Greenpeace Founder to Senate: "Man-Made Global Warming Unproven"

[PRB]

But....science? There is an overwhelming number of scientists who proclaim loudly that man-made global warming is SETTLED science.

How can so many scientists be wrong?

they can be wrong if they did bad research, which is proven wrong by better research. People "just asking questions" is not research, people saying "there's no proof" is not research. Moore's testimony largely relies on doubt without any alternative theory or testable hypothesis, which is typical for any creationist or pseudoscientist, to just ask questions and demand evidence he can't provide himself if asked the same.

 

[fletcher]

they can be wrong if they did bad research, which is proven wrong by better research. People "just asking questions" is not research, people saying "there's no proof" is not research. Moore's testimony largely relies on doubt without any alternative theory or testable hypothesis, which is typical for any creationist or pseudoscientist, to just ask questions and demand evidence he can't provide himself if asked the same.

It is the global warmists that don't have a testable hypothesis. To them every single event is the result of global warming. higher temperature: gw. lower temperatures: gw. drought: gw. rain: gw. snow: gw. no snow: gw. hurricanes: gw. no hurricanes: gw. tornadoes: gw. no tornadoes: gw.

 

[mosquitobite]

they can be wrong if they did bad research, which is proven wrong by better research. People "just asking questions" is not research, people saying "there's no proof" is not research. Moore's testimony largely relies on doubt without any alternative theory or testable hypothesis, which is typical for any creationist or pseudoscientist, to just ask questions and demand evidence he can't provide himself if asked the same.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444995-Can-You-Solve-This

 

[axiomata]

Indeed. A couple of years ago a tornado passed close enough to a nuclear plant in Michigan to rip siding off the plant. It had run without incident for 20 years prior to that. I can't imagine a system that is 100% tornado proof, and the potential devastation from an incident like that makes it not worth the gamble to me.

Fortunately reactors are protected by 3 feet of reinforced concrete and not aluminum siding. Unlike most buildings, containment buildings are designed to resist tornadoes.

 

[mosquitobite]

As usual, you insist on talking about me instead addressing a single fucking thing I said.

And you can't even use your own words? You have to go to a liberal site to get someone else's insults? Good Lord, that's pathetic.

You're the one that insists on talking about others. I simply made a sarcastic comment which must have pushed a few of your buttons.

So science is only wrong when it disagrees with you.

Got it.

 

[AlexAmore]

Considering that there have been literally thousands of studies on GMO foods, from government, institutions and private firms all over the entire world that have all come to the same conclusion about GMO foods, I think it is disingenious to try to pretend that the FDA is the only organization that has not found any evidence at all that GMO foods are at all harmful.

Global studies reaching a consensus from across the entire spectrum of scientific bodies - that can and does indicate that science is indeed flourishing.

The problem with this argument in this thread is that the same can be said for global warming. There is no debate about it in the scientific community, but yet their models don't seem to be accurate.

GMO food: Introducing a gene from a Brazilian nut into a soybean produced a soybean that triggered a nut allergy. The researchers were looking to see if that might happen, and it did. They built a model, tested a theory and got a result they suspected might happen.

Climate changers don't seem to be able to consistently build models that pan out, but yet the community is sold on the concept. I don't get the disconnect.

I'm willing to read your side of things. I just don't even know where to begin. The problem is I don't trust a damn thing out of any government institution (look at the forum you're in). Also, I'm willing to bet a shiny nickel many of those private institutions got their funding through government grants or non profits with a public sector board of trustees (CERA).

I'm reading Monsanto's FAQs and they're pushing the government regulatory angle as my GMO safety net. Monsanto says "Independent scientists at regulatory agencies worldwide..."....Wait..."independent"? Like how FDA is "independent" even though Monsanto's executive runs it? Government never is a neutral body, they are lobbied to Hell.

Governments come out with food and health protocols all the time. We got the food pyramid that said to eat a shit ton of bread (we know that's a bad idea now, right?) and public school cafeteria food that is shipped in from the same companies that create prison food...nasty greasy pizza. Who's to say the government's premise of what is healthy is even accurate to begin with? But I'll yeild to the fact that I'm mostly talking about just the USA here. So...

All these studies are done on rats. Are we really supposed to extrapolate the long long term risks of GMOs and the special pesticides on humans using rats? For example, Aspirin causes birth defects in guinea pigs, but can't penetrate the human embryo. There was an antibody TGN1412 that was safely used on animals, but caused catastrophic organ failure in humans at 500x lower dosages.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Never believe a Canadian.


In all seriousness, I was just reading up on this guy and he seems to have found his sanity. He's pro-nuclear power, thinks wind farms are a waste of money, thinks that climate change is dubious at best and that we should spend money on adaptation instead of mitigation, and he's pro-GMO. Smart man.

Pro-GMO, huh? His intelligence could be better.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

But....science? There is an overwhelming number of scientists who proclaim loudly that man-made global warming is SETTLED science.

How can so many scientists be wrong?

Yeah, angelatc, how can so many scientists be wrong? Is it possible that they're wrong on other things for the same reasons? Hmmm...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Speaking of lacking a reading comprehension., looks like my newest stalker has one.


And note I don't post a bunch of tripe trying to convince people that my opinion is right while the entire body of scientific consensus is wrong, insisting that everybody in the whole godammed world is on some secret payroll.

If that were true, that scientific consensus could be bought, then Big Oil would be producing study after study "proving"the climate was stable as the result of fossil fuel usage.

The government can outspend any oil company. It doesn't take a secret payroll, either. It just takes discretion on who gets the money.

 

[eduardo89]

Pro-GMO, huh? His intelligence could be better.

Why's that?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I am actually amazed that you were able to spell comprehension correctly.

I like how you adopted your new friend's talking point! It isn't true, as I routinely read the stuff you post and point out that it doesn't even say what you think it does, but that's ok. We know how far your formal education went, so nobody really expects too much.

Yeah, speaking of insults...

You're basically frothing at the mouth when it comes to that, so I wouldn't criticize too much.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

they can be wrong if they did bad research, which is proven wrong by better research. People "just asking questions" is not research, people saying "there's no proof" is not research. Moore's testimony largely relies on doubt without any alternative theory or testable hypothesis, which is typical for any creationist or pseudoscientist, to just ask questions and demand evidence he can't provide himself if asked the same.

The burden of proof is not on him.

 

[angelatc]

I'm willing to read your side of things. I just don't even know where to begin. The problem is I don't trust a damn thing out of any government institution (look at the forum you're in). Also, I'm willing to bet a shiny nickel many of those private institutions got their funding through government grants or non profits with a public sector board of trustees (CERA).
.

Every single scientific body on the whole planet has reached the same conclusion. But if you want to find science funded by people outside academia, business, non-profits or government, I seriously don't know what to tell you, aside from go back to school, study biology and chemistry, get a masters in Ag, then start doing your own experiments.

But the fact that you threw out funding over facts tells me that you need to brush up on how to research research, so if you really want a place to begin - this is it: http://www.knigel.net/look-smart-online/

 

[angelatc]

You're the one that insists on talking about others. I simply made a sarcastic comment which must have pushed a few of your buttons.

So science is only wrong when it disagrees with you.

Got it.

Uh, no, Ms Low Reading Comprehension: I didn't say science was wrong. I didn't say science was bought and paid for. I didn't say there's a huge conspiracy involved in conceaing the truth. I said I wasn't convinced because their models don't work.

Vaccines - the models work.
GMOs - the models work.
Climate predictions - the models don't work

Do you see me posting page after page of information that's been disproved by scientists, insisting that the whole world is wrong and I am right? No, you don't.

Because I am not an idiot.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I have a question for everyone here who has witnessed the kind of uber-sciency, non-professional opinion displayed by angelatc and many others:

Does it not seem like the height of irony that some people will push the critical-minded process of the scientific method on you and then insist that any dissenting opinions must be wrong because the thinking has already been done?

Make no mistake, there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on here. People just don't want to give up faith, and they will try to pass it off as just about anything else in order to avoid that conclusion, worshiping logic blindly and encouraging blind belief in a group of experts instead of independent thought. You'd think someone who actually cared about the truth would not be so abrasive when confronted with opposing viewpoints.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Why's that?

Perhaps the quality of the food he is eating might be affecting his thinking?

 

[angelatc]

I have a question for everyone here who has witnessed the kind of uber-sciency, non-professional opinion displayed by angelatc and many others:

Does it not seem like the height of irony that some people will push the critical-minded process of the scientific method on you and then insist that any dissenting opinions must be wrong because the thinking has already been done?

Make no mistake, there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on here. People just don't want to give up faith, and they will try to pass it off as just about anything else in order to avoid that conclusion, worshiping logic blindly and encouraging blind belief in a group of experts instead of independent thought. You'd think someone who actually cared about the truth would not be so abrasive when confronted with opposing viewpoints.

The scientific method is specifically designed to make "viewpoints" irrelevant.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Every single scientific body on the whole planet has reached the same conclusion. But if you want to find science funded by people outside academia, business, non-profits or government, I seriously don't know what to tell you, aside from go back to school, study biology and chemistry, get a masters in Ag, then start doing your own experiments.

But the fact that you threw out funding over facts tells me that you need to brush up on how to research research, so if you really want a place to begin - this is it: http://www.knigel.net/look-smart-online/

Not every scientific body agrees on this. There have been studies, in fact, that have found the opinions differ quite a bit more than people think based on definitions, classifications, and so on. Come to think of it, has anyone actually seen this consensus people keep talking about? What are the numbers? We only hear people say there is a consensus, but there is never any confirmation that one actually exists.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Uh, no, Ms Low Reading Comprehension: I didn't say science was wrong. I didn't say science was bought and paid for. I didn't say there's a huge conspiracy involved in conceaing the truth. I said I wasn't convinced because their models don't work.

Vaccines - the models work.
GMOs - the models work.
Climate predictions - the models don't work

Do you see me posting page after page of information that's been disproved by scientists, insisting that the whole world is wrong and I am right? No, you don't.

Because I am not an idiot.

How do you know the models don't work? Are you a scientist?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The scientific method is specifically designed to make "viewpoints" irrelevant.

Way to avoid the question. Is "different evidence" a better way to phrase it? Perhaps I should just say "dissent." Getting warmer?

Or does the scientific method make dissent irrelevant, too?