Global warming critic research proves... (?)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Apr 4, 2011.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000


    Feb 8, 2002
    Granted, this is based on 2% of the 1.6 Billion measurements they are going to analyze, but it's an interesting and unexpected admission from the skeptics assigned this task. Science really doesn't care about your politics no matter how much your politics cares about science.
  2. Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Sunny Southern California
    *Puts on flame-proof vest in preparation*

    Even if climate change is 100% conclusively proven to be human caused, I would still argue that wealth creation is the best way to combat it. Florida floods...move. Can't farm in Mexico anymore, Canada now becomes farmable.
  3. Sydde macrumors 68020


    Aug 17, 2009
    Fear not, amusing satire is always appreciated :)
  4. Eraserhead macrumors G4


    Nov 3, 2005
    So exactly what the Chinese have been doing?
  5. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Wealth creation? :confused:

    If Florida became uninhabitable and Mexico become unarable there'd be a tremendous loss of wealth.

    How is a person who loses his house or farm going to have the means to move to Canada to start all over again?
  6. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000


    Feb 8, 2002
    Indentured servitude?
  7. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Jun 2, 2007
    Everyone knows that "climategate" and the like are complete bunk. Here's a nice in depth debunking that was sent to Sen. James "proud to be named Earth's number one enemy" Inhofe.

    The PDF is rather extensive, so I doubt anyone will actually read it. I doubt Inhofe read it, either. Or anyone in Congress, for that matter, but it shows that "Climategate" was an attempt to falsify the hypothesis of climate change and that it failed to do so.
  8. dime21 macrumors 6502

    Dec 9, 2010
    LOL. Climte gate showed the world that junk science and data suppression are the norm amongst these fraudsters, and that they'll stoop to any level to "prove" their preposterous theories. These global warming "scientists" are laughing stocks.
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4


    May 18, 2008

    This should be rich.
  10. dime21 macrumors 6502

    Dec 9, 2010
    A link to what? A summary of Climategate? I'll let you flex your google-muscles on that one.
  11. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a


    Oct 8, 2008
    Any "science" backed by Koch money. Isn't that good enough for you? ;)
  12. SuperCachetes macrumors 6502a


    Nov 28, 2010
    Away from you
    LOL, no.

    But it's not all bad news: your "post" has been "entered" in the MacRumors "Best Use of Sarcastically-Intended Quotations" "competition" for "2011." Good luck!
  13. CaptMurdock Suspended


    Jan 2, 2009
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    Here's something for ya, to post in threads like these:
    Use this pic with my compliments!:D
  14. flopticalcube macrumors G4


    Sep 7, 2006
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    It's always good to view things with a critical eye. Once the science is thoroughly proven, however, it's time to move on. Let's move on to solutions.

    PS. I have a chicken coop in the backyard for rent to any Mexican or Floridian who can get his ass up here.
  15. hulugu macrumors 68000


    Aug 13, 2003
    quae tangit perit Trump
    And where should the 160 million people in Bangladesh go? Assuming that "wealth creation" focuses on just those most likely to be affected by climate change—and we'll assume that the loss of bread baskets in the US, Russia, and Europe will be counteracted by gains in Canada, etc.—there's still the fundamental problem of moving millions from their current homes to new locations. Even 18 million people in Florida would represent a massive shift in people and infrastructure and that's assuming that wealth presents symmetrically.
    Even with several big 'ifs' you have a major problem that won't be solved with money alone.

    You mean how after the dust settled the scientists were cleared of any scientific misconduct? That the hacked emails were taken out of context by people who stood to gain political points? That even if "climate gate" was entirely true, this doesn't change the wide scientific inquiry done by hundreds of scientists over a period of thirty years.

    Of course, if you really cared you would read the report.
  16. Sam Yikin macrumors regular

    Oct 28, 2007

    First result on google.

    Well, look at that, overwhelming consensus that there was little to worry about in the leak except for some transparency issues, and that the science behind it is still as strong as ever.
  17. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Jun 2, 2007
    Ehh . . . did you see the PDF? The one that shows there was no suppression of evidence? What on earth would scientists gain my unanimously supporting global warming?

    Since the political elite and capitalist giants all oppose global warming, money would (and does) flow to those who try to falsify it. Those who support it, by and large, get nothing other.
  18. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Mar 9, 2005
    From that article:

    The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.[15] The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher

    Just to re-iterate your point :).

    As for arguments of somehow "creating wealth" regardless of climate change, well thats a remarkably silly thing to say. Not only will a significant amount of important land mass be lost. But our oceans will significantly increase in PH thanks to the formation of carbonic acid and the introduction of large amounts of PH 7 fresh water compared to the oceans current PH of roughly 8.14.

    A MAJOR change with enormously wide reaching consequences. Ocean acidification in conjunction with massive over fishing, population manipulation, pollution etc. may be the final nail in the coffin of marine biodiversity.

    ...which is bad (for the economy AND the environment)

Share This Page