Global warming: new controvesy?

For non-Starport related topics

Moderator: Major

User avatar
Grimoire
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 5:33 am
Location: Shredding
Contact:

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Grimoire » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:38 am

Want proof? Look at the North pole! Hell you could even look at the South one. There argument done, If the world was not heating up, the poles would not be melting. That is a fact. Heat = Melting Ice. How much more do you need? Perhaps penguins are to blame with all thier blow dryers and low mpg cars. Ok if you need more proof, your retarded, but heres a picture to demonstrate what you "science" types seem to want proof of.

Image

Hmm, that looks like a picture of the north pole, hmmmmm that also appears to be a yellow outline of what used to be the north pole......hmmm.....hmmmmmm.....

For those of you who are still skeptical, may your reproductive organs be burned from your bodies.
Image

User avatar
MegaMan
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:24 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MegaMan » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:44 am

Ok, here's a nice page with some easy to understand facts, along with some nice graphs to illustrate. From the Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Seems I may have placed things *slightly earlier in my previous post. My bad.

User avatar
CaptKirk
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:50 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA, Earth, Sol

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by CaptKirk » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:05 am

SnakeEyes wrote:
CaptKirk wrote:There is evidence that shows a warming trend over the past 15 or so years. There is extremely little evidence to tie it to human activity, and far greater evidence that points to solar activity as the culprit.
I'm sorry, but without credible sources I'm inclined to believe the scientific consensus.
That consensus also told us that the world was flat, it was not possible to exceed the speed of sound, and that the detonation of the first atomic bomb would likely result in a catastrophic domino effect that would destroy the planet.
How many scientists does it take to make a consensus anyway? 31,000 perhaps?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
And for some interesting reading:
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
SnakeEyes wrote:
National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position of January 2001 that
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
“ But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. ”

User avatar
CaptKirk
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:50 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA, Earth, Sol

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by CaptKirk » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:40 am

Grimoire wrote:Want proof? Look at the North pole! Hell you could even look at the South one. There argument done, If the world was not heating up, the poles would not be melting. That is a fact. Heat = Melting Ice. How much more do you need? Perhaps penguins are to blame with all thier blow dryers and low mpg cars. Ok if you need more proof, your retarded, but heres a picture to demonstrate what you "science" types seem to want proof of.

Image

Hmm, that looks like a picture of the north pole, hmmmmm that also appears to be a yellow outline of what used to be the north pole......hmmm.....hmmmmmm.....
You say; "Hell, you could even look at the south one(pole)". If that's the case, then why don't the alarmists do so? Perhaps it's because there's no diminishing of the antartica ice pack. In fact, it saw record growth in 2007.

Image

Hmm, that looks like a picture of the south pole, hmmm it also appears that the purple area is how much it's grown......hmmmmm......hmmmmmmmmm

Oddly enough, it's pattern of melting and refreezing has been surprisingly constant over the last 30 years. How is that possible if catastrophic global warming has been happening over that whole time??? Hmmmmmmmm?
Image

User avatar
SnakeEyes
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:19 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by SnakeEyes » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:40 am

CaptKirk wrote:
SnakeEyes wrote:
CaptKirk wrote:There is evidence that shows a warming trend over the past 15 or so years. There is extremely little evidence to tie it to human activity, and far greater evidence that points to solar activity as the culprit.
I'm sorry, but without credible sources I'm inclined to believe the scientific consensus.
That consensus also told us that the world was flat
Nope
, it was not possible to exceed the speed of sound
Source?
, and that the detonation of the first atomic bomb would likely result in a catastrophic domino effect that would destroy the planet.
Source?
How many scientists does it take to make a consensus anyway? 31,000 perhaps?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
And for some interesting reading:
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
Just shouting "it isn't so" doesn't make it true. A petition isn't a scientific study. And anyone with a degree can sign the petition. Of the 31,000, a BIG majority doesn't even have a degree related to the environment or atmospheric change. Some reading for you too

User avatar
CaptKirk
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:50 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA, Earth, Sol

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by CaptKirk » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:25 am

SnakeEyes wrote: Source?
The board just deleted about 75% of my post and I'm not going to spend the time retyping it this evening. Suffice it to say that the Internet, and in particular wikipedia, does not contain history in it's entirety. My claims are factual, and though easy references might not exist online, can be borne out by anyone who has done any detailed study of avaition and military history of the 1930s and WWII era.
SnakeEyes wrote: Just shouting "it isn't so" doesn't make it true. A petition isn't a scientific study. And anyone with a degree can sign the petition. Of the 31,000, a BIG majority doesn't even have a degree related to the environment or atmospheric change. Some reading for you too
Ah, but just shouting "it is so, the debate is over" makes it true? Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.

As to the scientists that comprise the "consensus", a freakishly large percentage of them are archiologists and the like whose expertise gives them no insight whatsoever in climate change, earth science, or any other applicable field.

User avatar
SnakeEyes
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:19 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by SnakeEyes » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:31 am

No, just by saying 'it is so' doesn't make it true. Of course not. But i'm more inclined to believe a large number of scientists with a large amount of studies and results over someone claiming something on an internet forum.

As you want to discuss the 'scientific consensus' part, I have included a link for further reading. In that article there is also a list of surveys, conducted to determine whether there is a scientific consensus on global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... literature

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."[
STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.
Oreskes, 2004
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
And some more, older, surveys. There IS a scientific consensus on global warming.

User avatar
Grimoire
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 5:33 am
Location: Shredding
Contact:

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Grimoire » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:44 am

[quote="CaptKirk"]
Hmm, that looks like a picture of the south pole, hmmm it also appears that the purple area is how much it's grown......hmmmmm......hmmmmmmmmm

Oddly enough, it's pattern of melting and refreezing has been surprisingly constant over the last 30 years. How is that possible if catastrophic global warming has been happening over that whole time??? Hmmmmmmmm?

Care to address the North pole? And we all know that Ice pack grows large when the souther or northern hemisphere is in "winter" Numb nutz. These studies of the North Pole's Ice were all conducted at the same time year after year, its not during a different season. :mrgreen:

/Givebrain Capt. Kirk

User avatar
Caia
Posts: 790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:15 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Caia » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:26 am

http://www.env-econ.net/2008/02/global-watming.html

Evidence that the sun is a bigger cause.

User avatar
Havok
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Behind you, about to torp your engines

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Havok » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:38 am

Source for speed of sound debunked:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... rrier.html

Source for 'world wide chain reaction' debunked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01830.html

User avatar
MadAce
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:12 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MadAce » Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:06 pm

Caia wrote:http://www.env-econ.net/2008/02/global-watming.html

Evidence that the sun is a bigger cause.
That's not evidence. That's a blog.

Not, I repeat, not the same thing.

But I'll go with the "evidence".

I'll quote your "source":
I have proven nothing here. Just providing anectotal evidence for discussion. If I were trying to prove my result I would run a regression and show that everything I have said here holds up statistically--in the env-econ blogging sense of statistics. But that would just be bragging. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Follow the bouncing ball of logic. C02 concentrations and temperatures are correlated. Sunspot activity and temperatures are not and neither are CO2 concentrations and sunspot activity. Therefore, sunspots activities are not a causal factor in determining long-term temperature trends.
Basically we can draw two conclusions from the source you gave us:

1) You have no idea what a credible source is.

2) You don't read that what you submit as source.


Last but not least I'd like to note your buddy in the blog sites NASA as source.

Smart of him, because:

NASA supports the global sicnetific consensus stating that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Here's a great link about NASA and global warming:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... mingQandA/

Kinda gonna debunk anything you can come up with.

BTW, it's written for kids, so don't hesitate to ask for help in interpreting it.
Havok wrote:Source for speed of sound debunked:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... rrier.html

Source for 'world wide chain reaction' debunked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01830.html
So basically your point is "Science has been wrong before so it's wrong again"?

That's BS. It's not because you wet your pants when you were a kid that you still do that.

Secondly you named the "science thought the world was flat"-argument. That's also BS. In societies and cultures where people thought the world was flat, there was no scientific method or the conclusions of scientists weren't known.

Frankly I'm puzzled by your hipocracy. People have died from faulty medecine before and yet I bet you take medication from time to time, thus trusting the conclusions of science.

Anyways. Since you can't provide any kind of source, except for your own wishfull thinking (being "Global warming doesn't exist, so I can blissfully continue my life without ever taking responsibility for anything as long as I keep denying it") that denies global warming I'm going to assume you're just doing this for shitz'n gigglez and aren't being serious.

User avatar
Havok
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Behind you, about to torp your engines

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Havok » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:09 pm

I never said that they believed that the world was flat, I know that that is a myth, same as washington chopping down the cherry tree. The other two, sound and world atomic explosion, were beliefs held by scientists at the time, as was the global cooling theory i mentioned earlier. Scientific history is full of debunked scientific theories, b/c in the field of science, there is little actual fact, almost everything you learn in courses is based on theory. We currently believe it to be impossible to go the speed of light, 50 years down the road, this too may be proven wrong, with new scientific breakthroughs. Our understanding of of the world and universe is so limited, you honestly believe that there are people out there who understand everything about the earth's atmosphere and climate? Einstein was considered the 'Space Wizard' and everything he theorized about space was taken as fact for many years. Oh, until many of his theories were blown out of the water by a rookie scientist fresh out of college. The truth is, none of these guys on either side of the argument really have any idea what they're talking about, these are just they're best guesses.

User avatar
MadAce
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:12 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MadAce » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:22 pm

Havok wrote:I never said that they believed that the world was flat, I know that that is a myth, same as washington chopping down the cherry tree. The other two, sound and world atomic explosion, were beliefs held by scientists at the time, as was the global cooling theory i mentioned earlier. Scientific history is full of debunked scientific theories, b/c in the field of science, there is little actual fact, almost everything you learn in courses is based on theory. We currently believe it to be impossible to go the speed of light, 50 years down the road, this too may be proven wrong, with new scientific breakthroughs. Our understanding of of the world and universe is so limited, you honestly believe that there are people out there who understand everything about the earth's atmosphere and climate? Einstein was considered the 'Space Wizard' and everything he theorized about space was taken as fact for many years. Oh, until many of his theories were blown out of the water by a rookie scientist fresh out of college. The truth is, none of these guys on either side of the argument really have any idea what they're talking about, these are just they're best guesses.
I was hoping you'd say that.

1) They're not "guesses". They're in fact not guesses at all.
2) There has been more research-hours put in global warming that Einstein's theories
3) "Theory" in scientific language doesn't mean the same as "theory"
4) Even with the "limited" knowledge of the Earth's climate still every climate scientist on the planet has been forced to acknowledge the consensus. To say it in science-speak: It's bleedin obvious.

User avatar
Caia
Posts: 790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:15 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Caia » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:39 pm

Madace: You'll have to follow the links within the blog. Its well laid out though. Even people of your intellect should be able to figure it out.
I was hoping you'd say that.

1) They're not "guesses". They're in fact not guesses at all.
2) There has been more research-hours put in global warming that Einstein's theories
3) "Theory" in scientific language doesn't mean the same as "theory"
4) Even with the "limited" knowledge of the Earth's climate still every climate scientist on the planet has been forced to acknowledge the consensus. To say it in science-speak: It's bleedin obvious.
1.) If they're not best guesses, what are they? Why are the frequently wrong?
2.) Really? How many research hours were put into each?
3.) Right. And "Cat" doesn't mean the same as "cat".
4.) No, if they had all acknowledged it, we really wouldn't be having this discussion.

User avatar
MadAce
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:12 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MadAce » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:10 pm

Caia wrote:Madace: You'll have to follow the links within the blog. Its well laid out though. Even people of your intellect should be able to figure it out.
I was hoping you'd say that.

1) They're not "guesses". They're in fact not guesses at all.
2) There has been more research-hours put in global warming that Einstein's theories
3) "Theory" in scientific language doesn't mean the same as "theory"
4) Even with the "limited" knowledge of the Earth's climate still every climate scientist on the planet has been forced to acknowledge the consensus. To say it in science-speak: It's bleedin obvious.
1.) If they're not best guesses, what are they? Why are the frequently wrong?
2.) Really? How many research hours were put into each?
3.) Right. And "Cat" doesn't mean the same as "cat".
4.) No, if they had all acknowledged it, we really wouldn't be having this discussion.
Caia. Nice attempt. But I just kinda owned your "source". So you owe me a credible source. Or I'll just settle with anything that you actually read.

I suggest you make a fool of yourself only one discussion at a time.

User avatar
CaptKirk
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:50 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA, Earth, Sol

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by CaptKirk » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:19 pm

MadAce wrote:
Havok wrote:I never said that they believed that the world was flat, I know that that is a myth, same as washington chopping down the cherry tree. The other two, sound and world atomic explosion, were beliefs held by scientists at the time, as was the global cooling theory i mentioned earlier. Scientific history is full of debunked scientific theories, b/c in the field of science, there is little actual fact, almost everything you learn in courses is based on theory. We currently believe it to be impossible to go the speed of light, 50 years down the road, this too may be proven wrong, with new scientific breakthroughs. Our understanding of of the world and universe is so limited, you honestly believe that there are people out there who understand everything about the earth's atmosphere and climate? Einstein was considered the 'Space Wizard' and everything he theorized about space was taken as fact for many years. Oh, until many of his theories were blown out of the water by a rookie scientist fresh out of college. The truth is, none of these guys on either side of the argument really have any idea what they're talking about, these are just they're best guesses.
I was hoping you'd say that.

1) They're not "guesses". They're in fact not guesses at all.
They're "educated" guesses. Big difference. If the evidence was so concrete, why such a large disparity in the predictions of catastrophic consequences? Some models predict irreversible harm within the next 150 years, others predict it as soon as 2030. That's a pretty wide range for such "certain" conclusions.
MadAce wrote: 2) There has been more research-hours put in global warming that Einstein's theories
And the one thing virtually the entire consensus can agree on is that their predictions are based on computer modeling that may contain large inaccuracies.
MadAce wrote: 3) "Theory" in scientific language doesn't mean the same as "theory"
"Theory" means unproven, even in science. Evidence can support the theory without proving it. Once proven, it ceases being a theory.
MadAce wrote: 4) Even with the "limited" knowledge of the Earth's climate still every climate scientist on the planet has been forced to acknowledge the consensus. To say it in science-speak: It's bleedin obvious.
"Every climate scientist on the planet"? It's been shown that there are at least 31k scientists in the USA alone that don't share in the consensus.

Keep in mind as you stammer along that we're not talking about the current warming trend, we're talking about the human causation of that trend. Yes, the planet is in a warming trend, the same sort of warming trend it has gone through countless times before in it's existance. The point being made is that "science" IS fallible. Scientists are human, they can allow personal bias to influence their interpretation of given data, and they have had numerous instances where data has been "massaged" to support a desired conclusion rather than a factual one.

Neither is anyone arguing that we should keep polluting like it doesn't matter. What we are saying is that the true and indisputable evidence of human causation is far too inconclusive to start destroying economies in order to enact fixes that science can't prove are needed or will fix anything.

User avatar
MadAce
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:12 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MadAce » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:03 pm

They're "educated" guesses. Big difference. If the evidence was so concrete, why such a large disparity in the predictions of catastrophic consequences? Some models predict irreversible harm within the next 150 years, others predict it as soon as 2030. That's a pretty wide range for such "certain" conclusions.
Now you have to provide two links. One to a credible source stating a model which predicts "irreversible harm within the next 150 years" and one to a credible source stating a model whcih predicts "irreversible harm as soon as 2030".

Secondly, it's not because everyone agrees the ball will roll of the hill that everyone agrees where it will land.
MadAce wrote: 2) There has been more research-hours put in global warming that Einstein's theories
And the one thing virtually the entire consensus can agree on is that their predictions are based on computer modeling that may contain large inaccuracies.
Now you have to provide me with a credible source stating "global warming is purely based on computer modells that may contain large inaccuracies".

BTW, the consensus isn't about HOW the conclusions were formed (you suggesgted computer modells) but in fact there is a consensus on the conclusions.
MadAce wrote: 3) "Theory" in scientific language doesn't mean the same as "theory"
"Theory" means unproven, even in science. Evidence can support the theory without proving it. Once proven, it ceases being a theory.
Oh dear...

"In the sciences generally, scientific theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon."

Not only that:

"A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms."

Now comes the point where you will start discrediting and attempting to "debuke" logic. Good luck with that.
MadAce wrote: 4) Even with the "limited" knowledge of the Earth's climate still every climate scientist on the planet has been forced to acknowledge the consensus. To say it in science-speak: It's bleedin obvious.
"Every climate scientist on the planet"? It's been shown that there are at least 31k scientists in the USA alone that don't share in the consensus.
Scientists, yes. Not particularely climate scientists. I'm not entirely sure why I should trust a Professor of Medecine with his opinion of Climate change. After all, we've known an immense tendency for specialization in the sciences the past century.

And I'm also not that convinced that this petition (not research in any shape or form, so no credibility in any shape or form) is credible. Note that it was sent out by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine... Among which are guys who deny important parts of evolution...

It was acheived by spamming thousands of "scientists" (according to what definition?). According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States (9K of which signed the petition), and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering. And basically anyone can sign, even nuts like Al Caruba.
Since it's apparently fair game around here I'm going to post a blog. But of course the guy in my blog sourced his rant:
http://energysolutionswecanbelievein.bl ... ation.html

And what credible news agencies say about the petition:

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:

“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.


In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:

“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency? ”

Safe to say no one actually takes the petition seriously.

BTW, you should realize that a consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees. Just a majority. Tho in this case it's a very large majority.
Keep in mind as you stammer along that we're not talking about the current warming trend, we're talking about the human causation of that trend. Yes, the planet is in a warming trend, the same sort of warming trend it has gone through countless times before in it's existance.

What NASA has to say about your little rant:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... gQandA/#02

And your comments about "Scientists just make stuf up as they go" are just too pathetic to dignify a proper response.


Neither is anyone arguing that we should keep polluting like it doesn't matter. What we are saying is that the true and indisputable evidence of human causation is far too inconclusive to start destroying economies in order to enact fixes that science can't prove are needed or will fix anything.
Somehow you're assuming "economies will be destroyed".

Are you... By any chance... (long shot here)... Biased?

User avatar
Havok
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Behind you, about to torp your engines

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Havok » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:07 pm

MadAce wrote:
Havok wrote:I never said that they believed that the world was flat, I know that that is a myth, same as washington chopping down the cherry tree. The other two, sound and world atomic explosion, were beliefs held by scientists at the time, as was the global cooling theory i mentioned earlier. Scientific history is full of debunked scientific theories, b/c in the field of science, there is little actual fact, almost everything you learn in courses is based on theory. We currently believe it to be impossible to go the speed of light, 50 years down the road, this too may be proven wrong, with new scientific breakthroughs. Our understanding of of the world and universe is so limited, you honestly believe that there are people out there who understand everything about the earth's atmosphere and climate? Einstein was considered the 'Space Wizard' and everything he theorized about space was taken as fact for many years. Oh, until many of his theories were blown out of the water by a rookie scientist fresh out of college. The truth is, none of these guys on either side of the argument really have any idea what they're talking about, these are just they're best guesses.
I was hoping you'd say that.

1) They're not "guesses". They're in fact not guesses at all.
2) There has been more research-hours put in global warming that Einstein's theories
3) "Theory" in scientific language doesn't mean the same as "theory"
4) Even with the "limited" knowledge of the Earth's climate still every climate scientist on the planet has been forced to acknowledge the consensus. To say it in science-speak: It's bleedin obvious.
So despite the fact that scientific theories and beliefs such as global warming have a track record of being wrong comparable to that of the US government's, you believe that they got it right this time? Why?
CaptKirk wrote:
Keep in mind as you stammer along that we're not talking about the current warming trend, we're talking about the human causation of that trend. Yes, the planet is in a warming trend, the same sort of warming trend it has gone through countless times before in it's existance. The point being made is that "science" IS fallible. Scientists are human, they can allow personal bias to influence their interpretation of given data, and they have had numerous instances where data has been "massaged" to support a desired conclusion rather than a factual one.

Neither is anyone arguing that we should keep polluting like it doesn't matter. What we are saying is that the true and indisputable evidence of human causation is far too inconclusive to start destroying economies in order to enact fixes that science can't prove are needed or will fix anything.
Exactly Kirk, when i look at the inconclusive and faulty evidence supporting global warming, and watch the government support it despite this, i smell a rat. A big stinkin 'big government' one. The politicians are jumping on the global warming bandwagon because they see it as a means to expand their own power over business and the lives of ordinary citizens in a way never imagined before. All the measures being proposed to combat the 'problem' of global warming involve increased govt regulation and power over businesses. The proposed 'carbon credit' measure would make the EPA the most powerful agency in the government, and impose increased financial burden on American corporations, giving them all the more reason to move overseas to corporation friendly countries like Ireland.

User avatar
Havok
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Behind you, about to torp your engines

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Havok » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:09 pm

MadAce wrote:
And I'm also not that convinced that this petition (not research in any shape or form, so no credibility in any shape or form) is credible. Note that it was sent out by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine... Among which are guys who deny important parts of evolution...
Evolution is another theory that has yet to be proven

User avatar
SnakeEyes
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:19 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by SnakeEyes » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:53 pm

Havok wrote:
MadAce wrote:
And I'm also not that convinced that this petition (not research in any shape or form, so no credibility in any shape or form) is credible. Note that it was sent out by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine... Among which are guys who deny important parts of evolution...
Evolution is another theory that has yet to be proven
That's a different topic. Care to open one? I know a lot in this field :P Evolution is a fact and a theory.

Also I would like to say that I don't like the comparison of the speed of sound with the speed of light. For the first one there was no scientific ground to say nobody could cross the soundbarrier (see also Havok's post on the speed of sound debunked), for the second one there IS.

User avatar
CaptainKangaroo
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:07 am
Location: Mr.Angry's House Drinking His Beer Watching Captain Kangaroo Re-runs

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by CaptainKangaroo » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:16 pm

All this talk on global warming is more based on speculation than to do with facts. Al gore would like you to believe that if you don't do your part to save the planet we are doomed. Of course he has no problem flying around the world on a old Gulfstream jet that is the worst polluter out of the fleet.

If one volcano erupts it pollutes more that North America could do in 100 years, who's fault is that ours? Remember the fools that said hurricane Katrina was our fault too? If you have a problem with people living their lives then perhaps it is time to go spend your days living in a cave somewhere.

On a side note while purchasing a book in Borders yesterday I saw a cute little sign that "asks you to consider the environment before asking for a paper bag". Someone needs to remind them that they are a bookstore and we all know where paper comes from....

lol treehuggers in a bookstore I think I have seen it all now. :mrgreen:

User avatar
SnakeEyes
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:19 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by SnakeEyes » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:47 pm

CaptainKangaroo wrote: If one volcano erupts it pollutes more that North America could do in 100 years, who's fault is that ours?
http://environment.about.com/od/greenho ... no-gas.htm
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Remember the fools that said hurricane Katrina was our fault too? If you have a problem with people living their lives then perhaps it is time to go spend your days living in a cave somewhere.
Even tho there isn't a clear link between global warming and stronger hurricanes, the connection between them has yet to be ruled out. Warmer oceans are fuel for stronger hurricanes.

User avatar
Moleman
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:13 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Moleman » Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:11 pm

Quoting links back and forward really proves nothing other than the fact that an internet link can be used to 'prove' anything! If you looked hard enough you could probably provide a link 'proving' that Toonces is in fact the secret love child of Homer Simpson and Janet Jackson!!

There are strong scientific arguments from both sides which again only serves to further entrench your views, whatever they may be..

Interesting point, there is a street in London called 'Vine Street'. Anyone hazzard a guess where the inspiration came for the name? ;)

moleman

User avatar
Armor
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Not England >: (

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Armor » Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:14 pm

Moleman wrote:If you looked hard enough you could probably provide a link 'proving' that Toonces is in fact the secret love child of Homer Simpson and Janet Jackson!!
But he is. We all know that.

User avatar
MegaMan
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:24 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MegaMan » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:55 pm

Moleman wrote:Quoting links back and forward really proves nothing other than the fact that an internet link can be used to 'prove' anything! If you looked hard enough you could probably provide a link 'proving' that Toonces is in fact the secret love child of Homer Simpson and Janet Jackson!!

There are strong scientific arguments from both sides which again only serves to further entrench your views, whatever they may be..
moleman
Links can provide access to reliable and credible information. I really doubt there is any such information relating Toonces and Janet Jackson. However, you could find a link telling you exactly what temperature it is outside today, anywhere in the world.

What we are talking about here is the kind of planet we are leaving for our children, if not our very survival. It's not a trivial topic.

Also, this is not a contest of our egos. Name-calling and insults do nothing to help anyone understand the problem.

It also tends to be a very politicized discussion, at least in the US. Al Gore has been mentioned, and the word "treehugger" has already been dropped. I often see an attitude that kind of goes with this discussion.. "I'm a conservative so therefore I cannot "believe in" climate change or care about the environment..."There really is nothing political about the state the planet is in when we leave it to our children, or the potential of human extinction.

So please, can we talk about this for what it actually is, and not make it a contest of egos? Thanks

User avatar
rojo
Posts: 950
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:52 pm
Location: At the Black Hand Head Quarters
Contact:

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by rojo » Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:33 pm

I saw that Al Gore movie that said it was true.

User avatar
akito
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:34 am
Location: utopia colony mars

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by akito » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:30 pm

CaptainKangaroo wrote:As the sun expands, the climate on all of the planets change. Very simple to understand, the closer you are to heat the warmer it gets.

Can someone explain how we are the cause of global warming on mars?
boom head shot!

User avatar
Moleman
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:13 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Moleman » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:55 pm

MegaMan wrote:
Moleman wrote:Quoting links back and forward really proves nothing other than the fact that an internet link can be used to 'prove' anything! If you looked hard enough you could probably provide a link 'proving' that Toonces is in fact the secret love child of Homer Simpson and Janet Jackson!!

There are strong scientific arguments from both sides which again only serves to further entrench your views, whatever they may be..
moleman
Links can provide access to reliable and credible information. I really doubt there is any such information relating Toonces and Janet Jackson. However, you could find a link telling you exactly what temperature it is outside today, anywhere in the world.

What we are talking about here is the kind of planet we are leaving for our children, if not our very survival. It's not a trivial topic.

Also, this is not a contest of our egos. Name-calling and insults do nothing to help anyone understand the problem.

It also tends to be a very politicized discussion, at least in the US. Al Gore has been mentioned, and the word "treehugger" has already been dropped. I often see an attitude that kind of goes with this discussion.. "I'm a conservative so therefore I cannot "believe in" climate change or care about the environment..."There really is nothing political about the state the planet is in when we leave it to our children, or the potential of human extinction.

So please, can we talk about this for what it actually is, and not make it a contest of egos? Thanks
I appreciate your sentiment megaman but you're making the assumption that your position is the correct one and that anyone disagreeing doesn't care about our or our childrens future!

I have read a lot on the subject and am equally passionate about the dangers of global warming propaganda, especially the tactic used by government that means they can force through an unpopular policy by dressing it up as 'saving the planet' in someway!

moleman

User avatar
MegaMan
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:24 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MegaMan » Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:27 am

Sorry if that came off as hostile towards you Moley, I didn't mean to be hostile towards anyone. It just seemed you were saying that looking things up online is a waste of time, which I definitely don't agree with. That one has to take things with a grain of salt and be mindful of your source material, I do agree with. :)

Also I definitely don't mean to say people that don't agree with me don't care about our children's future. Just trying to convey that it is a very serious issue that does seriously concern me, and I don't like the way the "debate" is politicized, polarized, and ego-charged.

What I don't understand is what people think a person would gain by making up a hoax like global warming. Maybe to gain funds somehow and use them for their own gain? Yea I wouldn't be at all surprised if there have been cases of that. People are corrupt wherever you look, it's true. But that doesn't mean that there is not a real effort underway to educate people and attempt to do something about a very serious problem.

I'll try to scrounge up some good material. Or maybe I won't, recognizing that this is the SGE forum, and there are places where I can discuss this a lot more seriously. lol

peace

User avatar
MadAce
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:12 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MadAce » Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:43 am

Moleman,

your assumption about the lack of credibility inhrent to the internet is unfunded.

The internet is a conduit for information. Just like books are. What you said is "anything that's on paper is unreliable since anyone can print a book".

The conduit doesn't matter. The information does.

And information can be right or wrong. Whether it's right or wrong depends on how much proof there is.

Some articles (such as scientific ones) are very reliable since they contain proof.

Others are full of BS, of course. But it's not because there's more BS than fact that you should throw away the fact with the BS.

In the same way you shouldn't dismiss what Al Gore says, just because he's Al Gore and you happen to not like him.

If Osama Bin Laden says something then we should listen and judge the information itself based on how factual it is, not judge the information according to the messenger.

This is called... Objectivity.

Another point of mine:

How does one of more governments using global warming for some alleged scam discredit the fact of global warming and the scientific consensus.

If some trader starts selling "remember 9/11" T-shirts near ground zero, does that mean 9/11 didn't happen?

Last but not least:

What's so hard about accepting responsibility for your actions?

Post Reply