|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
|
> What I am convinced of is that a lot of people that are not experts in the field think they know what is happening as if they were an expert climatologist...
> According to wikipedia carbon dioxide is responsible for ...
Thank you for the example.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Global Warming. [Re: Seuss]
#8548107 - 06/21/08 05:14 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Global Warming. [Re: Luddite]
#8548782 - 06/21/08 08:53 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
look luddite just by looking at the dates on those articles I know they are about the same report I linked too the PDF version of. That report was coming out about the inaccuracy of climate models specifically when it comes to altitude approximations of temperature. Frankly even the most complex models made by people are primitive approximations at best. You can link a hundred times to journalist's opinions of the same report but it is still just one report that doesn't really have much to do with what we are discussing. It sounds like you are just trying to carpet bomb me with googled links to headlines that you claim support your argument.
As for Seus I'd say that estimate fairly covers the range of conservative estimates to nonconservative. Clearly we are responsible for more than a third of the CO2 in the air at current. Do you dispute the idea that CO2 causes climate change? Ow what? I'm just citing it as the reality of anthropogenic climate change. We all know greenhouse gas related climate change exists or else this world would be froze over at -16 degrees Celsius.
It's not flipping rocket science here People have changed the climate and temperature increases cause feedback effects that accelerate temperature increase. This should be clear by looking at Co-relating data on CO2 and Temperature. Sharp rises in both are the result of CO2/Water/Temperature Feedbacks that accelerate temperature increase and Temperature reductions are slow and gradual because feedback effects don't release this trapped energy out of the atmosphere they only keep it in.
Anyway Seus you are bugging me about citing wikipedia Luddite has been throwing around this figure of greenhouse gasses being 98% water based on some old Geocities web page.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
|
Edited by Luddite (06/22/08 06:22 AM)
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Global Warming. [Re: Luddite]
#8549963 - 06/22/08 06:26 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The fact that the Earth's average surface temperature is fifteen degrees centigrade rather than minus eighteen degrees centigrade is attributed to that effect. The main absorbers of infrared in the atmosphere are water vapor and clouds. Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect. Nevertheless, it is presumed that increases in carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases will lead to significant increases in temperature. As we have seen, carbon dioxide is increasing. So are other minor greenhouse gases. A widely held but questionable contention is that those increases will continue along the path they have followed for the past century.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Global Warming. [Re: Luddite]
#8549993 - 06/22/08 06:58 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
|
supra
computerEnthusiast
Registered: 10/26/03
Posts: 6,446
Loc: TEXAS
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
|
Re: Global Warming. [Re: Luddite]
#8550390 - 06/22/08 11:29 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
soon enough you will understand that it is hard to CHANGE the mind of people around here, no matter how many links or whatever you have that disproves their claim, no matter what it is. Its very strange for a site that should have more people with 'open' minds...lol.
I personally think that it is very arrogant for humans to believe that we are so big and important that we can effect the climate of earth solely. When I studied geology at our university, we also discussed this issue thoroughly, and all the Geologists and Geophysicists in our school came to the same result, that it could not be proven that we are changing the climate in any way. They also said that all the 'proof' that is out there is really just junk, people going into experiments with preconceived ideas of what is coming out of them really skews reliable results.
From what I have read, I do not believe the hype that we are causing this global warming effect. It is part of the earth's natural cycle, and will continue to rise for a good while, until we hit another ice age. The earth has been doing this for billions of years, and it is what is happening now, and what will continue to happen long after all humans are dead (if the earth still exists at this point in time).
peace
|
Mush 4 Brains
about tree fiddy

Registered: 12/19/07
Posts: 8,298
Loc: Tacos
|
Re: Global Warming. [Re: supra]
#8550516 - 06/22/08 12:26 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
"soon enough you will understand that it is hard to CHANGE the mind of people around here" -Not just here, this is true about people overall.
As for Al Gore, you guys shouldn't be so rough on him, after all he invented the internet. riiight! Definitely did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, the man is a fucking tard.
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
|
OK luddite I am not reading your links unless you do two things. #1 Offer some sort of explanation of how this relates to what you are arguing and explain what it means to the topic at hand (ie. prove you've read it, or at least skimmed it for the data to support your claim). And #2 Stop using stuff like Fox, Prison Planet and JunkScience as cites these are right wing thinktank's diatribes posing as journalism. This kind of citation hurts you only and when it's with regards to a scientific paper it wouldn't kill you to read that scientific paper instead of the junk journalism (that is if you really read the articles in the first place) that accompanies it's publication.
I know the figure of 95% is reliable for greenhouse gasses I was merely pointing it out to seus that it was not measurably worse than most of the data you cited.
Are any of you guys disputing the fact that Water heats the earth because it is a triatomic molicule? That since carbon dioxide is as well it also must heat the earth? Or that Carbon dioxide lasts 206-260 times longer than water vapor in the atmosphere? Or that humans have caused over 30% of the carbon dioxide that exists in the atmosphere today? Because I can prove all of those things with simple science and all of them together do prove that humans are responsible for a proportion of climate change to date.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: OK luddite I am not reading your links unless you do two things. #1 Offer some sort of explanation of how this relates to what you are arguing and explain what it means to the topic at hand (ie. prove you've read it, or at least skimmed it for the data to support your claim). And #2 Stop using stuff like Fox, Prison Planet and JunkScience as cites these are right wing thinktank's diatribes posing as journalism
I don't think the biases of the author should impact the arguments being made, so I don't think you can write off something from prison planet off hand- though very likely something on their is utterly contrived and without support. Saying prison planet is right wing though is pretty silly. If anything its just completely insane.
But you've correctly identified Luddite's behavior imo.
He just carpet bombs (like you said) with a shitload of links.
I've VERY rarely seen him contribute anything to a discussion. He simply stops in, bombs you with links, and leaves. You never know what the fuck his point is, what he contends the links show, and you certainly won't see him debate on topic.
Pretty worthless in my opinion.
I'd just ignore him till he starts debating on point with discernible arguments.
I'd be shocked if anyone actually clicks his links more than once. Like anyone cares to read his 20 links to try to divine his point which he doesn't care to state...
|
zouden
Neuroscientist



Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Mush 4 Brains said: As for Al Gore, you guys shouldn't be so rough on him, after all he invented the internet. riiight! Definitely did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, the man is a fucking tard.
Why?
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Global Warming. [Re: zouden]
#8553193 - 06/23/08 05:03 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I write prison planet off wholesale because they exaggerate and lie a lot more often than not particularly when someone wants to cite what they say (since if it were true someone probibly already said it better). If prison planet is being cited it's usually one of three things: conspiracy theory, exaggeration of the facts, or bold faced lies. Actually I think that is their motto as well as it lists most of their journalistic standards. If you cited prison planet in a college or university course I hope your instructor would beat you.
But more to the point none of those organizations are intellect worthy sources.
What I'm wondering is where's madtowntripper? Dude drags this topic up for no reason and just leaves, never to say much on it.
Edited by ScavengerType (06/23/08 05:36 AM)
|
Visionary Tools



Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
|
Why is this? Because here in the UK people are aware this is just another excuse to raise taxes and will have fuck all to do about protecting the enviroment. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.
The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The findings come just before the release of the government's long-awaited renewable energy strategy, which aims to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next 12 years.
The poll, by Ipsos MORI, found widespread contradictions, with some people saying politicians were not doing enough to tackle the problem, even though they were cynical about government attempts to impose regulations or raise taxes. In a sign of the enormous task ahead for those pushing for drastic cuts to carbon emissions, many people said they did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority believe they need to make 'significant and radical' changes such as driving and flying less.
'It's disappointing and the government will be really worried,' said Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission. 'They [politicians] need the context in which they're developing new policies to be a lot stronger and more positive. Otherwise the potential for backlash and unpopularity is considerable.'
There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.
However Professor Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, said politicians and campaigners were to blame for over-simplifying the problem by only publicising evidence to support the case. 'Things that we do know - like humans do cause climate change - are being put in doubt,' said Lomborg. 'If you're saying, "We're not going to tell you the whole truth, but we're going to ask you to pay up a lot of money," people are going to be unsure.'
In response to the poll's findings, the Department for the Environment issued a statement: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities. It is already affecting people's lives - and the impact will be much greater if we don't act now.'
Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change.
Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research.
'People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,' said Downing. 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.
More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes. About this article Close This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday June 22 2008 on p1 of the News section. It was last updated at 00:04 on June 22 2008.
--------------------
|
Visionary Tools



Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: I write prison planet off wholesale because they exaggerate and lie a lot more often than not particularly when someone wants to cite what they say (since if it were true someone probibly already said it better). If prison planet is being cited it's usually one of three things: conspiracy theory, exaggeration of the facts, or bold faced lies. .
If they lied, they'd be sued for slander already. You don't like the content? Fine, doesn't give your lies any credence when you don't read the website.
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
|
> If they lied, they'd be sued for slander already
Only if the lies harm somebodies reputation. Defamation cases in the US, unlike in most European countries, are very difficult to win. That pesky 1st Amendment that grants freedom of press makes it tough to win libel/slander cases.
|
Visionary Tools



Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
Re: Global Warming. [Re: Seuss]
#8553684 - 06/23/08 09:21 AM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Alex Jones frequently talks about police brutality, about reports of soliders killing and raping children. He's talked numerous times and challenged people to prove him wrong that Dyncorp kidnaps kids, ships them to islands to be used as actual slave labour (being chained to sewing machines) as well as sex slaves.
You cannot say that stuff if it's not true without serious legal repercussions.
--------------------
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
|
you can if nobody from dynicorp cares because your considered to be an internet tabloid. How come south park has never been sued? Because nobody cares (except Scientologists).
But anyway this is getting off topic.
carbon taxes when done properly are intended to lead to or include cuts in personal income taxes. Many European countries have done this and it is basically the first thing you'll read anywhere when you actually look at the implementation of carbon tax policy. It works similar to what happened in Canada. A small eco-gas tax was introduced and it increases over time. So this year everyone gets a $100 energy rebate. I assume the plan is to do the same next year but with this conservative government who knows. But that's the general idea, more taxes = money back somewhere else. I like the idea of energy rebates for a unified carbon tax. It would tax a lot but it would give a lot back. Eventually people will make the smart choice and change things about their lives that are making these taxes bite them. So a net increase in taxes is unlikely without a bunch of completely incompetent morons in charge of environmental policy and even still it's not probable (75% of incompetent morons are republican).
Anyway, rest assured the tax monster is not out to get you. Though to be honest take my advice, if you want environmental policy do not elect a conservative government. In Canada our fake Green conservative government has been giving corporations and industries that devastate our environment a free pass while they harass the general population with regulation. They have been particularly hard on rural residents since they are proportionally smaller voting blocs.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
|
> You cannot say that stuff if it's not true without serious legal repercussions.
Maybe not in Europe, but in the US we can actually say quite a lot and not worry about repercussions. This is why I get so fucking angry and start using ass-munching vulgarities when talking about the cunt-drips at the FCC trying to claim that some speech can somehow be obscene. It is fine to urinate, but it is obscene to piss... what-the-fuck-ever. (RIP George, one of the greatest comedians of my lifetime.)
Getting back on topic...
> You cannot say that stuff if it's not true without serious legal repercussions.
Yes, you can... at least in the US. It is very difficult to win libel/slander cases in the US because of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
Where I live it is even better... they plaintiff has to show actual monetary damages from the libel/slander. If they cannot show lost monies, the court will not hear the case. (I'm not in the US...)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: OK luddite I am not reading your links unless you do two things. #1 Offer some sort of explanation of how this relates to what you are arguing and explain what it means to the topic at hand (ie. prove you've read it, or at least skimmed it for the data to support your claim). And #2 Stop using stuff like Fox, Prison Planet and JunkScience as cites these are right wing thinktank's diatribes posing as journalism. This kind of citation hurts you only and when it's with regards to a scientific paper it wouldn't kill you to read that scientific paper instead of the junk journalism (that is if you really read the articles in the first place) that accompanies it's publication.
I know the figure of 95% is reliable for greenhouse gasses I was merely pointing it out to seus that it was not measurably worse than most of the data you cited.
Are any of you guys disputing the fact that Water heats the earth because it is a triatomic molicule? That since carbon dioxide is as well it also must heat the earth? Or that Carbon dioxide lasts 206-260 times longer than water vapor in the atmosphere? Or that humans have caused over 30% of the carbon dioxide that exists in the atmosphere today? Because I can prove all of those things with simple science and all of them together do prove that humans are responsible for a proportion of climate change to date.
You forgot to mention this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm If you can't read the links yourself without being spoon fed, you proved what we already know, that you have poor reading skills and poor comprehension.
Edited by Luddite (06/23/08 04:18 PM)
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Global Warming. [Re: Luddite]
#8555188 - 06/23/08 05:12 PM (15 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
that's nice Luddite but we're not talking about climate model reliability and that is an article about the same paper that I linked to in PDF a page ago. In fact since you brought it up can you see the difference between an actual journalistic depiction of the paper and the one from prison planet? Quite a difference I'd say it almost sounds like they are talking about two different papers.
BTW ludd that article in no way substantiates your claim I don't know why you linked to it. Are you sure you know what a climate model is made to predict? Future climactic events and conditions. But to look at where we are at today and how we got here we use basic environmental physics. This is why we know anthropogenic climate change exists.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
Edited by ScavengerType (06/24/08 05:23 AM)
|
|