Developing World Told to Make Sacrifices to Save the Planet

Those who believe in man-made climate change want the developing world to better manage its use of resources in order to cut their emissions at the expense of their further development.

Climategate emails: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• climategate
• emails
• environment
• mark
• maslin
• green
• eco
• copenhagen
• summit
• Climate-Gate
• Climate
• Gate
• change
• models
• University
• of
• East
• Anglia
• UEA
• Marc
• Morano
• man
• made
• global
• warming
• scandal
• conspiracy
• emissions
• climate
• depot
• climatedepot.com
• resources
• energy
• carbon
• tax
• delegates
• conference
• un
• hoax
• scam

[mikie8865]

we need prosecutions, and al gore needs to give back his "peace[piece] prize"

[IWashMyOwnBrain]

The whole green fad is starting to unwind very fast now. Al Gore and the likes will be nothing but jokes in the history books of the future.

[biobotism]

@biobotism [continued 2] and as such, a law can be utilised to support a theory and offer conclusive evidence. I suggest that you read up further on the processes by which science works. I'd recommend that you starting by researching what science is defined as (it's a discipline that follows a scientific method) and also research what the scientific method is. In addition, have a quick study of basic scientific terminology and then come back and tell me again what you've just told me. Thanks :)

[biobotism]

@biobotism [continued] many people assume that as more proof is offered, a hypothesis becomes a theory and finally a law when it is finally considered a fact, but this is just not true. A law is a mathematical or concise verbal statement and is completely independent from a theory. A theory can include facts, laws and hypothesis in order to support the proposed scientific model, which is why, for example, evolution is considered a scientific fact as well as a scientific theory.

[biobotism]

@IWashMyOwnBrain and here we go at last; conclusive evidence that you do not know the first rat's arse about science. A theory in science terminology is different from a theory in the colloquial sense, and a scientific theory CAN be and IS a fact. Correctly defined as a scientific model that it taken, for all practical purposes, as being true. A theory is a proven hypothesis, but it cannot become a law. Despite popular misconception, there is no hierarchy between a hypothesis, theory or law.

[IWashMyOwnBrain]

@biobotism I do "believe" in evolution. A theory is not fact.

[biobotism]

@IWashMyOwnBrain Well, there are considerably more variables in, or example, the Theory of Evolution, but the Theory of Evolution is fact, don't you agree? And there's considerably more uncertainty in, for example, Quantum Mechanics, but that doesn't stop us making quantum computers that utilise our understand of the Quantum world; but, you know, it's nice to know that you can pick and chose what science to be irrationally sceptical of...

[IWashMyOwnBrain]

@biobotism "scientific evidence" has clearly indicated may things in the past and been wrong. I am not anti science but in this case there are too many variables for any scientist to come to a difinitive solution. Unless they have a social agenda....

[biobotism]

@biobotism However, I extend my offer to you to debate this further via a different medium (i.e. not the debilitating 500 character YouTube comments section). Maybe by email or something of the sorts? You can even make a fake email address if you're paranoid.

If you're right and I'm a 'blind believer' in some 'green fad' then you should be able to prove me wrong pretty easily. So what do you say, do you accept the challenge?

[biobotism]

@IWashMyOwnBrain we do know a lot. An awful lot. Thousands of scientific studies, tens of thousands of pieces of evidence and statistical facts. Nothing is ever completely definitive in any field, but the probability that carbon gases are contributing to increased global temperatures is so statistically significant that it is completely nothing short of blindly closed-minded to deny what the scientific evidence clearly indicates.

[IWashMyOwnBrain]

@biobotism The only "scientific consensus" is that we don't know enough.