| Author |
 Topic  |
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
 Posted - 12/10/2009 : 01:53:41
|
Why, do you believe all this crap they put out about climate change?
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
 |
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 02:55:13
|
A few reasons:
1) rational thought
2) belief in chemistry (CO2 levels have risen, increased CO2 traps heat, therefore warmer planet)
3) greater weight put on the opinions of qualified scientists that have worked on a problem and therefore have seen the weight of the data than on people on the internet that have no qualifications |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 03:32:10
|
Qaulified scientists paid for handsomely by governments with ulterior motives.
2)CO2 levesl are indeed at their highest for a long time, but they are still very very low, and there is no evidence to suggest that at any time in history CO2 has had any effect in causing significant global warming. If it now does have a significant effect, then I'm sure the scientists who make these bold claims will have taken the time to perform the straightforward laboratory experiment that shows the greenhouse effects of CO2 rising exponentially above 300 parts per millions.
3)Greater weight put on scientists who have examined the bigger picture, instead of focusing on only CO2. Qualified scientists who have examined the data going back thousands of years and found NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that CO2 is driving global warming and LOTS OF EVIDENCE that suggest the temperature of the earths atmosphere is driven by the solar wind. The data is there that supports this hypothesis very strongly, funny how this is never mentioned in any of these doomsday scenarios, or any of the other evidence that strongly negates the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.
If CO2 contributes to global warming significantly, then in the past when global temperatures have risen, peaked and then started to drop, and CO2 levels have continues to rise for hundreds of years thereafter, why then did the rising CO2 levels not reverse the global cooling?
|
Edited by - pot on 12/10/2009 04:03:11 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 04:16:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
Qaulified scientists paid for handsomely by governments with ulterior motives.
Not true, and certainly less true than what Exxon pays.
quote:
2)CO2 levesl are indeed at their highest for a long time, but they are still very very low
Compared to what?
quote:
3)Greater weight put on scientists who have examined the bigger picture, instead of focusing on only CO2. Qualified scientists who have examined the data going back thousands of years and found NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that CO2 is driving global warming and LOTS OF EVIDENCE that suggest the temperature of the earths atmosphere is driven by the solar wind.
Citation from the primary literature please (not some web site or newspaper article).
quote:
If CO2 contributes to global warming significantly, then in the past when global temperatures have risen, peaked and then started to drop, and CO2 levels have continues to rise for hundreds of years thereafter, why then did the rising CO2 levels not reverse the global cooling?
Perhaps the world is complex and just because one factor is very strong it doesn't mean that other factors like water currents and geology aren't also important. |
|
|
|
trobrianders
> Teenager of the Year <
Papua New Guinea
3302 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 04:22:50
|
Fucking up and starting over is what we do. Whether action is really needed or not, it's still interesting to see if we succeed in summoning up the discipline to do what the weight of scientific opinion is suggesting we need to do. That victory, in and of itself, should be enough to satisfy anybody; so skeptics stop whining!. I'm game, even though I seriously doubt we have the scientific wherewithal to determine how much the problem is man-made or even if it can be described as something soluable at all. The scale and complexity of determining the issue is surely beyond us? Science is subject to hubris too.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
|
|
|
Active Duck
~ Abstract Brain ~
United Kingdom
432 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 04:28:01
|
However much you believe humankind contributes to climate change I can't see why anyone would have a problem with us using it as a reason to curb our reliance on fossil fuels and move towards renewable sources of energy. How can that be seen as a negative thing to rally against? Especially as so much emphasis is being put on making sure the measures we take don't inhibit the growth of developing nations.
Pot, can you point me in the direction of any writing that hits on the work of "scientists who have examined the bigger picture"? I'd be pretty interested to widen my knowledge on this subject. |
|
|
|
trobrianders
> Teenager of the Year <
Papua New Guinea
3302 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 04:38:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Active Duck
However much you believe humankind contributes to climate change I can't see why anyone would have a problem with us using it as a reason to curb our reliance on fossil fuels and move towards renewable sources of energy. How can that be seen as a negative thing to rally against? Especially as so much emphasis is being put on making sure the measures we take don't inhibit the growth of developing nations.
Doctors could use terrible scare tactics to push their patients into adopting healthier lifestyles. Generally they don't though.
I'm not sure I believe the scientists but like you I see good reason to take their advice.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 06:42:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Active Duck
However much you believe humankind contributes to climate change I can't see why anyone would have a problem with us using it as a reason to curb our reliance on fossil fuels and move towards renewable sources of energy. How can that be seen as a negative thing to rally against? Especially as so much emphasis is being put on making sure the measures we take don't inhibit the growth of developing nations.
I have no problem with us curbing our use of fossil fuels, although I would rather see us cutting the use of such by adopting more sensible practises towards to global food supply, or work practises, for example.
Cars are noisy dirty things, and I would really love to see a LOT less of them around.
I see little point in having a conference on the climate like this, and pushing forward science that really has very little credibility anymore, when there are far more pressing matters about our environment that need to be addressed, such as the destruction of the rainforests, the pollution of our rivers and the over use of mono-culture in agri-business, for starters.
quote:
Pot, can you point me in the direction of any writing that hits on the work of "scientists who have examined the bigger picture"? I'd be pretty interested to widen my knowledge on this subject.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
The results of which are backed up by many qualified scientsts in this video, The Great Global warming Swindle.
http://neithercorp.us/media
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 10:22:54
|
All i can add to this is to note that my brother is currently studying geology in Antarctica. He's a super conservative (he had a copy of Palin's book sent to him in Antarctica), but even he believes in global warming.
As has been stated before, whether or not you believe the science is sound, the results of a healthier, greener lifestyle will benefit all except the oil-rich fucktards that have run the United States economy for the past few decades.
- Brian |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 10:31:15
|
Not being involved in the scientific discourse, all I can do as anyone is take for granted what is published, whether it be from a respected source or a less well established one. The facts in that articles are still repeated in the documentary by established scientists in the field. As far as I can see it is still more comprehensive and reliable than the crap being published by the IPCC.
If you prefer to take the word of scientists who do things like omit the medeival warming period to make the current warming trend look more ominous and completely disregard solid evidence that shows the greenhouse effect from man-made CO2 is negligible then that's your prerogative.
I prefer to follow scientists who maintain an open mind, rather than ones who follow a scientific discourse that aspires to fit in with predetermined results made up by politicians.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 10:46:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Broken Face
All i can add to this is to note that my brother is currently studying geology in Antarctica. He's a super conservative (he had a copy of Palin's book sent to him in Antarctica), but even he believes in global warming.
do you think he's viewed "Nailin' Palin" ? |
|
|
|
trobrianders
> Teenager of the Year <
Papua New Guinea
3302 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 12:07:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Broken Face
As has been stated before, whether or not you believe the science is sound, the results of a healthier, greener lifestyle will benefit all except the oil-rich fucktards that have run the United States economy for the past few decades.
- Brian
You said it better than me but I disagree on one thing. It's a consumer driven world economy, not a fucktard driven one. We're in this mess because we're still failing to consume responsibly. The fucktards are only doing what we ask of them. Blaming anyone but ourselves doesn't get us off the hook.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 12:29:16
|
How deeply have some of you who are in support of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis in respect of CO2 emissions looked into the science behind this? I'd really like to know why the theory of solar cycles seems to mean nothing in relation to all of this. The more i think of it, and it's only since the climate gate scandal that I have really, the more I am coming to the conclusion that there is no basis for concern over CO2 levels in the current atmosphere.
All of what we are observing in the climate is perfectly normal behaviour for the evolution of our planet, and only seems so alarming because of the continual doomsday propaganda that we are bombarded with in the media.
Polar ice caps expand and contract naturally, icebergs retreat, some are actually growing, droughts happen, forest fires happen, it's all perfectly normal.
EDIT Is this the kind of organisation you trust to speak the truth for the world?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI
|
Edited by - pot on 12/10/2009 12:41:35 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 13:08:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
Not being involved in the scientific discourse, all I can do as anyone is take for granted what is published, whether it be from a respected source or a less well established one. The facts in that articles are still repeated in the documentary by established scientists in the field. As far as I can see it is still more comprehensive and reliable than the crap being published by the IPCC.
If you prefer to take the word of scientists who do things like omit the medeival warming period to make the current warming trend look more ominous and completely disregard solid evidence that shows the greenhouse effect from man-made CO2 is negligible then that's your prerogative.
I prefer to follow scientists who maintain an open mind, rather than ones who follow a scientific discourse that aspires to fit in with predetermined results made up by politicians.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
If it is not peer reviewed it doesn't mean anything. Any joker can post something on a web site, but it gains some weight when other scientists have examined it and determined that proper methods were used.
It should say something to you that they tried to make it look like it was peer reviewed, but it wasn't. They want to make it appear to be legitimate. If it were, they would submit their work to a peer-reviewed journal. |
Edited by - darwin on 12/10/2009 17:34:04 |
|
|
|
danjersey
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
2792 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 15:03:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ziggy
I can't work out whether danjersey is deliberately trolling or is just a fucking idiot.
I can't tell if you're angry about me knocking Scientology or Al Gore
Either way, check out Al Gore's hand gesture just passed the 1:00 minute mark-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOLT8ECko6g
Silence him!
And this guy won a Nobel Prize!
|
|
|
|
Ziggy
* Dog in the Sand *
United Kingdom
2462 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 15:40:25
|
Anger doesn't really come into it, mate. If you want to believe some kind of AL GORE CONSPIRACY, then fine.
|
Edited by - Ziggy on 12/10/2009 15:43:13 |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 19:56:53
|
It goes much deeper than Al sodding Gore! Open your eyes.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 23:31:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
[quote]
If it is not peer reviewed it doesn't mean anything. Any joker can post something on a web site, but it gains some weight when other scientists have examined it and determined that proper methods were used.
It should say something to you that they tried to make it look like it was peer reviewed, but it wasn't. They want to make it appear to be legitimate. If it were, they would submit their work to a peer-reviewed journal.
How can you take the word of scientists who collaborate to distort evidence?
The reason we are seeing a localised decrease in global temperatures this decade is because of an unexplained downturn in solar activity. And the reason why temperatures have risen steadily since the middle of the 19th century has got nothing to do with industrial activity and everything to do with the fact that we just came out of a mini-ice age where temperatures reached a minimum and now they are coming back up because that's how temperatures on the planet tend to fluctuate over periods of time of that order.
If the IPCC hadn't grossly distorted tempertaure graphs to hide the medieval warm period and the mini ice, this fact would be glaringly obvious, but they don't people to know this because then it wouldn't fit into their plans to generate a world wide panic and tax the world's resources.
Global temperatures also dropped between around 1940 and 1980, around the time when industry began to boom following WW2, and this is further evidence that the current temperature trends have nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 03:02:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
The reason we are seeing a localised decrease in global temperatures this decade is because of an unexplained downturn in solar activity. And the reason why temperatures have risen steadily since the middle of the 19th century has got nothing to do with industrial activity and everything to do with the fact that we just came out of a mini-ice age where temperatures reached a minimum and now they are coming back up because that's how temperatures on the planet tend to fluctuate over periods of time of that order.
Reference in a peer-reviewed journal please. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 05:08:16
|
If you answer some of the questions I posed first, I might.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 05:21:16
|
You are the one posting "facts". If you can't support them, then what's the point of posting them (other than as a facade).
My point is that you make a bunch of claims and then I point out that your source is some guys up in Oregon making up shit and trying to pretend it is scientific. Unfazed you blow it off and then in your next post stroke yourself for your research and the conclusions you've made. Then you post more unsupported facts. I far as I can tell all of your conclusions are built upon lies posted on the Internet. You might as well believe 911 was a hoax. It all comes from the same pseudo-rational echo chamber. |
Edited by - darwin on 12/11/2009 05:21:35 |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 05:34:25
|
I have no reason to trust 'peer reviewed' science any more that the non-'peer reviewed' stuff you claim is completely made up.
The IPCC got caught with their trousers down. Do you think it's a coincidence that one of the most prolific spokesman for the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, Al Gore, canceled his presence at the Copenhagen summit admist the Climate Gate scandal?
Up until a few weeks ago I was a strong proponent of this science, but following the climate gate scandal I decided to look deeper into the science, and do you what I found? Little of any worth that can be used to support these claims.
I feel rather stupid now actually, but it's alright because my mind is open and that is worth a hell of a lot more in science than a peer reviewed paper.
It's more the absence of any real scientific data to back up the claims that CO2 is a dangerous 'pollutant' than anything else. CO2 is what makes life, it's not a pollutant.
I'll go and see what I can dig up, because actually my mind is stil open. If you can find me a 'peer reviewed' paper that shows in the laboratory that it is a dangerous greenhouse gas that contributes a significantly greater effect on global warming than say, THE SUN, for example, I'll have a dig around and see what i can find that might persuade you that this whole thing is a complete ball of crap.
The very fact that many proponents of the anthropogenic wotists have changes their view whereas few if any sceptics have altered thier position alone speaks volumes.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
Edited by - pot on 12/11/2009 05:35:19 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 05:50:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
It's more the absence of any real scientific data to back up the claims that CO2 is a dangerous 'pollutant' than anything else. CO2 is what makes life, it's not a pollutant.
This is just silly.
Actually, C02 plus sunlight equals glucose (if you're a plant). For you CO2 is a waste product of cellular respiration (and it is also the by product of burning carbon chains such as wood, coal, and oil). But, whether it is natural don't change anything. If you were in a room full of CO2 you would die (even though it's natural "maker of life"). And in regards to the conversation CO2 in the environment causes a greenhouse effect. If you don't believe this then look at Venus. |
Edited by - darwin on 12/11/2009 05:50:26 |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 05:52:07
|
Venus....
That's the argument you provide for CO2 levels being at supposed dangerous levels that threaten humanity?
|
Edited by - pot on 12/11/2009 05:53:12 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 06:13:17
|
The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not in dispute. Whether or not it is significantly contributing to global warming ON EARTH is.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
|
|
danjersey
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
2792 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 06:46:14
|
Diane Francis, Financial Post (cause you know I love Canadian news)
The Real Inconvenient Truth
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438
The author suggests that the world follow China's one child policy to combat what she calls "the disastrous global birthrate"
She has two children by the way, but not to fear, she's probably menopausal by now. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 06:48:36
|
That's what the world needs, a bottle neck in the population growth. I'll just go for euthanasia in old age, if I end up senile and incontinent and there's no-one around to look after me.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
|
|
|
danjersey
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
2792 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 07:00:17
|
the theory is one thing, but what would Ms Francis suggest as a means to implement such laws, Government enforced sterilization?
hows that for choice?
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 07:02:01
|
| The human population is doubling about every 40 years. Slowing that rate would by no definition be a bottleneck. A bottleneck would be a large reduction in population size (see cheetahs for an example), not a reduction in growth rates. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 07:30:21
|
If we introduce a 1 child per couple law, the effect would be to instantly start reducing the population, not slow it down. For a population to grow, it requires more than 2 children per couple, at least, and if you take into account the fact that some people will not have children it is undoubtedly more than that. Whether or not you would call it a bottle neck or not, the subsequent result would still be an aged population with too few young healthy adults to look after the old people.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 09:28:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
If we introduce a 1 child per couple law, the effect would be to instantly start reducing the population, not slow it down.
This actually is not true. Trust me (if you will). This is what I do for a living.
Because most populations (excluding Europe) have a high percentage of young people, even if you cut birth rates to 1 child per couple many populations will still continue to grow. You would still have more births than deaths (thus the population is growing) until the percentage of older people in the population increased. That would take maybe 30 years depending on how skewed the population currently is towards young people. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
things to talk about - climate change
