Quote:
|
Quote:
Read V Quote:
|
So you're not even sure what your point is then?
|
Quote:
Usually when we debate stuff over the internet, we link to articles. What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data? We're all laymen here, all we can do is refer to stuff. I think at least a few of the articles he linked to deserve some merit, and I like to consider myself equiped with a fairly critical set of eyes, but still, sure, everything can be dismissed as biased. This being said, I'm still skeptical towards the conspiracy movement and the climate deniers, and heck, I agree that coolinator comes across as a tad sanctimonious, but hey he's probably young and going through a phase. dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
But that's just it, I don't know what you had to say. You haven't presented any argument.
|
That is true, I feel I haven't been able to make any substantive rebuttals because no pointed arguments have been made. All I've been able to pick up is that there is a conspiracy somewhere.
I think his point was that using political motivation as his reason to deny global warming is invalid? Vaguely implied? |
I thought his point was that using political motivation as a reason to deny global warming was valid. :\
|
Quote:
|
Tu orum visita mentes.
|
OK, I'll shut up. :(
|
Quote:
Coolie and his blogosphere are arguing based largely on faith. So are most of the proponents of the AGW hypothesis. (It's why you need to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.) What both sides either fail to realize or refuse to speak about is that global climate change is documented and real. Causality is the issue over which there is much debate. Does mankind have an adverse impact on the global climate? Define adverse. We are as much as any animal products of this environment. Yet we have either developed or have been granted (depending on your conceit) the intelligence and/or desire to alter said environment for our own purposes. Does this process pose a danger to the ecosystem? If we continue burning fossil fuels (incidentally generating tons and tons more CO2 than all other pollutants combined (and that can be calculated independently without resorting to faith)), dumping chemical and biological wastes, continue with irresponsible handling of nuclear waste byproducts, then yes, we do. The degree of that impact is what is at issue. Does it matter, on a global scale what mankind chooses to do with the environment, or is it merely a perturbation in a much larger and complex global climatary framework? I recently looked at a similar situation on a much smaller scale - flooding on the Delaware River. Admittedly, I have a vested interest, but as a scientist, I was also curious. I found that there were two factions (surprise!) - those that want the upstate NY reservoirs (feeding fresh water to NYC) cut back to an 80% capacity to reduce the incidence of flooding downstream, and those that want the reservoirs kept at full or nearly full capacity year round, and use the spillways to regulate flow into the Delaware river. The data for the river flow was readily available, and after some analysis, yielded a rather surprising result - neither side was completely correct. It seemed the real root cause was more likely increased development along the Delaware and in through upstate NY, and insufficient storm water handling provisions. It remains to be seen if keeping the reservoirs at a level slightly less than capacity during the wintertime will help, but the actual creation of the reservoir system has nothing to do with flooding. I assume that a similar result would be found for the current issue at hand, if one wanted to analyze the data. That's why I don't like taking sides - it also involves narrowing your worldview, and the science suffers. |
I still have yet to be convinced by either side. :(
|
CONVINCE ME COOLINATOR
|
I would like to know why this collinator jerk thinks we all have time to sift through all the crazy articles he posted but did not write nor fully comprehend. I for one am just not going to do that. If he cant explain why his opinions are valid then that only means they are not valid.
|
Quote:
I at least gave more examples then that to support my argument. Real examples from real sources from all over the world. Publicly documented confessions of climate scientists changing numbers to create the appearance of a changing climate because of CO2 emissions. Top scientists that have stopped believing in the myth because of lack of accurate data. You guys have been calling me every name in the book while looking down your condescending elitists noses at me. All of which end in "You don't know SCIENCE" or "You don't know the principles" like it's some magical formula that only trained wizards are taught after years of apprenticeship and on top of that every single article that is literally common knowledge is condemned as "BIASED". Quote:
Al Gore's Carbon Tax will not save the world from the Sun. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
As far as these publicly documented confessions of climate scientists forging data to forward an unfounded appearance of climate change- I know of only one example you could possibly be referring to. This wasn't an actual study of climate change that was under investigation, but rather the use of tree-ring data to be used as a valid measurement of temperature. The fudging of data was speculated in private documents, where they discussed replacing the temps of the tree ring data, which showed the earth cooling, to that of the actual temperatures which showed the earth warming. The actual temperatures it was changed to was taken from satellite measurements, so they are accurate. In the end the paper that was published never included this fudged data so the whole controversy didn't matter in the first place, even though the scientist in question has stepped down temporarily while an investigation over the matter is taking place. There are no top scientists that have stopped believing in climate change, the top scientists that don't believe in climate change now have always been skeptics. In fact the number of climate scientists that support anthropogenic climate change has only grown in the past 20 years. In many climate denilist websites there is a common mis-reporting of interviews, distortion of data, and outright lies in them. One of the most recent ones was the story that the top climate scientist Phil Jones has completely changed his mind and now claims that "there has been no global warming since 1995" because he said there was no significant data- which can be see here DAILY MAIL. But if you read the original article HERE he says over and over that anthropogenic climate change is real and that its 100% certain we have been warming since then. So what happened? Well it turns out that the minimum amount of time that a scientifically significant measurement can be taken is 15 years, so when asked the question "has there been significant warming since 1995" he has to honestly say no, because that is one year shy of being significant, and the daily mail and other fact spinners can claim "there has been no significant warming" according to climatologist Phil Jones. You see? Do you understand now that where you are getting your information is so twisted from reality that you have been completely disconnected? There, I have taken the time to explain, and use examples in SHOWING you why. Not just linking to shit and claiming its proof, but giving detailed explanations. Now obviously I don't have time to give you months and months worth of data and hundreds of examples, but I shouldn't have to. Just stop letting yourself get lied to by conspiracy theorist. I also just noticed the argument about means for climate change OTHER than CO2, well the only other 2 factors that are anywhere near capable right now of changing our climate is by Volcanic and Solar forcing. And both of those have been constant. You can pull up negligible arguments including methane, increased precipitation, oxygen, yadda yadda, but they don't have enough significance. The environmentalists focus on CO2 because thats what the scientists have been claiming the problem to be. Yes all these other arguments COULD potentially be the cause of climate change, IF IF IF they were increasing, but they arent. |
Quote:
Quote:
Pollutant (n.) - any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. You can try living in an enclosed room with only CO2 to breathe, and see how long it takes before you asphyxiate. Pollutants come in many forms, and too much of of anything can be bad for the environment. Quote:
Quote:
In closing, please take my advice, and reread my previous post for comprehension, scanning all areas for the word "warming". You'll find it does not occur (with one exception - and it's minor). This is intentional. |
Quote:
|
The ironic part is that I was a climate denier about 6 or 7 months ago, and I honestly didn't know much about it the real science behind it, just the hype and weak pseudo science to refute it. I somehow became obsessed with the topic and learned way too much about it and, thanks to an open mind, changed my mind. So I know a lot about both sides of the argument. In fact I may know more about the anti-climate change shit than the supporting stuff because I was hardcore in it for so long.
Thats why I keep urging Coolinator to do real research, check the scientific journals, and learn about the scientific process. It took a lot of time, research, and understanding for me to change my mind. Hell, even if he had a good understanding the scientific process of testing, confirmation, peer review and everything that goes into turning something into a theory, he wouldn't question global warming. Forging data is next to impossible. And forging so much data over so many years among thousands of independant scientists who came to the same conclusion? That is impossible. |
I was just reading a sidebar in the magazine "Reason" where they talked about the "climategate e-mails". It pretty much follows your argument, so I won't discuss it beyond mentioning this interesting tidbit. Apparently, one of the lead researchers stated that the whole problem of having this issue arise is that the relevant data needs to be more publicly accessible. This will allow for more individuals to do in a few weeks what it took you 6 months to do.
I have to go back and read the article "for comprehension" but it appears to be relatively well balanced - a refreshing change from most of the rantings I've been subjected to on TEH INTERWEBS. |
Quote:
It's also measured that human activity results in about 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes and other natural sources, on an annual basis. It's not only the sun that governs our temperature and climate, it's a very complex system and the greenhouse gases play a major role. I'm afraid this is very basic meteorology. |
All I see is an avalanche of doublethink going on here......
Quote:
There are only two things that have the capacity to change the environment: When the sun has a very active sun spot cycle and causing the earth to warm, this excess heat creates water vapor that further holds in heat. & Volcanoes that emit billions of tons of Sulphur gas into the atmosphere that cool the globe by reflecting the suns rays. So right here we have a cooling and warming cycle that mankind has absolutely nothing to do with. We affect only 6% of the climate. 6%. Global Warming advocates are nothing more then neo-Malthusians. This is an ruling class ideology. Hence why there is a carbon tax attached to every climate bill. They want the peasants to pay for their crimes against mother earth. The next stop will probably be one child policies. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now lets multiply that by 1000 and add all of the private donors pushing for carbon trading and taxing. |
I don't think you should write off global warming mainly or even partly based on the fact that ruling classes are taking advantage of the hysteria behind it; they do that with everything.
As for the science, I'm not party to comment here I suppose, since I haven't read the walls of text presented for either argument. I have, however, browsed the facts slightly, and it does look to me as if human involvement in global warming is real. But I say again, I haven't delved very far into it at all. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.