|
An inconvenient untruth? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Crank those coal fired power plants back up! |
Clean-burning and reactivated coal is less than 5 years away anyway. I never would have believed that coal would outlive oil, but that's what it's starting to look like. |
|
|
| DeleteFromUsers |
None of these articles cite journal articles as sources. In fact, they seem to cite no sources at all for their data. Given the amount of proper scientific attention the topic receives, the articles should be rife with cites.
Climate change isn't some trivial numbers game that can be adequately appreciated by reading one dubious and sourceless article on the internet. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DeleteFromUsers
None of these articles cite journal articles as sources. In fact, they seem to cite no sources at all for their data. Given the amount of proper scientific attention the topic receives, the articles should be rife with cites.
Climate change isn't some trivial numbers game that can be adequately appreciated by reading one dubious and sourceless article on the internet. |
Why would a climatologist and/or meteorologist cite sources for a study that they conducted personally?
If you consider their credentials to be suspect then go ahead and ignore their study (it's certainly not the only one). But complaining that they haven't provided references makes no sense - they ARE the reference. |
|
|
| chinamon |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I never would have believed that coal would outlive oil, but that's what it's starting to look like. |
coal can be manufactured. oil cannot. :) |
|
|
| Kellyboop |
| quote: | Originally posted by Anas Attia
earth will be fine no matter what...
its us that are doomed :)
|
I totally agree with you here. The way humanity has become we're pretty screwed.:p |
|
|
| DeleteFromUsers |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Why would a climatologist and/or meteorologist cite sources for a study that they conducted personally?
If you consider their credentials to be suspect then go ahead and ignore their study (it's certainly not the only one). But complaining that they haven't provided references makes no sense - they ARE the reference. |
Bull. Print this article in Nature or any number of other peer-reviewed journals and I'll take note.
All reputable science is peer-reviewed and referenced. Some guy writing about what he supposedly did (on the internet no less!) is not science - it's sensational speculation meant to inspire those lacking the wherewithal of critical thought and skepticism.
Journal articles are full of cites themselves, building off others' work and allowing the reader to verify claims made in the article. This is the basis of the evolution of science and society - not blog entries! Sheesh. |
|
|
| mute79 |
^^ spot on!
Al Gore in his video showed how they measured and concluded that Earth is at its hottest point in the last 700,000 years. This article hasn't done anything remotely similar, and is purely speculative. |
|
|
| Elendil |
There have been looooots of studies that have shown similar results. Years ago, when I was at U of T, there was a research result shown which displayed climate as a double hockey stick (high in the past, prior to industrialism, not quite as high today) rather than the typical "single hockey stick" graph.
The point is, this is not "politically correct" science. A lot of people are making a LOT of money off of pushing forward the man-made global warming agenda. Are scientists immune to that? No. With all of the flush grants coming in surrounding this "phenomena", it's simply extremely unpopular to criticize it.
However, some have and are, but have been marginalized by the "scientific" establishment. They've been kicked out of consortium's for it.
The Japanese don't agree with it either, entirely.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/ma...l-to-kyoto.html
It's similar to the laughable "Ozone hole" and CFC debacle. That's almost as great as "restless leg syndrome". Find something, decide arbitrarily that it is a problem, one caused by man, and attack it with everything we've got! Start the ban mobile, the mangod is on the attack! ;) |
|
|
| malek |
| reminds me the Y2K bug... people made alot of money off that. |
|
|
| Elendil |
| Huge money. My neighbor spent over 5 grand investing in back up power and "insurance protection", etc. He worked in "risk prevention and assessment" for a big University. You can imagine their reaction to "swine flu". Brutal haha. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by chinamon
coal can be manufactured. oil cannot. :) |
Well of course... but the issue is how much energy it takes to produce. If it costs more to produce the coal than what you get out of it, there's no point. It's surprising that it's gotten to the point where coal is actually "renewable" energy.
| quote: | Originally posted by DeleteFromUsers
Bull. Print this article in Nature or any number of other peer-reviewed journals and I'll take note. |
Ah, and do you read Nature? Because the overwhelming majority of Global Warming hype out there (especially An Inconvenient Truth) is not only not peer-reviewed, but pretty much excludes the last 20 years worth of scientific research on the subject.
I've got a book in my living room with about 300 references, most of them peer-reviewed, which shows that exact same cycle of about 1500 years and the enormous amount of research from a dozen different fields that went into identifying it. By contrast, virtually everything I've read from the global warming alarmists has maybe 1 or 2 useful references if any. Hell, half of the "reports" use the same hockey-stick graph that was actually debunked by peer review. |
|
|
|
|
