
I think that we're probably affecting something (at least a little), but who knows for sure?
Quote:
The TRUE experts working on this problem can't agree on very much, so how in the hell can someone like you (in IT) pretend that you're an expert?
Quote:
You're not a geographer, climatologist, or a geologist - you're nothing more than a computer geek. You talk about critical research as though you actually do some as an IT guy, and then pretend to know something because you work on computers in an environmental lab? Sorry, Nat - there's a word for people like you - poseur. I'm sure you've probably picked up a thing or two from the REAL scientists that work in your lab over the past 6 years, but you are by no means any kind of expert just because you deal with IT in an enviro lab. Have you personally been involved in any environmental research - by that, I mean going out and collecting data, analysing the data and coming up with meaningful interpretations? If so, I would be very interested to read your findings. I would be very surprised if you do, seeing that none of the IT people I know here who work for oil and gas companies have the first clue about oil or gas. If you have actually contributed to the thinking-aspect of environmental research, by all means point us to your work.
Nathaniel wrote:
i am by far no expert or a scientist. nor have i stated otherwise. however, u should keep ur lips shut before u speak when assuming i know nothing in my companies field.
i worked 2 years in the bacterial analysis department as well as now being a certified mold and fungal analyst.
so while this does not relate to this discussion i am proving my point in which just because the IT GUYS YOU KNOW have no experience in the companies field they work for, does not mean I would not.
so i believe your foot is planted firmly in your mouth on that subject.
also, i would like to see ur published research work if u have links.
Nathaniel wrote:
u obviously have had NO experience in CRITICAL RESEARCH involving the life of a multimillion dollar bussiness or industry.
and just so u know i work in a environmental laboratory as IT man. 6+ years
unholysavage wrote:
Nathaniel wrote:
i am by far no expert or a scientist. nor have i stated otherwise. however, u should keep ur lips shut before u speak when assuming i know nothing in my companies field.
i worked 2 years in the bacterial analysis department as well as now being a certified mold and fungal analyst.
so while this does not relate to this discussion i am proving my point in which just because the IT GUYS YOU KNOW have no experience in the companies field they work for, does not mean I would not.
so i believe your foot is planted firmly in your mouth on that subject.
also, i would like to see ur published research work if u have links.
This is the part where I'm not terribly happy with you. You weren't even trying to prove a point - you were trying to backtrack when I called you a fraud. If you really weren't trying to pawn yourself off as an expert, then please tell all of us why you tried to pass yourself off as one when you threw in that statement trying to bash and belittle me with your "6+ years" of IT experience working for an enviro lab?
If you don't remember what you initially said, here it is:
Quote:
As for the funding issue, you either don't have the first clue about what you're talking about, or you work in/went to school in the scientific version of hell. It doesn't matter one tiny bit WHO funded the research.
Quote:
when I did my masters I was fully funded by NSERC
Quote:
Nathaniel wrote:
u obviously have had NO experience in CRITICAL RESEARCH involving the life of a multimillion dollar bussiness or industry.
and just so u know i work in a environmental laboratory as IT man. 6+ years
You couldn't seriously believe for 1 second that your bluff wouldn't be called, did you? There is no question you probably learned some things working IT, but that was pretty petty trying to use your IT experience to attempt to make me look bad.
unholysavage wrote:I don't mind Scientific America (it's not what I would call a "rigorously" scrutinized journal, but more of a glamourized, poorly refereed scientific collection), but that article seems to be the source of your conspiracy theory that every source of funding has some kind of hidden agenda.
Quote:
I guess I'm not as easily convinced by things I read in books - there's some truth in everything you hear/read (to some extent), but it's never wise to believe every word you read. I'm pretty happy being a petroleum geologist, and have no desire to work for a journal that glorifies (and exaggerates) certain aspects of science but not others (yes - if you do enough research you will quickly realize that SA is quite biased). If you had read my earlier posts, you would have noticed that I agreed that shady dealings have occurred and do occur, but you make it out to be some kind of scientific cesspool where 1 in 100 scientific findings are credible (which is way off).
Quote:
You only seem to look at the people funding the research and completely ignore the actual scientists who do the work. Just because shady suits are funding a project doesn't necessarily mean that the results will be useless - I find it incredible that you believe that.
Quote:
I have had absolutely no experience with any of this political crap (and I've been all over the board, geology-experience wise - from paleontology to mineral exploration to sedimentology to petroleum exploration), and the professionals I work with only very rarely speak of rumours about people's funding getting cut (or get fired) because their results weren't in "tune" with their bosses/supervisors/"funding agencies". Maybe that kind of crap happens to production geologists (who deal with reserves etc), but none of my friends have complained. I just haven't been unlucky enough to have dealt with crap like that, or maybe this kind of corruption is just far more prevalent in the USA than here. I can't answer that.
Quote:
I also didn't say that you knew nothing about your company - I said that it didn't make you an environmental expert and to stop trying to think that you can talk down to people to prove your points. I'm referring to your 6+ years statement - maybe I took it the wrong way, but with the way you've been continually giving me this "holier-than-thou" attitude I sincerely doubt it. I only mentioned my masters as an example of how my supervisors DIDN'T bias my research results - it was in no way an attempt to belittle everyone (hell, just about everyone has a masters these days).
Jackalope wrote:Untill scientists can find someone who is several thousand years old to get first hand knowledge of what happened long ago then all they are doing is recording the temp and guessing at whats makeing it happen. Why panic the general public over something they do not exactly whats going on?
Ice has been here and melted before and then it re-freezes again just so it can melt and start over. Theres just no way to know if its us or normal.