Yeah as the director of energy research. He works in atomic physics. He freely admits in his own work he is not a climatologist. Can you come up with someone that actually studies the field?
Heroes : Angrem (50 Stone tank), Exo Inferis (50 Fire blaster), Exo Proteus (50 ill/emp), IceVengance (50 cold defender)
Villains : AtomBomb (50 Rad/Kin corruptor), Aleks (50 SS/Inv brute), StoneLethal (50 EM/Stone brute), Davroz (50 Bots/Dark mastermind)
Right because 1) there are no websites that do the same for the deniers point of view and 2) the existence of the website has ANYTHING to do with the science of the debate.
Heroes : Angrem (50 Stone tank), Exo Inferis (50 Fire blaster), Exo Proteus (50 ill/emp), IceVengance (50 cold defender)
Villains : AtomBomb (50 Rad/Kin corruptor), Aleks (50 SS/Inv brute), StoneLethal (50 EM/Stone brute), Davroz (50 Bots/Dark mastermind)
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, dude. Polar bears aren't even an endangered species. They aren't now, and I've been in rooms where people make comments like, "Polar bears are the next headliner species, we need to get them labeled endangered to get more attention."
Seriously. They are vulnerable, not endangered.
[/ QUOTE ]
You will have to admit, though, Emgro, two things:
1) Endangered species lists are often fraught with political selections.
2) The word "endangered", like "theory" has two different contextual meanings between conservationists/scientists/lawyers and laypeople. In this particular case, what laypeople call "endangered" corresponds roughly to what those in the field call "threatened". "Threatened", of course, is three levels or so, each denoting greater risk of extinction, with "vulnerable" as least and "endangered" in the middle.
While it's not as precise, it's perfectly valid to state that polar bears are endangered because by non-conservationist definition, they are.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every national academy of science in the industrialized world has has accepted the reality of climate change. But no, the guy that wrote jurassic park is who we should be listening to.
[/ QUOTE ]
Academies have no opinions. They are groups of people, with individual opinions. Many of those people disagree with the common popular view on global warming. Such is my experience at the universities I've attended and visited, and the people I've spoken and communicated with.
[/ QUOTE ]
Academies will often write position papers that reflect the general consensus of the academy, much like an editorial board at magazines or publications at think tanks. Thus, it's completely legitimate to take that position paper as an "opinion" of sorts.
One still has to note, however, science isn't done by consensus, but rather by evidence--but just because there's one person who disagrees with the commonly accepted interpretation (which may not be correct), it doesn't mean that he's necessarily right, either.
[ QUOTE ]
And the guy that wrote Jurassic Park actually has a scientific education, unlike say, Al Gore, who you are holding up as reliable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, scientific education doesn't necessarily correspond to being correct. After all, Mr. Behe's a mathematician, but that doesn't stop him from speaking in areas outside of his expertise and using sophistry dressed in mathematics that look perfectly fine to laypersons to prove utter nonsense like "irreducible complexity" and "conservation of information".
Or, say, to use a more respectable figure, Linus Pauling, noted Nobel-laureate and Chemist, and vitamin C--which is as yet unproven.
Or James Watson and his insistence that stupidity is a genetic disorder, and poorly chosen statements that suggest he's a flaming racist--but based on genetic information.
And they're all technically scientists, which Crichton is not.
But this is all beside the point. Do you see the problem here, with bringing up An Inconvenient Truth? I have no reason to doubt you when you say you're a conservationist at heart; the simple act of trashing another conservationist work, however, rather than ignoring it, has only served as a divisive wedge in a group that should be working together.
I think we are all better off, however, keeping things like this out of the Rookery. That's not what this place is about. Let's start with a clean slate tomorrow and leave seriousness at the door.
Heroes : Angrem (50 Stone tank), Exo Inferis (50 Fire blaster), Exo Proteus (50 ill/emp), IceVengance (50 cold defender)
Villains : AtomBomb (50 Rad/Kin corruptor), Aleks (50 SS/Inv brute), StoneLethal (50 EM/Stone brute), Davroz (50 Bots/Dark mastermind)
[ QUOTE ]
I think we are all better off, however, keeping things like this out of the Rookery. That's not what this place is about. Let's start with a clean slate tomorrow and leave seriousness at the door.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. This is one of the few times I've actually be interested in what goes on in here.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we are all better off, however, keeping things like this out of the Rookery. That's not what this place is about. Let's start with a clean slate tomorrow and leave seriousness at the door.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. This is one of the few times I've actually be interested in what goes on in here.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with both of you. I like this discussion, and I'd enjoy continuing it and having more like it, but the Rookery might not the best place to do it. That being said, nobody else seems to be doing a lot of business here today.
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah as the director of energy research. He works in atomic physics. He freely admits in his own work he is not a climatologist. Can you come up with someone that actually studies the field?
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, and I'll get to that in a second.
[ QUOTE ]
Right because 1) there are no websites that do the same for the deniers point of view and 2) the existence of the website has ANYTHING to do with the science of the debate.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, but it has everything to do with why most of those involved don't like putting their names out there.
Take Nils-Axel Morner, who I've mentioned a few times I think. Check the discussion part of his wikipedia bio if you don't believe me. I'll leave you to find your own sources on him, since Google is easy enough to use, and I'd rather not be accused of "cherry-picking" references that favor my claims.
In fact, Google "Global Warming Hoax," "Global Warming skeptics", "Global Warming Denial," and some similar terms, visit every one of the first 100 hits, read them, check all their links, read those too, and then discuss what you find with a battery of policists, scientists, and laypeople. That's more or less what I've been doing, albeit for several years now, all while attending lectures, seminars, and classes presenting the opposite perspective.
I am a skeptic, not a denier, of global warming. It is the duty of a scientist, or any educated person, or any thinking person at all, to believe the truth, know the untrue and disbelieve it, and most of all, question the unproven and seek to find it true or false. As far as I can see, global warming, AGW, abnormal climate change, and so forth are unproven, and should be researched more.
Or to make Pogo happy and bring a little Milton into this: "I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather; that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary."
Like the virtue mentioned in the Areopagitica, there is no value in merely accepting global warming as truth without first seeking to understand it. To believe blindly the words of anyone, scientist or no, is to be led into folly, because everyone makes mistakes.
*leaves his cave and comes into the Rookery and glomps everyone before grabbing a dr. pepper cherry and finding grabbing the fdbbc* Hey everyone
Dragon Fist Tavian
Knight's Desire
In Game MySpace Profile.
[ QUOTE ]
because everyone makes mistakes
[/ QUOTE ]
Not me. I'm perfect. Just not all the time. 
Have a good evening all.
Current favs: Champ: Frau Schmeterling-22 MM 50s: NOTW-Blaster, Cat-Girl Commando-corr, Queen of the Dawn-PB, NOTW-Def, Peterbilt-Brute, IcedTNA-Tank, Archilies-scrap, Mann Eater-stalk, Redemptive Soul-toller, Mt Fuji of A-Team-Tank, Hot Stuff Vale-Dom
My MiniCity
Got my character ready for the static team starting tomorrow night!
I made Nurse Delight, an Empathy/Energy defender as a counterpart to Nurse Torment, my Electric/Pain corruptor.
I take one day off and there's a honest to goodness debate in the thread. *throws his hands in the air and gives up*
*looks at Bayani*
No there wasn't.
SG Mate: Cien, what the hell is this Rookery thing?
RadDidIt: (interjecting) Dude. It's the Rookery.
SG Mate: Yeah, but what IS it?
RadDidIt: Silliness Incarnate.
I made rice krispies treats 
enjoy!
-Pogoman, Master of Kick-Fu
-Co-Leader and recruiting officer of the Virtue Honor Guard
- lvl 50 ma/sr scrapper
-Ace O' Diamonds lvl 50 fire/rad controller
and waaaay to many other alts to mention right now
[ QUOTE ]
I made rice krispies treats enjoy!
[/ QUOTE ]
I hereby posit that rice krispies cause cancer, and therefore, for the good of the Rookery, I will eat them all.
And that's totally legit. Go look it up on the internets yourself, cuz I'm too busy chewin'.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I made rice krispies treats enjoy!
[/ QUOTE ]
I hereby posit that rice krispies cause cancer, and therefore, for the good of the Rookery, I will eat them all.
And that's totally legit. Go look it up on the internets yourself, cuz I'm too busy chewin'.
[/ QUOTE ]
good thing I hid some for myself!
-Pogoman, Master of Kick-Fu
-Co-Leader and recruiting officer of the Virtue Honor Guard
- lvl 50 ma/sr scrapper
-Ace O' Diamonds lvl 50 fire/rad controller
and waaaay to many other alts to mention right now
[ QUOTE ]
I think we are all better off, however, keeping things like this out of the Rookery. That's not what this place is about. Let's start with a clean slate tomorrow and leave seriousness at the door.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I had made any attempt to accurately characterize what I think of GW denialism, this thread would have been mod-whacked posthaste, so I think Fedor's got the right idea. Leave this sort of thing elsewhere. Rookery threads are for a different kind of silliness.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we are all better off, however, keeping things like this out of the Rookery. That's not what this place is about. Let's start with a clean slate tomorrow and leave seriousness at the door.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I had made any attempt to accurately characterize what I think of GW denialism, this thread would have been mod-whacked posthaste, so I think Fedor's got the right idea. Leave this sort of thing elsewhere. Rookery threads are for a different kind of silliness.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to point out that your argument that you cannot control yourself is just as silly as someone claiming that because Rookery conversations get slightly racy, they cannot restrain themselves from making obscene comments. A lack of self-control is a personal problem, not a societal one.
It's a fair cop, but society is to blame.
SG Mate: Cien, what the hell is this Rookery thing?
RadDidIt: (interjecting) Dude. It's the Rookery.
SG Mate: Yeah, but what IS it?
RadDidIt: Silliness Incarnate.
Yanno, randomly... and much belatedly..
I miss the times when I could throw a slightly serious, logical discussion into the works and we could have it run a good course (usually about in-game stuff), while still being completely silly and yet somehow still professional about it.
...it still happens on occasion, but the players have changed a bit, and thus, the directions the conversations go has, as well. I do have to agree, though, that certain topics should just be checked at the door. If just because this isn't the proper place for such debate, and there's a chance for it to be taken too seriously, and that leads to hurt feelings and the like. You could very well make the claim that such things are personal problems, and anyone that gets offended or hurt over an internet discussion likely would have at some point anyway (and I don't usually agree with what people get hurt over, either)... but that doesn't mean the potential isn't there.
It's the potential that bothers me. The Rookery. is, at it's heart, about fun and good-natured silliness. Or that's what I've always believed.
On that note, I really would like to apologize to anyone I've offended with my rather haphazard and often times aggressive/exaggerated debate skills over the past week or so. I don't often say things how I should, nor do I tend to say exactly what I mean (because sometimes, it's hard for me to figure out what I want to actually say).
Now let's all shuffle on to the next new day, and relax a bit.
[ QUOTE ]
See that's exactly my point. I never held up Gore as a reliable source, I said his movie had some facts in it. I used the national science academies as sources. And instead of discussing that Emgro, you choose to go into some tangent about academies vs the people in them. The published opinion of those organizations stands as a matter of record. So where are these dissenting scientists?
I always hear claims they exist, who are they? How many nobel prizes do they have in the fields of hard science?
[/ QUOTE ]
Gore trusted this guy enough to hire him
And here's a website politely dedicated to smearing the reputation of anyone who openly opposes global warming.
How very %#$@ professional