Senate Committee says Global Warmering = Hype

[sport the war]

there was as big ass special on this not to long ago on the history channel.. i think i would believe that over some slack ass that the goverment is supporting to keep us from controlling our industries.

[Fast One]

Hmmm.....

The facts:

We currently have no way of accurately simulating or predicting weather on a large scale, over long periods of time in a 3-dimensional environment.

Is the Earth warming up? Yes. However, it seems to do this every so often.

Is this warming caused or accelerated by us? Caused? No. Accelerated? Maybe....maybe not - no one knows for sure.

My opinion:

Most political & media reports on the subject seem to have some underlying agenda contaminating their conclusions.

Too bad so many people nowadays shy away from science, physics & chemistry classes in high-school & college. If more people took these classes, those with an agenda to push would have a much more difficult time feeding us "pseudo-science".

There is no room for emotion in science. Over the years, preconceived notions of the outcome of experiments and emotional attachment to the results have contaminated the scientific process more than just about anything else.

On the other hand.....

As punch posted - whether or not we are part of the problem, a little conservation couldn't hurt. In other words......less pollution is, in general, a good thing.

[Fast One]

...............So, how do you think the media hype will ultimately be countered? Right now, a lot of "sheeple" are now convinced people create global warming thanks to the media. Will it simply take time for real science to hit the masses? How will that be delivered? Will it simply be enough people that actually form an opinion from science and research will be able to educate those around them? Does it even matter? That's kind of what I am wondering. How it will all turn out.

I surely don't know how it will turn out, but I do have an idea on how to counter it:

Take science, chemistry & physics classes. Pay attention, ask questions, read, learn, retain. Counter others when they forsake logic & argue with their emotions. Ask the hard questions. Expect - no - demand logical answers. Become an educated voter - learn about the candidates - not from the media hype, and election-time mudslinging - rather, learn from doing your own non-emotional research. Bring your logic - not your emotions - to the voting booth. Do not let your preconceived notions and/or emotional attachments cloud your logic.

Encourage your children to take science, chemistry & physics classes. Teach them that science is cool, that math works, and that having an understanding of physics is a good thing. Teach them to value logic. Teach them to ask the hard questions. Teach them that just good enough simply isn't good enough. Teach them to listen objectively to others, but also teach them to recognize non-logical arguments.

I believe that a quality, unbiased, science-based education for the masses is the very best defense against the "pseudo-science" of the agenda-driven.

Just my opinion.....

[68GTO]

I surely don't know how it will turn out, but I do have an idea on how to counter it:

Take science, chemistry & physics classes. Pay attention, ask questions, read, learn, retain. Counter others when they forsake logic & argue with their emotions. Ask the hard questions. Expect - no - demand logical answers. Become an educated voter - learn about the candidates - not from the media hype, and election-time mudslinging - rather, learn from doing your own non-emotional research. Bring your logic - not your emotions - to the voting booth. Do not let your preconceived notions and/or emotional attachments cloud your logic.

Encourage your children to take science, chemistry & physics classes. Teach them that science is cool, that math works, and that having an understanding of physics is a good thing. Teach them to value logic. Teach them to ask the hard questions. Teach them that just good enough simply isn't good enough. Teach them to listen objectively to others, but also teach them to recognize non-logical arguments.

I believe that a quality, unbiased, science-based education for the masses is the very best defense against the "pseudo-science" of the agenda-driven.

Just my opinion.....

+5 Nicely done. Remember, facts are unbiased, not people. Emotion drives all action. Emotion garners response.

Like Punch said, being a good steward of the climate can only help - even if on a microscopic scale. As for the hype of Global Warming, even the UN is now bowing to pressure from Chemists, Physicists and those who question the "emotion" behind the rush to judgment on said man-made warming.

http://tinyurl.com/yfgm2w

[Matt87GTA]

+5 Nicely done. Remember, facts are unbiased, not people. Emotion drives all action. Emotion garners response.

Like Punch said, being a good steward of the climate can only help - even if on a microscopic scale. As for the hype of Global Warming, even the UN is now bowing to pressure from Chemists, Physicists and those who question the "emotion" behind the rush to judgment on said man-made warming.

http://tinyurl.com/yfgm2w

Fine, be a good steward. I even consider myself a pretty good steward of the environment. The problem is when what being a "good steward" is gets decided on by the government. At that point, the facts go out the window and emotion takes over. I will pay as much as I feel comfortable paying to conserve energy and reduce waste and at some point that level will stop because it is no longer economically feasible or sensible for me to do so. When legislation decides what that level is - both for individuals and ESPECIALLY businesses, the market is destabilized and everyone suffers. That is the part the media desperately tries to hide because eventually most Americans will listen when their checkbooks are being raided.

[68GTO]

Fine, be a good steward. I even consider myself a pretty good steward of the environment. The problem is when what being a "good steward" is gets decided on by the government. At that point, the facts go out the window and emotion takes over. I will pay as much as I feel comfortable paying to conserve energy and reduce waste and at some point that level will stop because it is no longer economically feasible or sensible for me to do so. When legislation decides what that level is - both for individuals and ESPECIALLY businesses, the market is destabilized and everyone suffers. That is the part the media desperately tries to hide because eventually most Americans will listen when their checkbooks are being raided.

Matt, you stand for the principle, as always.

Here's another one to add to the growing chorus of "oops, maybe the global warming-man connection is overblown..."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.