Should the Hadron Collider be allowed? (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

My view however misinformed doesn't detract from the fact that so many of you on this forum have been exceedingly rude, just because someone doesn't agree with you. Notably I didn't realise that there had been so many safety checks placed on the Collider. Look, I'm willing to change my view on this issue, not the philosophical one, the relevance of which is undermined by the fact the prominent example from which I based it was misinformed.

Just as you have no right to not be offended, we have no onus to treat you civilly, given that you did not perform the basic courtesy of learning a tad about the subject before spouting your mouth about it. You sounded like an ignorant anti-science fundamentalist idiot; forgive us for treating you like one!

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

However at the same time, there is no consensus on the issue, there are a plethora of scientists as I've already mentioned we disagree with the claims of CERN and other independant scientists. To suggest that there was a consensus is also spreading misinformation. My excuse at the beginning was ignorance of some of the facts, your excuse is arrogance and obstinance.

You mentioned one. AFAIK, one != a statistically significant 'plethora'. I put it to you that it is your own arrogance and obstinance that prevented you from doing your own bloody research.

 

[Kwayera]

However I actually find it amusing that there are so many of you, who actually without any more qualification than me, claim to have a monopoly on information when it comes to this issue and pretend to be informed. Most of you studied Year 12 Physics, please! Don't make me laugh. I don't think that qualifies you on this issue.

The sad fact is that no one on this forum is qualified to defend their position entirely with their own knowledge, and hence I PROMPTED DISCUSSION. IN WHICH YOU DRAW ON OTHER PEOPLE'S VIEWS, PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE MORE THAN YEAR 12 PHYSICS. I wonder how many of you mindless idiots, so oppressive of discussion also believe that the issue of human-induced global warming is closed. Give me a break!

Those of us who have genuine knowledge of this issue, whether or not we have done year 12 or university physics, generally have such knowledge because we have independently gone out and sought it, which you, manifestly, have failed to do.

If you are quite done behaving like a child, you would see that there are many of us that have significant intellectual investment in this issue (and others, including anthropogenic climate change (to use the correct term)).

 

[impervious182]

Just as you have no right to not be offended, we have no onus to treat you civilly, given that you did not perform the basic courtesy of learning a tad about the subject before spouting your mouth about it. You sounded like an ignorant anti-science fundamentalist idiot; forgive us for treating you like one!

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

You mentioned one. AFAIK, one != a statistically significant 'plethora'. I put it to you that it is your own arrogance and obstinance that prevented you from doing your own bloody research.

I'll just ignore the first two paragraphs of this answer, I just wanted to quote them so that other people on this forum could read them. I didn't know manners had to be deserved. Personally, I extend courtesies to everybody regardless of whether or not I support their view. Just because somebody differs in opinion does not take away their right to be treated civilly as you would suggest.

If there was a law against stupidity, 51% of children in America who recently voted for Obama on the Nickelodean poll would be arrested.

As for the one scientist. I also provided a link to more scientists, but again, I was misinformed myself when I started this forum. I had heard the views of this one scientist hyped up in many media outlets CNN, BBC, Fox News etc. and just assumed that they had at least some weight. Naive, yes. A reason to treat someone uncivilly, no.


Note: As for the issue of 'anthropogenic climate change', yes there are a number of expert who have invested time into the issue. Just as there are a number of institutions who have invested money. Though there are still a considerable number of experts, an increasing number (perhaps, though how can one be sure, certainly they are becoming louder and louder) who contend that climate change is human-induced or that global warming, to use the coined term, is a crisis.

 

[Kwayera]

I'll just ignore the first two paragraphs of this answer, I just wanted to quote them so that other people on this forum could read them. I didn't know manners had to be deserved. Personally, I extend courtesies to everybody regardless of whether or not I support their view. Just because somebody differs in opinion does not take away their right to be treated civilly as you would suggest.

If there was a law against stupidity, 51% of children in America who recently voted for Obama on the Nickelodean poll would be arrested.

As for the one scientist. I also provided a link to more scientists, but again, I was misinformed myself when I started this forum. I had heard the views of this one scientist hyped up in many media outlets CNN, BBC, Fox News etc. and just assumed that they had at least some weight. Naive, yes. A reason to treat someone uncivilly, no.

You did the rest of us a disservice by not doing your own research. I treat you the same way I treat fundamentalist creationists - with scorn for your willful ignorance, and I refuse to suffer fools. Your "opinion", as you say, was entirely uneducated and thus useless in this context. Kindly.

And if you'd like to go into politics, by all means, direct yourself to the presidential thread. I'm sure your manifest ignorance will be appreciated there as well.

 

[Kwayera]

Note: As for the issue of 'anthropogenic climate change', yes there are a number of expert who have invested time into the issue. Just as there are a number of institutions who have invested money. Though there are still a considerable number of experts, an increasing number (perhaps, though how can one be sure, certainly they are becoming louder and louder) who contend that climate change is human-induced or that global warming, to use the coined term, is a crisis.

Consider who you are talking to.

 

[impervious182]

Consider who you are talking to.

What's that supposed to mean? If you contend that there is opposition to anthropogenic climate change then you are sadly misinformed.

 

[HalcyonSky]

What's that supposed to mean? If you contend that there is opposition to anthropogenic climate change then you are sadly misinformed.

you're talking to someone who knows what the fuck she's talking about. You're so amazingly stupid.

 

[impervious182]

You did the rest of us a disservice by not doing your own research. I treat you the same way I treat fundamentalist creationists - with scorn for your willful ignorance, and I refuse to suffer fools. Your "opinion", as you say, was entirely uneducated and thus useless in this context. Kindly.

And if you'd like to go into politics, by all means, direct yourself to the presidential thread. I'm sure your manifest ignorance will be appreciated there as well.

I didn't do anyone a disservice either. In fact, by prompting discussion I invited corrections and other viewpoints.

My point, which you keep circumventing, is that this gives noone the excuse to be rude and dismissive.

 

[katie tully]

In this thread, I can think of 3 people who have near completed university Science degrees.

I think this makes them 100x more qualified to pass judgement on your unfounded views, small fry.

 

[impervious182]

you're talking to someone who knows what the fuck she's talking about. You're so amazingly stupid.

Please! Give me a fr@#en break.

No idiot, regardless of how big, can POSSIBLY CONTEND that there are very prestigious scientists, including NOBEL LAUREUTTES, who content the idea of human-induced global warming.

That is a FACT.

So her little smart-ass remark, do you know who you're talking to, or whatever it was. Is completely irrelevant. There are opponents to climate change, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO LIST THEM? And they are certainly more educated in the area than ANYONE in this forum. I did not push a view on climate change, you arrogant twerps. I did not say climate change isn't happening and is not human induced or PURPORT MISINFORMATION. Even though I don't believe climate change is human induced, or skeptics should at least be allowed their say.

But no, I did none of this. I merely stated a fact. There are skeptics.

Individual skeptics

* Don Aitkin
* Dennis Avery
* Sallie L. Baliunas
* Tim Ball
* Robert C. Balling
* David Bellamy
* Robert (Bob) Carter
* Ian Castles
* John R. Christy
* Ian Clark
* Alexander Cockburn
* Martin Cohen, and philosophical objections to the global warming theorists
* Joseph D'Aleo
* Martin Durkin
* Paul Driessen
* David Evans
* Ray Evans
* George Fox
* Bill Gray
* Sherwood Idso
* Andrei Illarionov, chief economic adviser to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin
* Aynsley Kellow
* William Kininmonth
* Czech president Vaclav Klaus
* Lord Lawson
* David Legates
* Richard S. Lindzen
* Bjorn Lomborg
* Stephen McIntyre
* Ross McKitrick
* Patrick J. Michaels
* Alan Moran
* Alan Oxley
* Garth Paltridge
* Tim Patterson
* Ian Plimer
* Frederick Seitz
* S. Fred Singer
* Willie Soon
* Roy Spencer
* Carlo Stagnaro
* Philip Stott
* Wolfgang Thüne
* Jan Veizer
* Len Walker
* Sammy Wilson

[edit]
Organizational skeptics

* Australian APEC Study Centre
* Competitive Enterprise Institute (US) [4]
* Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
* Exxon-Funded Skeptics
* Friends of Science (Canada)
* George C. Marshall Institute (US)
* Institute of Economic Affairs (UK)
* Institute of Public Affairs (Australia)
* International Climate Science Coalition (NZ)
* International Policy Network (UK)
* Lavoisier Group (Australia)
* Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NSRP) (Canada)
* New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
* Scientific Alliance (UK)
* The United Kingdom House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs
* NZ Center for Policy Research (NZ) [5]
* New Zealand Climate Change Coalition (NZ) [6]

 

[katie tully]

Admittedly I don't do physics... last time I checked though theoretical physicist Dr Adrian Kent did. I'm just drawing on the theories of other physicists... But I think you're missing the point, whether or not the Collider is based on false science or not is not what I am arguing. I am basically expressing my incredulous disbelief that nobody listens to other people's views anymore on issues that may or may not concern them.

Also Kwayera, difference noted.

Cool.

That's like saying, I'm not a doctor but Dr. Patel told me the knee bone is connected to the esophagus SO IT MUST BE RIGHT!

 

[HalcyonSky]

There are scientists that argue the earth is 6,000 years old. There are scientists that dispute evolution.

just throwing that out there.

also, Al Gore's enormous intellect trumps all of those 'scientists' you listed

I dont even know which side you're arguing for, your overuse of the word 'contend' and utter inability to construct logical sentences makes ur posts really hard to read.

 

[Kwayera]

Please! Give me a fr@#en break.

No idiot, regardless of how big, can POSSIBLY CONTEND that there are very prestigious scientists, including NOBEL LAUREUTTES, who content the idea of human-induced global warming.

That is a FACT.

There are also "prestigious scientists" who dispute evolution.

Also, gee, I wonder why Exxon-Skeptics would be skeptical of ACC.. nope, can't think of a reason!

 

[impervious182]

There are also "prestigious scientists" who dispute evolution.

Also, gee, I wonder why Exxon-Skeptics would be skeptical of ACC.. nope, can't think of a reason!

Oh, and I wonder why Al Gore, the man who has made millions off convincing people that there is ACC, while flying around on his private jet, is supporting that view? I can't think of a reason why.

The fact is there are groups on both sides who have vested interests. Commenting on them doesn't add any weight to your argument.

 

[HalcyonSky]

Oh, and I wonder why Al Gore, the man who has made millions off convincing people that there is ACC, while flying around on his private jet, is supporting that view? I can't think of a reason why.

The fact is there are groups on both sides who have vested interests. Commenting on them doesn't add any weight to your argument.

That's also why he won the Nobel Peace Prize, right? because he has a vested interest to spread lies to make money for himself?

 

[Kwayera]

Oh, and I wonder why Al Gore, the man who has made millions off convincing people that there is ACC, while flying around on his private jet, is supporting that view? I can't think of a reason why.

The fact is there are groups on both sides who have vested interests. Commenting on them doesn't add any weight to your argument.

He was parroting about this long before he made any money off it, and I don't like the guy regardless. He just brought a well-known (and long-known; it's been suspected since the '30s) issue into public eye.

Your list, frankly, is rather poor when you remove those with "vested interests" in denying ACC, including (but not limited to) those without a genuine scientific base (all of those economic institutions included).

 

[impervious182]

He was parroting about this long before he made any money off it, and I don't like the guy regardless. He just brought a well-known (and long-known; it's been suspected since the '30s) issue into public eye.

Please. The amount of skeptics and evidence against ACC is growing daily and Al Gore was never 'parroting' about it, he was spreading apocalyptic, scare-mongering misinformation. Furthermore he was always making money from this issue, charging money for his initial lectures if I'm not mistaken and raising the issue at events at which he was paid to speak.

Oh and you're right, ACC was suspected in the 30's? Yeah, but then it was 'global cooling' which was the issue not 'global warming' as it is today. You've just shown yet again, an instance when the popular scientists with vested interests are proven wrong.

Your list, frankly, is rather poor when you remove those with "vested interests" in denying ACC, including (but not limited to) those without a genuine scientific base (all of those economic institutions included).

There are vested interests on either side, but there are MANY scientists, some of whom have been mentioned, who disagree with ACC and have very good reason to. They look at the world's actual warming, much less than that which was predicted by the ICCP. They look at the warming in the stratosphere and the troposphere and corrolate it with the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as water vapour... etc. Their argument is becoming better and better substantiated.

The list of institutions who support ACC and do their own research is also very few. The only reason the view is widespread is because of profiteers like Al Gore and other politicians like Kevin Rudd who have no idea. It's popular with voters because voters become scared and want action. They all base their decisions on the bias ICCP report. The predictions of which have already been shown to be off base, because the modelling was based on false assumptions. And who included many scientists in their referencing who didn't actually agree with it. They didn't properly undergo the peer review process.

The fact is that you're derailing the discussion from the fact that you were proven wrong though. There are skeptics, and just because you study science at Sydney Uni. doesn't make them dissapparate. (You've been reading too much Harry Potter... or maybe I have. lol)

 

[Kwayera]

The list of institutions who support ACC would be much less if the bias ICCP report had never been published. You're derailing the fact that you were proven wrong.

Have you actually read the document?

 

[Omium]

Why do you people feel the need to oppress dissenting views. You can't contribute to the debate, so you criticise the person.

It's really sad, just how intolerant some people here really are...

Please. As soon as you say 'scientific consensus' I know you're an idiot..

Hmmmmmmm

 

[impervious182]

Have you actually read the document?

Yes I have. Have you? Have you read the many documents which rebuke its findings? Because I've flicked through them as well!