You say that is if you sit by me while I watch TV every evening. Actually, the only media I’m currently aware of is BBC world service and the occasional newspaper, and from what I casually gathered in the last time… where is the propaganda denying climate change you seem to speak of? All I get is the next frontier, the big challenge for all of humanity, etc.
What are “the” corporations? Surely not the peeps selling solar cells or roof paint? Why would a computer manufacturer care if manufacturing gets more expensive if it does so equally for all computer manufacturers?
Okay, a lot of big dogs do fit that bill, and they’re lobbying the fuck out of it, I’m aware (or let’s say, agnostic ^^) of that. But all in all, A LOT of money is made with speculation and services and whatnot, not every capitalist has factories with black smoke coming out of the chimney, and just saying “the corporations” are against it because they’ll lose money is seems a bit simplistic to me.
Besides: the solution to that would STILL an open review of the data. If this is about truth, and possible dangers, there are optimal ways to deal with regardless of what the facts turn out to be.
Really? All the raw data? If you had even read some of the stuff I posted you would realize that they don’t even know what the data from other scientists means more often that would seem sane for something of this importance.
But okay, post some links then. Where are the websites dedicated to engaging the interested public in the data?
They manage to hold like the biggest, most complicated summit in world history (Kopenhagen) – where is the public equivalent? Seriously, I’m asking. It might just be an URL away so if anybody knows something…
And hey, when you say peer, do you mean “experts in white coats”? Because I mean millions and potentially billions of people.
A common statement is “but they don’t have the time or the expertise” – partly true, partly self-fulfilling prophecy! As someone on slashdot said, “this is equivalent of insisting on the mass being held in Latin”.
“but it would just be a huge clusterfuck” IT ALREADY IS. Browse the climategate stuff.
You mean ignorant about global warming or just ignorant in general? Seems kinda simplistic and convenient, too.
And because I’m ignorant and what I say is therefore wrong, why look at or even read the stuff I posted…
from the comments of that:
But yeah, ALL the data, every single scrap of it, is out in the open, and you’re SO not talking out of your ass when you say that. And you’re just pissed because you’re so worried about Earth, not because you’re gullible and I’m pointing that out.
One more (as I said, check the links in the footer of the The Register article I posted… SO. MUCH. STUFF.)
Just invest in clean energy, they will eventually prevail as nobody wants to blow black snot. My stance is clear, push clean energy investment as we get the benefit of reducing global warming risc and we’ll get better snot sooner rather than later.
Ahh, I wish I had remembered this one earlier, would have saved me some typing perhaps:
But that’s just something on the side, something I hope we can all agree on
Yeah! It makes sense anyway. Fossil fuels just don’t work in the long run, a five year old can understand that. Very finite resources, infinite demand… meanwhile the sun is blazing 99.9999999999999999% of unbelievable amounts of energy into open space! A five year old can see something is wrong with that.
However, a five year old can also see that there’s something fishy with how stuff is currently handled/“debated”. Fuck mobbing, fuck armbands, fuck bumper stickers. Here’s an idea: kill all the idiot sheep and we would have a clean planet for CENTURIES before we would have to worry about anything! So there, how’s that for breakfast
There are many solutions to this, and if we keep fumbling nature will find a way to select I’m sure
I agree! It’d be arrogant to think we could destroy something so old and immense as a planet. We can change its surface maybe, but even then… life always finds a way…
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point: There’s a plethora of raw and processed information out there if you wish to find it.
The idea that science is something that goes on behind closed doors and isn’t something open to scrutiny is just plain wrong.
Seems to me the term “Destroying the planet” is a metaphor… for destroying everything on it. I’m fairly sure it’s agreed upon that we’re not going to crack the planet in two.
I didn’t say a LOT of raw data, I said ALL the raw data… on which the models and the “consensus” is based etc., that is, let’s call it all the “relevant data and the procedures they used to arrive at their results”… not just the condensed interpretations “plus some raw data” sprinkled here and there.
But why do I keep replying to what you post when you just skip over what I post? LOL? anyway…
Yeah, and seeming how at least some of the stuff seems to be processed, that more than just raises my eyebrows. I mean, my gut already cringes when stuff gets too bright and the voice acting too intense… but THIS??? Holy shit, I’m not even an engineer, I’m a sloppy lazy bum and even I think this looks beyond shoddy. Of course it’s impossible to “judge” anything based on 100 random megabytes being essentially stolen… but it surely should prompt some attention, if not investigation.
The one that’s irrelevant to the climate debate. It’s one piece of fudged data that had no relevance to any of the other data we’ve got. It’s got no relevance to the ice core samples that go back 600 thousand years… it’s got no relevance to all of the other research that’s been done.
But whatever.
There’s absolutely nothing that would convince you that the mountains of research done on global climate change is legitimate.
Where did I even say anything to that effect? I said “whoa, climategate”, and “bleh, too propaganda”.
You know, I’m weird that way – I’m not debating we fuck up our environment in more ways than we imagine, I’m not against all the stuff and MORE that is being proposed to reduce our emissions etc., but I STILL can’t stand this “you have to go along because the experts agree”, I can’t stand the ad-hominems, the stupid jokes and the idiotic analogies.
If you however think it’s dandy, and that objecting to such methods is equal to “not listening to anything you say because your sig has weird ascii in it” (it’s unicode by the way, and it reads “Renoise” to my twisted brain ^^)… well, what can I say?
You did not treally ask what I think, did you, you just assume because I’m criticizing something you posted and/or find the climategate stuff kinda disheartening to say the least, that I’m in the other “camp”. Maybe I am and don’t know it yet, but maybe I’m just playing devils advocate - does that even matter? I’d say I’m in the “fuck holding the mass in latin” camp, that is all. Fuck huge blobs of video and experts in white coats. Fuck camps, fuck teams, fuck armbands.
Well, I’ve already been de-friended by one Renoise user today for defending science, so I guess I’m a bit bitter. Check back with me in a week, and perhaps I’ll be more receptive to discussion on this topic.
I think most people don’t really care about global warming if they had to be honest, we just want that shiny smartphone as Kaneel pointed out and we don’t want to hear from greenpeace about it.
Sure some would like the politicians to make a framework for a cleaner world, an agreement between nations, but it cost’s mucho dinero and as finances are tight these days I strongly doubt we’re getting any big news from COP15. But let’s see, results will be in very soon.
You mean ignorant about global warming or just ignorant in general? Seems kinda simplistic and convenient, too.
