Thread: Recession really going to end?

Originally Posted by MK27

Yes, and if you were a scientist with any credibility at all now and you stood up and said "Why this global warming is malarky! There is nothing wrong with carbon monoxide!" you could just start collecting cash from any number of corporate sources.

As to who is going to pay you to tell the truth, that is a more ambiguous question. So I would say there is a "need for greater skepticism" but you might want to think about how you deploy it, rather than using that as an excuse to argue about whether the sky is really blue because of the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere.

I see you taking a whole lot of broad discussion in this topic and attributing it to a very specific subject when the people you are quoting are not. This is generally just a poor debate tactic to remove credibility from your opposition. I, nor Salem, has gone to completely deny global warming, yet you seem to believe we're very adamant about it. The point that I am making... and the point that Salem was making, as I understood it... is that general scientific theory such as greenhouse gases and the effect they have on the environment is always at risk of being taken out of context and even altered in what they predict by anyone who has a stake in making it a more interesting subject such as a media source. Now, since in our society, mainstream attention offers such a great benefit, science has the burden of backing up what the public is told for their own gain. Once the media's speculation is backed by science, they can not take it a step further to spice up the topic, again. This process is played out perpetually until the theory is refuted or another subject has more potential value.

As you said, nearly all scientist will agree on the existence of global warming, just as nearly all economists will agree that there is, in fact, an economic crisis. There is still a much heated debate, however, as to what exactly is causing either of them, how to fix them, how quickly they will affect us and to what magnitude.

... Ugg, I really haven't wrapped my point up, but I really have to be off somewhere. Once I get some computer access, again, I'll wrap all of this up.

Nice to see some people finally offering up debate about a topic that has a so-called 'consensus' and yet not being labeled as crackpot conspiracy theorists. The fact that you have to believe this or that to me means it isn't exact science.

So my stance is I won't 'believe' it's true till science proves it to be. Isn't that how it works? If you cannot beyond a shadow of a doubt prove a hypothesis via the scientific method then isn't that a theory.

None of us here refute the idea that we have gravity yet none of us have ever really seen gravity firsthand. But we know it's there and it can be proven, measured, repeated, etc. It is a scientific fact backed by data and empirical evidence. What the global warming crowd is doing is trying to force and coerce people into accepting a theory as fact when the community itself doesn't completely understand the entire issue. You don't pass laws and spend billions of dollars on the boogeyman unless you know the boogeyman is there.

As for the recession of course it will end but it is a matter of when. I assure you no pundit on CNN, Fox or any other lousy mass media channel is going to know anything more than you or I do. The people who do understand the economy are not so arrogant and boisterous as to offer up preposterous predictions and scenarios b/c they understand the economy is extremely complex and to offer up any type of conjecture is usually foolish.

I'm not sure I understand the whole idea of a jobless recovery but if that's how they want to spin it so be it. They only say that to remove the one key piece of evidence that there actually is a recovery so we don't use it to measure the recovery so the current administration can save face. One way to make yourself look good is to discredit the only shred of evidence that could actually make you look very bad.

It's all political spin and conjecture.

Jobless recovery = No recovery = no way to measure if there is or isn't a recovery
Global warming wasn't convenient so now it's 'climate change'. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Do I believe in climate change? Um...absolutely it changes everyday. Using sweeping generalizations to try to promote a theory usually indicates to me the theory has some skeletons in its closet.

Perhaps foolishly I do tend to play the popularity contest on this whole Climate Change thing. And a lot of influential and respectable members of the scientific community seem to agree with the current theory. So I don't dismiss it. On the contrary, I fully support it.

I can take looking foolish if this all proves to be insanely wrong. If those respected members of the scientific community are eventually proven wrong, they can get away with it. Why couldn't I?

But to dismiss the theory entirely, is something that troubles me. If that is because anyone in here feels this is nothing more than a conspiracy to ... what exactly?... then come upfront and state it. Otherwise why exactly are you ready to dismiss a scientific theory, defended by many respectable scientists, when you don't question, say the Theory of Evolution?

What are we trying to say here exactly? That is ok not to err on the side of caution? Or that Climate Change proposed changes would ruin our economy? can you back that?

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

As you said, nearly all scientist will agree on the existence of global warming, just as nearly all economists will agree that there is, in fact, an economic crisis. There is still a much heated debate, however, as to what exactly is causing either of them, how to fix them, how quickly they will affect us and to what magnitude.

No, that is not what I said. Scientists will agree greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect, is what I said. That is very different than what you are trying to imply, which is that they are observing statistical changes in the weather, which they refer to as "the greenhouse effect", and are trying to determine the cause. This play's back into Salem's BS references, because it raises the question: maybe our observations are wrong!

That's a perversion of empirical principles; it is like saying we are checking the velocity of all the light we can find to determine what the speed of light is. Greenhouse gases such as carbon monoxide cause the greenhouse effect. The point of the statistical measurement is not to prove that this is true; that is already demonstrable in a laboratory -- it is proven as true. The purpose of collecting statistics about global weather patterns is to help to determine the path and rate of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Putting the cart before the horse here is a great example of a viral and deceptive method of public disinformation.

Originally Posted by MK27

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

As you said, nearly all scientist will agree on the existence of global warming, just as nearly all economists will agree that there is, in fact, an economic crisis. There is still a much heated debate, however, as to what exactly is causing either of them, how to fix them, how quickly they will affect us and to what magnitude.

No, that is not what I said. Scientists will agree greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect, is what I said.

Originally Posted by MK27

Yes, and if you were a scientist with any credibility at all now and you stood up and said "Why this global warming is malarky! There is nothing wrong with carbon monoxide!" you could just start collecting cash from any number of corporate sources.

What?

Originally Posted by Mario F.

But to dismiss the theory entirely, is something that troubles me.

No one here is completely dismissing any of the theories listed above. It's simply being suggested that they don't be given the credence required to be acted upon without further validation and certainty on the solutions being applied. Like with religion... I'm fully open to the idea that there is some omnipotent (or what we would understand as omnipotent) being that started this whole shin-dig and might still in fact have some stake in its existence and outcome. It's not going to stop me from swearing at the dinner table, though. "This is pretty f-ing good ham, mom."