But it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. The fact remains that you have no control over what anyone will or will not post here.
Welcome to the thread of facts vs opinions.
Earth has cooled, researchers say
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
If this thread is going to be considered as trolling, then almost all of the other threads in this forum should also be under the same banner.
But it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. The fact remains that you have no control over what anyone will or will not post here.
Welcome to the thread of facts vs opinions.
But it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. The fact remains that you have no control over what anyone will or will not post here.
Welcome to the thread of facts vs opinions.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
More myths and facts... It's always the same "arguments" from the deniers, but what they don't realize is that those same arguments, (and many others) have already been examined and refuted. You actually think that you, the scientific beginner, can sit at home and think of something that thousands and thousands of scientists and studies (many of them independently funded) did not already cover and examine? Are you that arrogant?
MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.
MYTH: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers.
FACT: A well designed trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.
Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation. An independent MIT study found that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and have no negative impact on employment.
Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA. Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth. Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now.
MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?
FACT: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.
The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.
MYTH: Global warming and extra CO2 will actually be beneficial — they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth.
FACT: Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.
Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally. Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.
Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species.
Higher levels of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.
The notion that there will be regional “winners” and “losers” in global warming is based on a world-view from the 1950’s. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications — when an environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected.
MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
MYTH: We can adapt to climate change — civilization has survived droughts and temperature shifts before.
FACT: Although humans as a whole have survived the vagaries of drought, stretches of warmth and cold and more, entire societies have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts.
The current warming of our climate will bring major hardships and economic dislocations — untold human suffering, especially for our children and grandchildren. We are already seeing significant costs from today's global warming which is caused by greenhouse gas pollution. Climate has changed in the past and human societies have survived, but today six billion people depend on interconnected ecosystems and complex technological infrastructure.
What's more, unless we limit the amount of heat-trapping gases we are putting into the atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since human civilization began 10,000 years ago. (IPCC 2001)
The consequences of continued warming at current rates are likely to be dire. Many densely populated areas, such as low-lying coastal regions, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection is that the homes of 13 to 88 million people around the world would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Poorer countries and small island nations will have the hardest time adapting. (McLean et al. 2001)
In what appears to be the first forced move resulting from climate change, 100 residents of Tegua island in the Pacific Ocean were evacuated by the government because rising sea levels were flooding their island. Some 2,000 other islanders plan a similar move to escape rising waters. In the United States, the village of Shishmaref in Alaska, which has been inhabited for 400 years, is collapsing from melting permafrost. Relocation plans are in the works.
Scarcity of water and food could lead to major conflicts with broad ripple effects throughout the globe. Even if people find a way to adapt, the wildlife and plants on which we depend may be unable to adapt to rapid climate change. While the world itself will not end, the world as we know it may disappear.
MYTH: Recent cold winters and cool summers don’t feel like global warming to me.
FACT: While different pockets of the country have experienced some cold winters here and there, the overall trend is warmer winters.
Measurements show that over the last century the Earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all seasons, and in most regions. Climate skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold weather in one region of the globe is not an indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.
MYTH: Global warming can’t be happening because some glaciers and ice sheets are growing, not shrinking.
FACT: In most parts of the world, the retreat of glaciers has been dramatic. The best available scientific data indicate that Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking.
Between 1961 and 1997, the world’s glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods. Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a global warming trend.
In Greenland, a NASA satellite that can measure the ice mass over the whole continent has found that although there is variation from month to month, over the longer term, the ice is disappearing. In fact, there are worrisome signs that melting is accelerating: glaciers are moving into the ocean twice as fast as a decade ago, and, over time, more and more glaciers have started to accelerate. What is most alarming is the prediction, based on model calculations and historical evidence, that an approximately 5.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in local Greenland temperatures will lead to irreversible meltdown and a sea-level rise of over 20 feet. Since the Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than the global average, this tipping point is not far away.
The only study that has shown increasing ice mass in Greenland only looked at the interior of the ice sheet, not at the edges where melting occurs. This is actually in line with climate model predictions that global warming would lead to a short-term accumulation of ice in the cold interior due to heavier snowfall. (Similarly, scientists have predicted that Antarctica overall will gain ice in the near future due to heavier snowfall.) The scientists who published the study were careful to point out that their results should not be used to conclude that Greenland's ice mass as a whole is growing. In addition, their data suggested that the accumulation of snow in the middle of the continent is likely to decrease over time as global warming continues.
MYTH: Accurate weather predictions a few days in advance are hard to come by. Why on earth should we have confidence in climate projections decades from now?
FACT: Climate prediction is fundamentally different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather.
It is often more difficult to make an accurate weather forecast than a climate prediction. The accuracy of weather forecasting is critically dependent upon being able to exactly and comprehensively characterize the present state of the global atmosphere. Climate prediction relies on other, longer ranging factors. For instance, we might not know if it will be below freezing on a specific December day in New England, but we know from our understanding of the region's climate that the temperatures during the month will generally be low. Similarly, climate tells us that Seattle and London tend to be rainy, Florida and southern California are usually warm, and the Southwest is often dry and hot.
Today’s climate models can now reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century and beyond. Such findings have reinforced scientist’s confidence in the capacity of models to produce reliable projections of future climate. Current climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future heat-trapping emissions in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.
MYTH: As the ozone hole shrinks, global warming will no longer be a problem.
FACT: Global warming and the ozone hole are two different problems.
The ozone hole is a thinning of the stratosphere's ozone layer, which is roughly 9 to 31 miles above the earth's surface. The depletion of the ozone is due to man-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A thinner ozone layer lets more harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach the earth's surface.
Global warming, on the other hand, is the increase in the earth's average temperature due to the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities.
MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.
MYTH: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers.
FACT: A well designed trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.
Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation. An independent MIT study found that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and have no negative impact on employment.
Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA. Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth. Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now.
MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?
FACT: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.
The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.
MYTH: Global warming and extra CO2 will actually be beneficial — they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth.
FACT: Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.
Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally. Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.
Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species.
Higher levels of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.
The notion that there will be regional “winners” and “losers” in global warming is based on a world-view from the 1950’s. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications — when an environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected.
MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.
People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
MYTH: We can adapt to climate change — civilization has survived droughts and temperature shifts before.
FACT: Although humans as a whole have survived the vagaries of drought, stretches of warmth and cold and more, entire societies have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts.
The current warming of our climate will bring major hardships and economic dislocations — untold human suffering, especially for our children and grandchildren. We are already seeing significant costs from today's global warming which is caused by greenhouse gas pollution. Climate has changed in the past and human societies have survived, but today six billion people depend on interconnected ecosystems and complex technological infrastructure.
What's more, unless we limit the amount of heat-trapping gases we are putting into the atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since human civilization began 10,000 years ago. (IPCC 2001)
The consequences of continued warming at current rates are likely to be dire. Many densely populated areas, such as low-lying coastal regions, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection is that the homes of 13 to 88 million people around the world would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Poorer countries and small island nations will have the hardest time adapting. (McLean et al. 2001)
In what appears to be the first forced move resulting from climate change, 100 residents of Tegua island in the Pacific Ocean were evacuated by the government because rising sea levels were flooding their island. Some 2,000 other islanders plan a similar move to escape rising waters. In the United States, the village of Shishmaref in Alaska, which has been inhabited for 400 years, is collapsing from melting permafrost. Relocation plans are in the works.
Scarcity of water and food could lead to major conflicts with broad ripple effects throughout the globe. Even if people find a way to adapt, the wildlife and plants on which we depend may be unable to adapt to rapid climate change. While the world itself will not end, the world as we know it may disappear.
MYTH: Recent cold winters and cool summers don’t feel like global warming to me.
FACT: While different pockets of the country have experienced some cold winters here and there, the overall trend is warmer winters.
Measurements show that over the last century the Earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all seasons, and in most regions. Climate skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold weather in one region of the globe is not an indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.
MYTH: Global warming can’t be happening because some glaciers and ice sheets are growing, not shrinking.
FACT: In most parts of the world, the retreat of glaciers has been dramatic. The best available scientific data indicate that Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking.
Between 1961 and 1997, the world’s glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods. Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a global warming trend.
In Greenland, a NASA satellite that can measure the ice mass over the whole continent has found that although there is variation from month to month, over the longer term, the ice is disappearing. In fact, there are worrisome signs that melting is accelerating: glaciers are moving into the ocean twice as fast as a decade ago, and, over time, more and more glaciers have started to accelerate. What is most alarming is the prediction, based on model calculations and historical evidence, that an approximately 5.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in local Greenland temperatures will lead to irreversible meltdown and a sea-level rise of over 20 feet. Since the Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than the global average, this tipping point is not far away.
The only study that has shown increasing ice mass in Greenland only looked at the interior of the ice sheet, not at the edges where melting occurs. This is actually in line with climate model predictions that global warming would lead to a short-term accumulation of ice in the cold interior due to heavier snowfall. (Similarly, scientists have predicted that Antarctica overall will gain ice in the near future due to heavier snowfall.) The scientists who published the study were careful to point out that their results should not be used to conclude that Greenland's ice mass as a whole is growing. In addition, their data suggested that the accumulation of snow in the middle of the continent is likely to decrease over time as global warming continues.
MYTH: Accurate weather predictions a few days in advance are hard to come by. Why on earth should we have confidence in climate projections decades from now?
FACT: Climate prediction is fundamentally different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather.
It is often more difficult to make an accurate weather forecast than a climate prediction. The accuracy of weather forecasting is critically dependent upon being able to exactly and comprehensively characterize the present state of the global atmosphere. Climate prediction relies on other, longer ranging factors. For instance, we might not know if it will be below freezing on a specific December day in New England, but we know from our understanding of the region's climate that the temperatures during the month will generally be low. Similarly, climate tells us that Seattle and London tend to be rainy, Florida and southern California are usually warm, and the Southwest is often dry and hot.
Today’s climate models can now reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century and beyond. Such findings have reinforced scientist’s confidence in the capacity of models to produce reliable projections of future climate. Current climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future heat-trapping emissions in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.
MYTH: As the ozone hole shrinks, global warming will no longer be a problem.
FACT: Global warming and the ozone hole are two different problems.
The ozone hole is a thinning of the stratosphere's ozone layer, which is roughly 9 to 31 miles above the earth's surface. The depletion of the ozone is due to man-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A thinner ozone layer lets more harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach the earth's surface.
Global warming, on the other hand, is the increase in the earth's average temperature due to the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
Different myths were exposed, and the most popular ones were explained with different words. That post was quite different from the first one. Maybe you should have read more carefully, TWICE. Irrational denial is after all, quite hard to break through.C-GGGQ wrote:gee thanks for posting that over again cause reading it a second time changed my whole outlook on it
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
So is irrational acceptance of a theory that is in vogue today, and will be gone tomorrow. Just as the flat earth theory was wrong, and just as the earth cooling theory from the 1970s was wrong.corporate joe wrote:Irrational denial is after all, quite hard to break through.
This one is wrong too, but won't be forgotten until the next band of money-hungry researchers manages to shift the public's focus to the Next Big Crisis. Hard to say at this point what the Next Big Crisis will be, but someone will think of something, and then the corporate joes of the world will endorse it wholeheartedly without leaving any space open in their minds for debate to the contrary.
In the meantime, my car is having trouble keeping my back yard cool today as it's hotter outside. (still leaving it running 24/7 with the windows open and AC on in order to combat "global warming")
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
So this is what your argumentation has come down to. It's sunken lower, even for your level or rational (or lack of). First of all quoting only one line out of a whole argumentation, which is typical of you.the_professor wrote:So is irrational acceptance of a theory that is in vogue today, and will be gone tomorrow. Just as the flat earth theory was wrong, and just as the earth cooling theory from the 1970s was wrong.corporate joe wrote:Irrational denial is after all, quite hard to break through.
This one is wrong too, but won't be forgotten until the next band of money-hungry researchers manages to shift the public's focus to the Next Big Crisis. Hard to say at this point what the Next Big Crisis will be, but someone will think of something, and then the corporate joes of the world will endorse it wholeheartedly without leaving any space open in their minds for debate to the contrary.
In the meantime, my car is having trouble keeping my back yard cool today as it's hotter outside. (still leaving it running 24/7 with the windows open and AC on in order to combat "global warming")
At least you've abandoned trying to use science to continue the denial. Now it's about "money hungry researchers" (but if you looked into in the slightest way it you would see how ridiculous that statement is), and voodoo conspiracies, and the world famous "science was wrong before in other studies (even though this study has more evidence backing it up than anything man has ever discovered)" argument. The flat earth society uses that same type of argumentation. Maybe you should join them, The top poster's avatar in those forums is the picture of a univeristy "professor" (not kidding). Cancer is not real folks, because "science" once thought the earth was flat. Gravity is not real folks, because "science" once thought the earth was flat. The fact that this study outweighs all the others in terms of data and reasearch is irrelevant. Comparing Medieval guesses with modern day research and scientific consensus (consensus NEVER before seen) is what makes sense.
According to the professor it's those left wing NBC folks who invented everything, and who are funding all of the worlds research to feed our "money hungry scientists".
As for advocating waste, I think that pushes everything just a bit further, and not only removes you from the solution, but makes you part of the problem. Clearly you've lost all rational and concept of reality. This is not ignorance anymore, this is insanity. What's next? A Napoleon hat?
PS: I've stopped waiting for facts, instead of opinions.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
Why is it then that I can find on the internet information from climate scientists that say that what you call 'myths' really are not?
Wh does the global warming crowd find it nessecary to use terminology to discribe those that question the global warming theory as 'Deniers'? This is subtly trying to group those people with another croud of well known deniers. Why is this nessecary?
Why does the global warming crowd always seem overstate the situation. I have read articles by climate scientists on both sides of the debate (and yes there is one, despite what Al Gore says), that state this.
Why is the water level at the Maldives going down? Shouldnt they be going under by now?
I do not pretend to know as much about these things as climate scientists do, as your posts seem to accuse those of us who do not blindly believe all that the global warming theory states. I simply have read from scientists on both sides of the debate and have alot of questions. With some exceptions, all I can find from the global warming crowd is "its happening, we all agree, and you should believe us". Even your long and preachy post falls into this catagory. Its very hard to find straight facts. I just seem to find more of them from those who have their doubts.
BTW what happened to the threat of global cooling 30 years ago. I remeber something about it, but am a bit fuzzy on it. Can you tell me how the scientific comunity has managed such a big turnaround. Have they simply decieded they were wrong then.
These are my questions. They are driven by a want to know, not some kind of petty idea that I am somehow smarter than these scientists, or some agenda to change everyones mind.
Wh does the global warming crowd find it nessecary to use terminology to discribe those that question the global warming theory as 'Deniers'? This is subtly trying to group those people with another croud of well known deniers. Why is this nessecary?
Why does the global warming crowd always seem overstate the situation. I have read articles by climate scientists on both sides of the debate (and yes there is one, despite what Al Gore says), that state this.
Why is the water level at the Maldives going down? Shouldnt they be going under by now?
I do not pretend to know as much about these things as climate scientists do, as your posts seem to accuse those of us who do not blindly believe all that the global warming theory states. I simply have read from scientists on both sides of the debate and have alot of questions. With some exceptions, all I can find from the global warming crowd is "its happening, we all agree, and you should believe us". Even your long and preachy post falls into this catagory. Its very hard to find straight facts. I just seem to find more of them from those who have their doubts.
BTW what happened to the threat of global cooling 30 years ago. I remeber something about it, but am a bit fuzzy on it. Can you tell me how the scientific comunity has managed such a big turnaround. Have they simply decieded they were wrong then.
These are my questions. They are driven by a want to know, not some kind of petty idea that I am somehow smarter than these scientists, or some agenda to change everyones mind.
Wahunga!
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
Really? More evidence than what we know about cancer? More evidence than the physics behind nuclear science?corporate joe wrote:"science was wrong before in other studies (even though this study has more evidence backing it up than anything man has ever discovered)" argument.
This is a topic that has come to the forefront only in the last decade, and contradicts a completely opposite theory that was floated only 30 years ago, and yet we have "more evidence backing it up than anything man has ever discovered"?
Yeah right. The simple fact remains that there is no way that man can possibly have figured out the behaviour of our atmosphere beyond all doubt, and there is plenty of evidence against the current theory. You just won't acknowledge any of it.
While I am unconvinced of the whole global warming doomsday situation, I do believe that we are polluting our planet. And this can't be good. When people say that they can't do flight training in China because the vis is so bad due to smog, well that's probably not a good thing for any of us. I do believe that the earth does have cyclic warming and cooling trends and think that some have used this to scare people into not polluting. We only have to look at our own continent to see pollution, look at the fraser valley in the summer when we don't have much air circulation. Look at the LA basin pretty much any time. It can't be good for any of us.
Rather than worrying about global warming, we should just worry about having air to breath.
The oil companies have screwed us for the last several decades, they will not allow efficient transportation to be developed, and they keep screwing us on gas prices at the pump. If the price of fuel goes down, they just cut production so then the price must go up. Why is it that we Canadians who have the largest proven oil reserves in the world are forced to pay market price for our own oil?? It's all because we give our natural resources to foriegn companies and give them our money (tax credits of over 100%) to look for it. Kinda dumb huh?
Sorry, I got distracted. If the oil companies would allow the development of effiecient transportation using alternative fuels, this would go a long way in solving the problems we are talking about. We could cut down on our "greenhouse gasses" to make Al Gore happy, we could cut down on "Smog" in general, which would allow us all to breath, and it would cut down on our reliance on fossil fuel which would cut down on our need to bow to the needs of foriegn oil companies who just steal our resources.
Sorry about the rant but it is one of those subjects.. Just don't get me going on illegal suites..
Rather than worrying about global warming, we should just worry about having air to breath.
The oil companies have screwed us for the last several decades, they will not allow efficient transportation to be developed, and they keep screwing us on gas prices at the pump. If the price of fuel goes down, they just cut production so then the price must go up. Why is it that we Canadians who have the largest proven oil reserves in the world are forced to pay market price for our own oil?? It's all because we give our natural resources to foriegn companies and give them our money (tax credits of over 100%) to look for it. Kinda dumb huh?
Sorry, I got distracted. If the oil companies would allow the development of effiecient transportation using alternative fuels, this would go a long way in solving the problems we are talking about. We could cut down on our "greenhouse gasses" to make Al Gore happy, we could cut down on "Smog" in general, which would allow us all to breath, and it would cut down on our reliance on fossil fuel which would cut down on our need to bow to the needs of foriegn oil companies who just steal our resources.
Sorry about the rant but it is one of those subjects.. Just don't get me going on illegal suites..
-
taxiway_matthew
- Rank 4
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:14 pm
What facts?? They are all theories until proven, and to prove that all our car emissions will lead to global destruction can only happen one way, the destruction of earth..corporate joe wrote:Back any of your claims with facts. If you research just a little, you'll realize how ludicrous these "opinions" are.
Facts outweigh opinions, period.
So, if that happens they are correct and their over priced salaries will mean nothing.
They will die before that does doesn't happen so their over priced tax subsidised salaries mean alot.
All the way to the bank on their death beds they'll be telling people, "the day is comming, the day is comming..."
Wouldn't it be nice instead of paying some scientist to do a study on how cars are "bad," how about we paid a scientist to find a way to get rid of smog, to get rid of the "hole" in the ozone so we didn't need spf XXX. Etc??to make Al Gore happy, we could cut down on "Smog" in general, which would allow us all to breath, and it would cut down on our reliance on fossil fuel which would cut down on our need to bow to the needs of foriegn oil companies who just steal our resources.
Before we had and paid scientists to do stuff, instead of doing studies, etc... Sure DDT was bad, but it worked didn't it? Why aren't they making a gas to get rid of smog, a gas to lower UV emissions. A rocket that'll dim the sun, or whatever.
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
Way too many questions to answer them all. As for some of the statements about religion I am not even going to touch that with a 20 feet pole. If god is why you're not worried about the earth, then I am worried about you. To have someone saying god will kill humans, not pollution, and in the same breath call modern science brainwashed (because by attacking my positions on global warming, you are not attacking corporate joe, you are attacking modern science), is quite ironic. Hopefully it makes the deniers realize what kind of people and rational it takes to stand there and deny all of science's findings. From your simple minded extremist who thinks he's a professor to the religious zealots claiming god controls our climate and our destiny.
For the others, I am quite please you are asking those questions though, instead of sitting there thinking whatever it is that you think that makes global warming not true. By asking those questions, you'll see that there are answers, and you'll also find the answers aren't what you thought they were. Now if you could push it one step further, and look for the answers to those questions that make you doubtful. Believe me they have already been addressed. It's part of the scientific debate, if you saw what the process implies and encompasses you would understand how ridiculous it is to think that the questions you can come up with from sitting at home, or the questions some random editoralist (who most of the time is not a scientist) can come up with, has not already been looked at and addressed. You think the world jumps aboard a band wagon without checking all avenues first? You think scientists and major businesses will advocate a unanimous consensus with reasonable doubt remaining? Have you ever read any scientific discovery? Do you realize how skeptic scientists are? Have you no idea of what it takes to get these maniacs to all agree????? The scientific method is rigourous, and global warming has had a very close analysis. If it's a consensus, there is a reason. There has never been this much research done, by so many different people, with so much data gathered, EVER. This is a first for science. Get that in your heads. This is the scientific discovery with the most data and research behind it.
So what about all your questions? Well, these questions have all been answered and with a little bit of research at your local university, or some googling (gotta watch where you get the info though, because internet science also has "scientists" claiming the world is flat). So how do you know what's true or not? Well, the scientist claiming the earth is flat is alone, on a shady website, and for every 1 argument he brings, the rest of the scientific community brings 10. If you were to weigh the facts proving the earth was round and compare them to those claiming the earth was flat, you would see one of the sides completely outweighs the other. It's the exact same thing with global warming. Here's a quote from that the flat earth society forums. Please note how scientific it seems and close to the denyers argument's it is on this board:
"
In the RE model, the earth rotates once every day. Thats 24,901.5 miles per day, 1037.6 miles per hour, or 0.3 miles per second.
This would cause the blood to rush to your head, causing perpetual blushing. The worst cases being near the equator, and negligeable at the poles.
This is not observed.
As the earth spins, our tangential velocity, which is not immediately subject to the force of "gravity", would send us into orbit around the earth.
This is not observed.
The fluid air would require a large force to keep it spinning at the rate of the earth. Since it has the natural tendancy to move along the same tangent it currently is moving along. As "gravity" pulls it back into phase with the earths spin, it would require a force to do so. This would incur some energy loss. The outcome of this is either the earths rotation slowing, or a constant westerly wind.
These are not observed.
The effective motion of the molten core caused by this spin, would create more heat transfer from the core to the crust. This would heat the crust to nearly 5 thousand degrees fahrenheit.
This is not observed.
This spin would make the morning-side of the earth less affected by solar wind than the evening-side. Add friction, and now the earth suffers a net loss of spin.
This is not observed.
The spin generates the molten cores currents which, in turn, generate the magnetic field around earth. This field would make it possible for spacecraft to gather electricity by passing through this field in space. Yet, all the "spacecraft" launched by nasa are powered by solar panels or batteries.
Why do they need these if you can have constant, sustainable power in orbit?
It's the same kind of argumentation. A complete misunderstanding of science. For example, using centrifugal force, which is a real scientific phenomenom, and twisting it to come to a non-scientific conclusion. If the poster concentrated on what data there is that proves the earth is round, instead of trying to twist information to prove that it isn't, his position would probably change. If he had a real understanding of science he would know that even though what he is saying appears to make sense it doesn't. But since not everyone can be a scientist, yet everyone must stop polluting, the non-scientists, have to understand that they can not refute the scientists arguments sitting at home with grade 5 science and zero data or studies. It's completely ridiculous. They can read differing scientific opinions and choose a side, they can question the findings and try double check the source, but when it comes to global warming there is no credible source that still denies it in any scientific circle. But global warming is trickier than the flat earth society. Admitting that global warming is real, means admitting that personal changes must be made. And that's usually what holds people back.
Denying global warming isn't really the issue. The issue is acting. Usually people who deny do not act. And that's what I have a problem with: You've got no reason to continue denying beyond a reasonable doubt, the consequences of being wrong could be very high, and there is nothing to gain from continuing on the same path of overconsumption. So what's the problem? Stop wasting, start recycling, encourage your government to stop protecting elite industries and allow for a fair market so that other greener energy sources can create jobs and stimulate the economy.
If you want to learn the technical details behind the science, then make the same amount of effort to learn what has been done and discovered as you are currently making to keep denying, and then you to will probably understand. If you don't want to learn about science and what has been done, then do your part, and admit you are not qualified to deny anymore. People who are qualified, and who have done the research are telling you it's time to act. When the doctor tells you you need to eat healthier and stop smoking do you argue and tell him you know better? No you don't because you are not a doctor and you trust his qualifications. Well, all the world's scientists are telling you the earth needs to eat healthy and stop smoking.
After all that being said, if you're still sitting at home, not educating yourself, and justifying your unwillingness to act by closing your mind, and transforming bits and pieces of opinions, and holding on to them as facts, without truly learning about what's out there, without considering the risks associated with being wrong, and you are still unwilling to act because you are so egotistical and self centered, then I am sorry, but you truly are being ignorant and irrational.
For the others, I am quite please you are asking those questions though, instead of sitting there thinking whatever it is that you think that makes global warming not true. By asking those questions, you'll see that there are answers, and you'll also find the answers aren't what you thought they were. Now if you could push it one step further, and look for the answers to those questions that make you doubtful. Believe me they have already been addressed. It's part of the scientific debate, if you saw what the process implies and encompasses you would understand how ridiculous it is to think that the questions you can come up with from sitting at home, or the questions some random editoralist (who most of the time is not a scientist) can come up with, has not already been looked at and addressed. You think the world jumps aboard a band wagon without checking all avenues first? You think scientists and major businesses will advocate a unanimous consensus with reasonable doubt remaining? Have you ever read any scientific discovery? Do you realize how skeptic scientists are? Have you no idea of what it takes to get these maniacs to all agree????? The scientific method is rigourous, and global warming has had a very close analysis. If it's a consensus, there is a reason. There has never been this much research done, by so many different people, with so much data gathered, EVER. This is a first for science. Get that in your heads. This is the scientific discovery with the most data and research behind it.
So what about all your questions? Well, these questions have all been answered and with a little bit of research at your local university, or some googling (gotta watch where you get the info though, because internet science also has "scientists" claiming the world is flat). So how do you know what's true or not? Well, the scientist claiming the earth is flat is alone, on a shady website, and for every 1 argument he brings, the rest of the scientific community brings 10. If you were to weigh the facts proving the earth was round and compare them to those claiming the earth was flat, you would see one of the sides completely outweighs the other. It's the exact same thing with global warming. Here's a quote from that the flat earth society forums. Please note how scientific it seems and close to the denyers argument's it is on this board:
"
In the RE model, the earth rotates once every day. Thats 24,901.5 miles per day, 1037.6 miles per hour, or 0.3 miles per second.
This would cause the blood to rush to your head, causing perpetual blushing. The worst cases being near the equator, and negligeable at the poles.
This is not observed.
As the earth spins, our tangential velocity, which is not immediately subject to the force of "gravity", would send us into orbit around the earth.
This is not observed.
The fluid air would require a large force to keep it spinning at the rate of the earth. Since it has the natural tendancy to move along the same tangent it currently is moving along. As "gravity" pulls it back into phase with the earths spin, it would require a force to do so. This would incur some energy loss. The outcome of this is either the earths rotation slowing, or a constant westerly wind.
These are not observed.
The effective motion of the molten core caused by this spin, would create more heat transfer from the core to the crust. This would heat the crust to nearly 5 thousand degrees fahrenheit.
This is not observed.
This spin would make the morning-side of the earth less affected by solar wind than the evening-side. Add friction, and now the earth suffers a net loss of spin.
This is not observed.
The spin generates the molten cores currents which, in turn, generate the magnetic field around earth. This field would make it possible for spacecraft to gather electricity by passing through this field in space. Yet, all the "spacecraft" launched by nasa are powered by solar panels or batteries.
Why do they need these if you can have constant, sustainable power in orbit?
It's the same kind of argumentation. A complete misunderstanding of science. For example, using centrifugal force, which is a real scientific phenomenom, and twisting it to come to a non-scientific conclusion. If the poster concentrated on what data there is that proves the earth is round, instead of trying to twist information to prove that it isn't, his position would probably change. If he had a real understanding of science he would know that even though what he is saying appears to make sense it doesn't. But since not everyone can be a scientist, yet everyone must stop polluting, the non-scientists, have to understand that they can not refute the scientists arguments sitting at home with grade 5 science and zero data or studies. It's completely ridiculous. They can read differing scientific opinions and choose a side, they can question the findings and try double check the source, but when it comes to global warming there is no credible source that still denies it in any scientific circle. But global warming is trickier than the flat earth society. Admitting that global warming is real, means admitting that personal changes must be made. And that's usually what holds people back.
Denying global warming isn't really the issue. The issue is acting. Usually people who deny do not act. And that's what I have a problem with: You've got no reason to continue denying beyond a reasonable doubt, the consequences of being wrong could be very high, and there is nothing to gain from continuing on the same path of overconsumption. So what's the problem? Stop wasting, start recycling, encourage your government to stop protecting elite industries and allow for a fair market so that other greener energy sources can create jobs and stimulate the economy.
If you want to learn the technical details behind the science, then make the same amount of effort to learn what has been done and discovered as you are currently making to keep denying, and then you to will probably understand. If you don't want to learn about science and what has been done, then do your part, and admit you are not qualified to deny anymore. People who are qualified, and who have done the research are telling you it's time to act. When the doctor tells you you need to eat healthier and stop smoking do you argue and tell him you know better? No you don't because you are not a doctor and you trust his qualifications. Well, all the world's scientists are telling you the earth needs to eat healthy and stop smoking.
After all that being said, if you're still sitting at home, not educating yourself, and justifying your unwillingness to act by closing your mind, and transforming bits and pieces of opinions, and holding on to them as facts, without truly learning about what's out there, without considering the risks associated with being wrong, and you are still unwilling to act because you are so egotistical and self centered, then I am sorry, but you truly are being ignorant and irrational.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
A) there has been no mention of god in this threadcorporate joe wrote:Way too many questions to answer them all. As for some of the statements about religion I am not even going to touch that with a 20 feet pole. If god is why you're not worried about the earth, then I am worried about you.
B) i love the fact that you managed to bash someones religion while "not touching with a 20 foot pole"
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
Hedley, the greenland argument has been addressed, explained and refuted. You are invited to read the above reply, or the following quote: "Between 1961 and 1997, the world’s glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods. Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a global warming trend.Hedley wrote:So, you're saying that Greenland didn't really cool, and that the researcher's data is in error? Did you collect your own data which shows the opposite?
In Greenland, a NASA satellite that can measure the ice mass over the whole continent has found that although there is variation from month to month, over the longer term, the ice is disappearing. In fact, there are worrisome signs that melting is accelerating: glaciers are moving into the ocean twice as fast as a decade ago, and, over time, more and more glaciers have started to accelerate.
The only study that has shown increasing ice mass in Greenland only looked at the interior of the ice sheet, not at the edges where melting occurs. This is actually in line with climate model predictions that global warming would lead to a short-term accumulation of ice in the cold interior due to heavier snowfall. (Similarly, scientists have predicted that Antarctica overall will gain ice in the near future due to heavier snowfall.) The scientists who published the study were careful to point out that their results should not be used to conclude that Greenland's ice mass as a whole is growing. In addition, their data suggested that the accumulation of snow in the middle of the continent is likely to decrease over time as global warming continues. "
Not in this thread, but unfortunately it finds it's way in the debate, as does politics. This should not become a religious or political debate, as that would shift the focus away. Scientific findings should never be influenced by political or religious dogmas. Data and facts need to be as "neutral" as possible. As far as being accused of bashing someone's religion, I think that's a bit of an exageration. I'll leave it at that.C-GGGQ wrote:A) there has been no mention of god in this threadcorporate joe wrote:Way too many questions to answer them all. As for some of the statements about religion I am not even going to touch that with a 20 feet pole. If god is why you're not worried about the earth, then I am worried about you.
B) i love the fact that you managed to bash someones religion while "not touching with a 20 foot pole"
Last edited by corporate joe on Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
If I wanted to read a thesis, I'd buy a book or go to the library. I doubt I'm the only one on here who scrolls through your 4 page posts. Stop wasting your time. Many of us doubt the theory, and your 10,000 word posts aren't going to change that.
There is doubt about human-induced climate change, and thousands of scientists to support the doubt.
If you want to follow the Catholic church's model of denying reality via huge edicts, that's your problem I guess.
There is doubt about human-induced climate change, and thousands of scientists to support the doubt.
If you want to follow the Catholic church's model of denying reality via huge edicts, that's your problem I guess.
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
Again, stating your opinions as facts. Also, to claim that there are thousands of scientists supporting the doubt is a falacy, and a fraud. It's quite the opposite. As for not reading my replies, or any studies, it's quite consistent with your reasoning and explains a lot. No wonder you still don't understand with everything that's out there. How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you admit not even acknowledging the information provided.the_professor wrote:If I wanted to read a thesis, I'd buy a book or go to the library. I doubt I'm the only one on here who scrolls through your 4 page posts. Stop wasting your time. Many of us doubt the theory, and your 10,000 word posts aren't going to change that.
There is doubt about human-induced climate change, and thousands of scientists to support the doubt.
If you want to follow the Catholic church's model of denying reality via huge edicts, that's your problem I guess.
Reasoning purely based on invented beliefs has no room in a debate. Welcome to the flat earth society, Napoleon.
PS: a picture (just for you, because you are special), of what similar types of persons have come up with to describe the earth based on their beliefs. They to like to use their home-made science and fraudulent facts to explain what the world is really like.
[img]http://www.freewebs.com/raacoz/enclosure3[1]4.jpg[/img]
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
What are you talking about? It is a FACT, not an opinion, that there is doubt behind climate change theories.corporate joe wrote:Again, stating your opinions as facts.
I have heard/read a nauseating amount of information, provided by you and others, supporting climate change. I choose not to read your 115th four page post on the matter, because I've heard it all before, and hearing it for the 115th time isn't going to be the deal-maker.corporate joe wrote:How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you admit not even acknowledging the information provided.
Credible scientists have provided ample evidence to poke many holes in your beloved theories, whether you like it or not. And just because you don't think they're credible doesn't diminish the reality of that evidence.
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
There has at one point in time been some doubts. Thankfully the scientific method requires the doubts to be addressed before concensus is claimed. Most of these "doubts" have all been addressed and refuted. Where there is no doubt is: that action needs to be taken. Thanks, to the amount of overwhelming evidence, action is justified, and that's the point of this whole debate. Some people have found other effects that can affect global warming, but no one can deny or refute the current effects of our actions. That's what this is all about. Our actions and the things we CAN change.the_professor wrote:
What are you talking about? It is a FACT, not an opinion, that there is doubt behind climate change theories.
You claimed that most people on this board did not believe in global warming. Not a fact. You also claimed that thousands of scientists doubt global warming. Not a fact. Actually it's quite the opposite.
This is true. If you confuse your beliefs with facts, than surely you confuse actual facts with belief. If after 115 times you still claim things that have been proven wrong, what does that say about you?the_professor wrote: I have heard/read a nauseating amount of information, provided by you and others, supporting climate change. I choose not to read your 115th four page post on the matter, because I've heard it all before, and hearing it for the 115th time isn't going to be the deal-maker.
the_professor wrote: Credible scientists have provided ample evidence to poke many holes in your beloved theories, whether you like it or not. And just because you don't think they're credible doesn't diminish the reality of that evidence.
PS: science daily has some great articles about all manner of subjects including brand new studies from other fields (from agricultural experts, to oceanologists) all confirming the same thing. This is not just about climatology anymore, all other fields of science are confirming the findings.
Last edited by corporate joe on Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
You're the one claiming to deliver indisputable evidence on climate change, and yet you can't even accurately quote me from my last post? I said "many people", not "most people". Only makes me think that you glaze the climate change "evidence" in a similar fashion, to suit your cause. Your credibility just dropped another notch.corporate joe wrote:You claimed that most people on this board did not believe in global warming. Not a fact. You also claimed that thousands of scientists doubt global warming. Not a fact. Actually it's quite the opposite.
the_professor wrote:Many of us doubt the theory, and your 10,000 word posts aren't going to change that.
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
Whether the word is "many" or "most", it remains an opinion. Even if you bring my credibility down to zero, you still have thousands of pages of data and the world's scientitst to discredit.the_professor wrote:You're the one claiming to deliver indisputable evidence on climate change, and yet you can't even accurately quote me from my last post? I said "many people", not "most people". Only makes me think that you glaze the climate change "evidence" in a similar fashion, to suit your cause. Your credibility just dropped another notch.corporate joe wrote:You claimed that most people on this board did not believe in global warming. Not a fact. You also claimed that thousands of scientists doubt global warming. Not a fact. Actually it's quite the opposite.
the_professor wrote:Many of us doubt the theory, and your 10,000 word posts aren't going to change that.
If you have something to add, I invite you to PM me, because this level of interaction is below the intellect of most members here, and we should spare them this petty non-sense.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
Calling this "my theories" is nothing but a gross oversimplification of reality, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of anything that has been said or written. Again you prove the point I am trying to make, that the camp of denyers is a camp filled with simplistic non scientific views and beliefs, and populated with irrational ignorance. (which is quite unfortunate for those who are skeptic but not properly informed and who truly are trying to educate themselves).C-GGGQ wrote:so far everyone replying to this is opposed to your theories, so i think that falls under "many people doubt global warming"
Finally, trying to quantify on the number of people agreeing or disagreing is not only impossible without a census (which makes it an opinion until proven as a fact), it is also completely useless.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
Penn and Teller did a BS episode on that.corporate joe wrote:Stop wasting, start recycling, encourage your government to stop protecting elite industries and allow for a fair market so that other greener energy sources can create jobs and stimulate the economy.
It causes more pollution to recycle, you get a garbage truck to pick up trash another one to pick up bottles another truck to pick up composite and another one to pick up boxes.
These four trucks are all creating harmful emissions.
Then no one has a recycling plant in their city so those 4 trucks now need to drive to 4 different sites far away in butt fark no where again creating more pollution.
The recycling plant, is an incinerator/melter, that's right they melt recycling into rolls, so those plants give off pollution.
The only thing worth recycling is aluminum as it is a non-renewable resource.
Trees(paper) comes from tree farms, by recycling, tree farms go out of business no new trees are planted, so by recycling you're actually creating a shortage on TREES. That's right the things that give us clean air stop being planted because you're recycling....
Nuclear Plants, again, they'd need 100 to power North America for 1000 years. The tree huggers don't want nuclear plants, so we have coal generators, guess what, coal generators are BAD.
Not Penn and Teller, but just an "opinion" but if all of North America stopped it's consumption of fuels, guess what, our 400 million people pale in comparison to China who will have 1 billion cars sucking up gas and polluting, they're economy is so strong because of their industry, so if we shut down every factory, Canada still wouldn't meet it's Kyoto promise, but apart from that you'd have China and India burning away.
So maybe instead of jumping on that "lets go green " band wagon, we should actually become a better economical force, produce some friggin funds for proper scientists to figure out a way to reverse all our woes with technology, rockets, gasses, whatever, but not on stupid studies...When the doctor tells you you need to....
Cause when the doctor tells you something, he doesn't tell you to stop, he tells you oh we'll need to give you these pills for this problem and that problem, operate for this and that, not give me a study....
Find a cure and a real solution not a study...
China and india will continue to pollute negating every little effort(in reducing) we make so how about we build up our own economies so we can afford a cure, build bio-domes, rockets, gasses, moving the earth or what have you. To END/Eliminate the problem...
![http://www.freewebs.com/raacoz/enclosure3[1]4.jpg](http://www.freewebs.com/raacoz/enclosure3%5B1%5D4.jpg){kind=link}