| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tisasawath
= Cult of Ray =
Wallis and Futuna Islands
783 Posts |
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
 Posted - 12/21/2009 : 02:49:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
Oh sure, because the oil companies need a spokesperson like this guy to debunk the AGW myth, otherwise people might suddenly stop buying their product.
So you won't face up to the fact that the guy you used as support is anti-science, anti-evolution, anti-choice, and anti-public health care.
Got anymore of those great links?
In his career he's received more than a million dollars in campaign contribution from oil and gas. They're getting their money's worth.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00005582
|
Edited by - darwin on 12/21/2009 02:55:13 |
 |
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 03:40:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
[quote]Originally posted by pot
So you won't face up to the fact that the guy you used as support is anti-science, anti-evolution, anti-choice, and anti-public health care.
Got anymore of those great links?
In his career he's received more than a million dollars in campaign contribution from oil and gas. They're getting their money's worth.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00005582
How much has Al Gore pocketed out of all this then?
Let's talk about the science eh, not about who's supporting it or not. This has very little to do with the debate, so stop diverting the subject and let's talk about what the science says.
If you want to believe in all this shit they pump out of your TV, then go ahead. As far as I am concerned my skeptical view has very little to do with the hacked emails, and everything to do with the science which, in my mind, seems to suggest that what we are seeing in today's climate trends are perfectly normal.
This is just another example of fear mongering by the media. there are plenty of others, the recent swine flu 'pandemic' that turned out to be nothing, the reefer madness film made at the start of the 20th century that has formed the basis of the hugely expensive and counter productive 'war on drugs' that has done nothing but cost everyone a load of money, waste people's time and ruin thousands of innocent people's lives, the supposed threat posed by Saddam Hussien that turned out to be completely made up so as to gain support for Bush and Bliar's illegal invasion that cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.
I don't trust the IPCC. If they can't put forward their finding honestly, without hiding trends in the climate that show they might very well be wrong, and instead base their results on computer models then I can't give it much credit at all.
What I find so unpalatable in all this is their use of computer models, which as anyone who knows anything about chaos theory will know the longer you try to predict things into the future the more uncertain the results become. So how in a million years can anyone say that their science proves "unequivocally" that global warming is caused by man-made CO2 emissions is beyond me. All it takes is for one factor to be off, or another factor to be excluded - maybe because we haven't discovered it yet! - for the whole prediction to be way off.
Kind of makes it hard for me to believe in all these outrageous claims of the forthcoming climate disaster when (a) the current trends are not out of the ordinary, and (b) their claims are based on computer models.
So let's suppose that the UK invests in these so called carbon neutral technologies, plants even more wind farms and wave power farms off the coast, and then instead of warming up further the climate begins to cool down again, so that in however many years time we enter another little ice age causing the sea to freeze up and extreme low temperature cause the windmills to break down, what then?
Climate change is real, and we will have to deal with it eventually. But burying our heads in the sand and pretending that it's all to do with CO2 emissions based on questionable science to be seems stupid and dangerous..
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 03:56:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
Let's talk about the science eh, not about who's supporting it or not. This has very little to do with the debate, so stop diverting the subject and let's talk about what the science says.
Hey, you're the one that posted the video. Man up. Take some responsibility. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 03:59:07
|
The Climate Change denier game plan (http://www.ericbrunsell.com/):
1. I will confuse the scientific use of the word ‘theory’ with its casual meaning.
2. I will search the fringes of science for any instances of uncertainty and generalize it to all science.
3. I will ignore multiple sources of evidence in favor of a columnists’ unfounded claims.
4. I will bring up the 1970’s “global cooling” controversy, as proof that scientists are clueless even though more than six times as many research studies predicted warming.
5. I will find a single quote in thousands of pages of text that can be damning when used without context.
6. I will pick my comparison data from wherever I damn well please, even if it happens to be the hottest year ever.
7. I will pretend that scientists have ignored “natural cycles,” because I know the general public doesn’t have the time to read the dozens of studies debunking this claim.
8. I will make up facts and misrepresent data during interviews and op-eds because I know that journalists won’t call me on it.
9. I will deride “qualifications” as elitist.
10. I will repeat fabrications and falsehoods until they become perceived as the truth.
11. I will confound local weather with global climate because, well, it is too darn confusing.
12. When a scientists takes issue with my comments, I will accuse her of being dogmatic and stifling dissent.
13. I will claim that tens of thousands of scientists are in on the hoax so that they can cash in, while hiding my ties to big oil.
14. I will chastise scientists for being apocalyptic fear mongers while claiming that the solution to the non-problem will destroy life as we know it.
15. I will deny warming on even days and deny human impact on odd days.
16. I will shoot the messenger – He invented climate change AND the Internet.
|
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 04:00:59
|
| Why don't you quit beating around the bush and show me the 'unequivocal evidence' for man made climate change. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 04:15:59
|
I would never say there is unequivocal evidence for ANYTHING. As I have said many times here (and you keep seeming to ignore) scientists always maintain doubt. Therefore, given that the definition of unequivocal is:
1 : leaving no doubt : clear, unambiguous
I don't believe that anything is unequivocal. However, I think there is greater evidence that mankind is changing the climate than there is evidence that they are not. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 04:18:50
|
| So what is it that swings your opinion in favour of the AGW hypothesis then? |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 04:26:14
|
I'm no expert on the subject, but here is why I believe:
1) CO2 are much higher than they have been when compared to many years of data (all the way back to ice cores)
2) It is well established that higher CO2 levels cause cloud formation which then trap heat
3) Temperatures have been have increasing and ice has been melting
4) Close friends who I trust and are climate change experts (not just ones that pretend to be experts) believe it
5) People who are telling me to not believe, also tell me to not believe in evolution, and have been very, very well funded by Exxon |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 04:47:41
|
1) That is a fair comment, which is why I was asking previously for some empirical evidence that suggests a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would be threatening. So far all I have sen is an logarithmic graph that suggests a 1 degree rise, but I am not sure where that come from, experimental data or ice core data.
2) ...cloud formation which then traps heat, and then bounces back radiation from the sun according to the albino effect. Got anything to suggest that the positive feedback from CO2 levels rising is so strong that other negative feedback mechanisms don't come into play and cancel it out?
3) I don't think this is conclusive evidence of a significant temperature rise. The temperature looks more like it has remained relatively constant up until around 1970, before rising by about a degree over the subsequent 40 years. This is very much within normal variation, and even if the temperature did continue to rise, and there is evidence to suggest it is going to start declining again, I don't see any evidence to suggest this will present a major problem for the world. If anything, supposing the temperature then dropped by a degree or so, that might be a problem. Why is the world getting slightly warmer such a bad thing?
4)Hardly an argument that is going to convince me. It's basically the same as saying 'It's true because my mate says so'
5)The same people who tell me that the world is going to collapse if we don't curb our emissions also tell me that cannabis is bad for my health and that we live in a democratic society.
You have told me little or nothing that I didn't already know. Now what about the evidence that suggests that climate change we are experiencing is perfectly normal? Don't you think that we need a lot more evidence that CO2 levels are causing global warming that this? |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 05:07:23
|
Where is your evidence? I want to see the good evidence that global warming is NOT being caused by human activity.
#2 Look at the correlation between CO2 and temperature in the graph for #3.
#4 Is my mates are smart and are experts in the field, therefore what they believe for me carries much more weight than someone like Sen. Inhofe and I know them well enough to be pretty sure they aren't in it for the supposed money that people like you claim they are receiving. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 05:09:38
|
The onus is not on me or anyone to show that CO2 is NOT causing global warming, however there is plenty of evidence for this, and it has been presented to you in this thread.
2 and 3) See my previous comments.
4)Excuse me! I have never claimed anyone is saying anything for money. I am just looking at the science. |
Edited by - pot on 12/21/2009 05:09:56 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 05:27:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
The onus is not on me or anyone to show that CO2 is NOT causing global warming, however there is plenty of evidence for this, and it has been presented to you in this thread.
2 and 3) See my previous comments.
4)Excuse me! I have never claimed anyone is saying anything for money. I am just looking at the science.
You are so dishonorable. It took me 10 secs to find this from you earlier in this thread:
"Qaulified scientists paid for handsomely by governments with ulterior motives."
And finally there's no reason why the onus is on proving the link rather than disproving the link. If you think you have evidence disproving the link. Present it. I presented mine. |
|
|
|
gyaneshwar
- FB Fan -
194 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 06:01:05
|
| this thread makes me miss KOK |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 06:06:02
|
Yeah, that's generally how it works! Scientists get paid for doing their job, same as everyone bloody else. You were referring to this senator guy and suggesting that he is being funded by the oil companies to espouse 'myths' about man made climate change. Scientists getting paid for their job doesn't quite carry the same implications that you were suggesting. They are appointed by the government bodies to to a job, namely that of finding evidence for man-made global warming. I'm not suggesting anyone is deliberately saying stuff just for the money, I just think it's bad science.
Anyway, whether nor not I didn't contradict myself there slightly or not it does not distract in any way from the science, and for that I don't wish to debate this any more with you. Let's just agree to disagree. You attempt to divert the subject by focusing on the history of a spokesman I posted in a YouTube clip, someone who I know nothing about. I simple posted that because he was reiterating what I myself believed to be the case. Then you start pulling out tenuous arguments where i supposedly contradicted myself on something that is very much besides the point, and then use that to belittle my whole argument. That is just cheap.
Disagree on my parts is a loose term also because my mind is still very open to receiving evidence for these claims. I will look at it and decide for myself what it says. You, on the other hand, don't seem to want to take any notice of the evidence that suggests the variations in the climate we are seeing are perfectly normal and instead you want to buy into these ridiculous claims made by the IPCC and your friends, I think probably because you want it to be true. You want the world to be facing a catastrophe, because it's more exciting than there being no catastrophe. You can generalise this to probably most people, including admittedly myself, and that is why it is so easy for the media to manipulate the masses into following them. Scare the shit out of them and then tell you must vote for them so they can help to avert any forthcoming disaster. |
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 06:07:22
|
Here is a nice clip demonstrating the rational thought of influential global warming alarmists, this is exactly why I find it harder and harder to believe in what they are selling. Thank God she won't be elected due to Canada's first pass the post screening process. I heard one hilarious claim that Global Warming has increased conflicts in Africa. They are really grasping for straws. This stuff should be really unnecessary if global warming is so concrete.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msKPlM_UmRM
It's short. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 06:18:52
|
quote:
I'm not suggesting anyone is deliberately saying stuff just for the money, I just think it's bad science.
Weasel. That's not what you implied earlier. Spin, spin, spin.
quote:
Originally posted by pot
You attempt to divert the subject by focusing on the history of a spokesman I posted in a YouTube clip, someone who I know nothing about.
That's your mistake. If you're going to use something to support your argument you should know something about the source. Same goes for your fake scientific article. You never support your arguments once they are challenged.
quote:
You, on the other hand, don't seem to want to take any notice of the evidence that suggests the variations in the climate we are seeing are perfectly normal and instead you want to buy into these ridiculous claims made by the IPCC and your friends
Go ahead post that "evidence". I posted mine and you won't post yours.
quote:
I think probably because you want it to be true. You want the world to be facing a catastrophe, because it's more exciting than there being no catastrophe.
Fuck you. I don't wish that my kids live on a planet we are fucking up. |
Edited by - darwin on 12/21/2009 06:23:02 |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 06:23:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Fuck you. I don't wish that my kids live on a planet we are fucking up.
So why bother listening to bullshit science that does nothing but distract from the real damage being done to the environment? |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 06:24:06
|
| Because it's not bullshit. Where's your evidence? |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 06:28:57
|
| Yadda yadda yadda. I'm going outside. It's about -3 degrees out there at the moment, which I believe is perfectly normal for this time of the year. Better wrap myself up warm though. |
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 06:38:22
|
lol, if that's a serious comment pot, it shows you really don't understand what the effects of climate change are, or what scientists are trying to tell you.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 06:42:23
|
| What, that -3 degrees is a perfectly normal december temperature in the uk? |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 06:47:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
Yadda yadda yadda.
"Press me to come up with evidence and this is what I'll say." |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 06:47:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
lol, if that's a serious comment pot, it shows you really don't understand what the effects of climate change are, or what scientists are trying to tell you.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition
What scientists are you refering to? The IPCC?
I don't claim to be an expert here, but I'm looking at their evidence and I am finding little that supports these claims they are making. Furthermore, when I ask someone on these forums to show the evidence for AGW, all they do is repeat the same tenuous so called evidence that the IPPC come out with, like a broken record.
I'm a qualified physicist by the way, so I have some experience at working the field of science. I am qualified more than your average Joe is to look at their data and make a reasoned judgment on it anyway, and to be honest it all just doesn't add up, there too many holes.
The debate has so far gone like this. I look at the IPCC evidence and find some holes in it, I then point them out and ask someone if they can explain it. The replies then tell me that I haven't looked at the evidence, I say yes I have but show me the evidence that explains the holes I found, and then someone comes along and posts the original evidence in question. So it's just going round in circles.
|
Edited by - pot on 12/21/2009 08:15:43 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 06:51:01
|
| You're a physicist, but you think scientist PROVE hypotheses? Curious. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 08:05:14
|
| Learning basic english and grammar would certainly go in your favour if you wish to convince me of your arguments. |
|
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 08:10:01
|
This is still the best argument for doing something about climate change: it will fundamentally improve our lives. Even if the science is faulty (which i don't believe because i trust the larger scientific community), it will still make our world a much, much better place.
- Brian |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 08:18:20
|
And if it turns out that climate change is completely beyond our control then we'll have ended up wasting a whole load of time and money on nothing, only to find ourselves completely unprepared for all eventualities.
The most dangerous things about this summit is the fact that it totally distracts from the real issues about environmental damage and sustainability, and focuses on... CO2, one of the fundamental chemical building blocks of life.
|
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 08:29:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
Scientists getting paid for their job doesn't quite carry the same implications that you were suggesting. They are appointed by the government bodies to to a job, namely that of finding evidence for man-made global warming. I'm not suggesting anyone is deliberately saying stuff just for the money, I just think it's bad science.
That's not really how it works (in the UK at any rate) - For blue skies research, scientists submit a proposal based on a hypothesis/question. That proposal is then scrutinised by their peers for scientific rigour, originality, achievability, cost-effectiveness and whether it's state of the art.
Only about 20% (and declining due to reduced funding) get funded. There is no conspiracy as to which proposals get funded, it's based on the quality of the science. So, there is peer-review both before the science gets done and then to assess the credibility of the results.
I do have some reservations about lack of funding and the pressure that puts scientists under to get results but the science is broadly sound. In fact, I'm of the opinion that the lack of funding gives rise to the public's distrust and suspicion of science.
Pot, did the radiative forcing and GWP info help any? |
|
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 08:46:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
And if it turns out that climate change is completely beyond our control then we'll have ended up wasting a whole load of time and money on nothing, only to find ourselves completely unprepared for all eventualities.
The most dangerous things about this summit is the fact that it totally distracts from the real issues about environmental damage and sustainability, and focuses on... CO2, one of the fundamental chemical building blocks of life.
If it is out of our control then we still have created jobs, made ourselves less harmful to the environment and made a healthier planet. Plus, science doesn't just stop once a good hypothesis comes to light - research will still go on, and if it is unavoidable, i'm sure science will have a place in how we move forward from there.
To me, this is skepticism for skepticism sake. If you enjoy being a contrarian, that's fine, but you come off sounding like a crackpot - which, i suppose, is fitting due to your forum handle. People who argue with flimsy back-up evidence don't wind up convincing anyone, they just wind up sounding crazier. I'm not a climatologist, but i trust climatologists. Do i blindly trust them? No, but when tens of thousands of scientists can agree on something, i'm simply not equipped to argue against it. Its fine if you disagree, but either put up some real evidence or quiet down.
And let's put this "Al Gore has made a lot of money" argument to bed. Its a fucking ridiculous way to discount the climate change situation. He was worth a ton of money before he started this, and yes, he has made money from it, but everyone worth their salt in any field is paid handsomely for their work. He is one of the best public speakers on the issue of climate change, and he is paid accordingly. Just like how Merlin Mann and Bill Cosby bring in big bucks when they speak, so does Al Gore. Hell, Mark Twain used to be one of the highest paid speakers of his era. Why? Because he was one of the best. His business card toward the end of his life even said "Plaything of the Rich." If Al Gore wasn't making a dime from this, he's a shitty businessman.
- Brian |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 08:55:31
|
| The wikipedia article? was there a specific bit you were referring to? |
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 09:05:27
|
Well, not really the wiki article, that was less important though it has some good info on CO2. I suggested you look up the terms Radiative Forcing and Global Warming Potential as starters to answer your questions about CO2's ability to act as a greenhouse gas. I thought I'd leave it to you to research the terms instead of pointing you towards any particular websites.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 09:25:28
|
In reply to Brian,
quote:
If it is out of our control then we still have created jobs, made ourselves less harmful to the environment and made a healthier planet.
Of course, because what's important is that everyone has a job, and everyone spend their whole lives working 9 to 5, 5 days a week. Then we are all under control, and the bankers are all happy that they are going to get their nice little early retirement deal.
Depends on whether we continue to shift our industry to places like China, who are largely outside of the remit of the climate treaty, and who are polluting their land with all sorts of toxic chemicals at an unprecedented rate. A climate treaty will solve nothing, I can tell you now. They are telling us how much of a success it has been, but the honest truth it wasn't was it. It's been re-organised to next year in Mexico, in the hope that a global consensus can be reached.
The bottom of the matter is we are going to have to radically change our lifestyles, become less dependant of global exports for our food and the prolifertaion of car usage, but oddly enough all that is talked about in these climate summits is CO2 and that fact that global temperatures are rising. They are good at working out treaties and ways to change the world through more taxation, but no-one ever comes up with a way to actually do this.
quote:
To me, this is skepticism for skepticism sake. If you enjoy being a contrarian, that's fine, but you come off sounding like a crackpot - which, i suppose, is fitting due to your forum handle.
No it's skepticism because the evidence produced by the IPCC doesn't add up. You simply cannot say from such a short timescale whether CO2 is causing global warming, or whether it's purely a coincidence that it is rising at the same time as temperature appears to rise, and by the way it hasn't increased for ten years...
quote:
People who argue with flimsy back-up evidence don't wind up convincing anyone, they just wind up sounding crazier. I'm not a climatologist, but i trust climatologists. Do i blindly trust them? No, but when tens of thousands of scientists can agree on something, i'm simply not equipped to argue against it. Its fine if you disagree, but either put up some real evidence or quiet down.
That's the problem, you are putting your trust in people who have basically self appointed themselves as the authority on this matter, dominated the media with their findings and cherry picked their data from sources that fall into line the hypothesis they are trying to prove, and damn any or any evidence that stands in it its way.
Do you really believe that there is such a unanimous scientific backing for this hypothesis?
quote:
And let's put this "Al Gore has made a lot of money" argument to bed. Its a fucking ridiculous way to discount the climate change situation.
It's not being used to discount the climate change situation, it's being used to discredit the words of someone who claims to be an authority figure on the matter.
quote:
He was worth a ton of money before he started this, and yes, he has made money from it, but everyone worth their salt in any field is paid handsomely for their work.
He has made millions. That alone doesn't discredit his argument, but it certainly shows what kind of a man he is, with his shares in occidental petroleum.
quote:
He is one of the best public speakers on the issue of climate change, and he is paid accordingly. Just like how Merlin Mann and Bill Cosby bring in big bucks when they speak, so does Al Gore. Hell, Mark Twain used to be one of the highest paid speakers of his era. Why? Because he was one of the best. His business card toward the end of his life even said "Plaything of the Rich." If Al Gore wasn't making a dime from this, he's a shitty businessman.
That's about the most comical things I've ever heard you say. |
Edited by - pot on 12/21/2009 09:27:31 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
things to talk about - climate change
