The global warming: is the thing really so, how it’s presented by official scientists?

[rotschnjak.livejournal.com]

It’s usually for us to trust scientists absolutely, however the nature of science is so, that each fact must be always under doubt. Science without doubts and alternative points of view transform to religion. Albert Einstein has made his theory of relativity because of doubts in classical Newtonian physic science; Nikola Copernicus had doubts in quite convenient and proved geocentric system of Ptolemaist, and he was right.

What is it properly the theory of anthropologically caused global warming? It’s the scientific theory that dominates in modern official science. Is it the truth? If you are really honorable scientist, you must answer: “May be…”. There are many facts that make this theory liked truth, and many facts that aren’t convenient for this theory… For real proving we must to research punctually many items, which are not so well calculated and searched.
The first problem is in global warming events in pre-historic times. In those times we haven’t any anthropological influence, but we have global warming periods. What factors were caused such climatic changes? Glaciologists say that during the whole such periods are the high concentration of carbon dioxide. But there is a question, is this high concentration really a reason or a result of warming (with increasing of temperature the ocean and moors release carbon dioxide from water solutions), or it was synergetic a reason and a result simultaneously (the model of positive reverse relation, when warming causes increasing concentration of carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide causes warming).
Real problems the theory of global warming is in the question of oceanic steams self-regulation. If there is a greenhouse effect, the differences between equator and both poles will decrease, so the oceanic streams will be not so powerful. If the warm oceanic streams are not so powerful, it causes the refreezing of polar zones. If the polar zones are cool, the oceanic waters of these regions can solve more carbon dioxide from atmosphere…. Generally, the thing isn’t so easy, I suppose.
The next problem lays in the calculation of phytomass (biomass) of plants. If we have more carbon dioxide, plants growing is faster, so it cause the increasing of carbon deposition in moors, ocean and in organic stuff of the soil. But decay of this mass is faster too, and it causes the producing of methane, the more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
So, for real research we must calculate all this and many other factors in the unite punctual computer model, but today there are not even possibility such model to create. All models, which exist now, are worked not with factors, but with statistical correlations. Each statistical correlation could be not real, but pseudoreal.
The pseudoreal statistical correlation is the weak place in each mathematical model. We can find correlations between independent events or to understand this correlation not so, that it is really. For example, it could be correlation between the level of consummation of Coca-Cola and the level of crimes in some city, but all of us understand that these things are not caused by each other. Or it could be caused by each other, but the mechanism isn’t so easy. Not Coca-Cola in our city caused the increasing of crimes, but, for example, the Coca-Cola bar is used by drag-pushers as covering.
The theory of anthropological cause of global warming is very convenient for politicians. It is something like the actions of ancient priests. Politicians can not say: “The climate changes crucially. It’s dangerous, but we don’t know, what we can to do”. They say ‘Offer to our Gods, and they will be gracious’ ‘Decrease the emission of carbon dioxide’
For politicians it’s very dangerous to say that they don’t know what the people can to do for saving the situation. So, the struggle with global warming through the limitation of carbon dioxide emission (it’s really a new tax that help to support state expenditures, a positive moment for each politician) is the best way for them.

Comments

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You know, never doubt the stupidity of humanity.

I mean, look at how religion has spread.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

...or the fact that there are still people who take the idea of communism seriously.

[rotschnjak.livejournal.com]

If you say about me, I don't believe in communism. People are very sinnful for to be communistic. But I believe in something... I don't know exactly, but it might be something new...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

That's the idea.

[papasha-mueller.livejournal.com]

Opposite to the religion, communism is based on facts and figures.
Which begins to turn true, btw.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

[papasha-mueller.livejournal.com]

Nice try.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I am but the child of a humble wrecker.

[papasha-mueller.livejournal.com]

OKay, I am quite open to call you the way you want.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You are flying your contempt high, but it has impaired your reasoning.

What do you mean by "take the idea of communism seriously" ?

Since it is a most serious topic indeed, if we are to talk about the history of people or politics.

Now, if you are saying "there are still people who take like the idea of communism" that'd be more honest. But instead you are attempting to be subtle (but failing) in your condemnation.


Also: fuck Cuba, amirite?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Are there awards for reading way too much into word choices?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I mean that they still think that it is a viable idea. That things will be different this time around. That if they put the right person in charge, and break enough eggs, that utopia will be achieved.

And yes, fuck Cuba. Or rather, fuck Castro and his miserable little island fiefdom.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Do you think capitalism is a viable idea?

And while saying "fuck Castro" is a nice little sound-byte, the PEOPLE who live in Cuba and who may think communism is a viable idea, what do you say TO THEM?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Yes, at the very least it is less wrong.

I'd say fuck Castro, and then offer them a cheeseburger. There's a reason people try to swim from Havana to Miami but not the other way around.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

That's the lamest sauce argument ever.

If you are going to try and hold an intellectual argument be prepared:

What do you mean when you call capitalism viable? What does that mean?

Do NOT cop-out with some "less wrong" bullshit. Defend it on it's own grounds or do not defend it at all.

And as for Havana and Miami, tell me, where is it better to be poor and sick? Fuck yo cheeseburger homie.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

What did you mean when you asked the question?

I meant that it produces a more efficient distribution of goods/labour and higher average quality of life for all involved than any other system developed thus far.

Where is it better to be poor and sick? Fuck yo cheeseburger homie.

The US because even the bottom 10% in the US do pretty well when compared to much of of the world.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You were the one who introduced the word "viable" into the discussion of communism, do not ask me what I meant by it.


You decide to compare the bottom 10% to "much of the world" when I gave you a specific question, one that you refused to answer.

Where is it better to be poor and sick? Miami or Havana? Answer that, and then tell me again about how capitalism produces a higher quality of life for all involved.

Cause I am happy to grant capitalism will create more billionares than communism. I don't consider that to be a virtue.


And let me get this right: you consider capitalism to be viable because other systems suck?

Are you suggesting that child labor is NOT a part of capitalism? Cause I'm pretty sure that child labor laws are just REGULATION from big govt that you hate so much.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I gave you a specific question, one that you refused to answer.

Read the post again. I answered and my answer was the US for the reason already stated.

Are you suggesting that child labor is NOT a part of capitalism?

Are you suggesting that slavery and mass-murder are not parts of communism?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Excuse me. Did you REALLY just bring up SLAVERY?

Are you fucking kidding me.

How do you think black folks and native Indians feel about capitalism and slavery and mass murder?

Like really bro. Look in a fukkin mirror.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

No I am not kidding you.

You seem to be forgetting that pretty much all slave-holding states in the last century have been communist ones. Communism requires forced labor to function in practice.

We abandoned slavery close to a century ago, we fought a civil war over it. Communist China, and the USSR, were holding slaves less than 50 years ago North Korea still is, so spare me your false outrage.

[rotschnjak.livejournal.com]

Doubts make the truth... I believe in it. May be, it is the new religion...
To tell the truth I'm tired with ONE DOMINATED IDEOLOGY and CULTURE all over the world. And me it's important to regard each alternative point of view.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I agree with that, actually. I do have a problem regarding "each alternative point of view" with equal weight regardless of evidence, especially when we're talking about the physical reality of the only life support system we have, the planet.

If it makes you feel any better, though, I doubt any one of us can have enough of an impact either way to save or damn the rest.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

There are far more people supporting this 'alternative point of view' than the proportion out of the whole of scientists that do.

Generally when that happens, it's religion.

[papasha-mueller.livejournal.com]

The difference is the Church takes your money without promising to turn the world colder.
It brings calmity and not air-conditioning.