Many scientists look to man as causing global warming. Despite that in the early days of the industrial revolution the skys were black with polutants from the burning of very impure coal as fuels.
Despite the fact that other scientists have shown that solar activity has a measurable impact on global temperature where anything man has done can only be speculated on.
Despite the fact that many scientists still consider the earth to be in a mild ice age due to the fact that the earth now remains much cooler than it has during most of its existence.
Despite the fact that when dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions of years the earth was so warm there were no polar ice caps and man did not even exist at that time.
So is global warming something caused by man's abuse of the earth, or is it something that happen's naturally and has happened naturally throughout the Earth's existence?
Trying to explain to you would be like trying to explain to dubya. Neither of you has the intellectual capacity to figure out the complexities of percentages and certainly not compound interest....both trivial developments compared to scientific arguments.
You may find a few fools and liars that classify themselves as capable and honorable scientist and who discount global warming, but, lets face it, those are the paid off lackeys of the far right and the wanna-be scientist of backward religious movements. Even were those considered credible authorities, they amount to maybe, at most, 1/2 % of those that are credible and qualified to comment. From the drivel you posted above, it is bluntly clear that you are NOT among the 99.5%.
IP: Logged |
posted
Bdgee, you question people's intellectual abilities, yet you can't offer an intelligent argument supporting the idea of global warming. So who's the fool here?
Aragorn presented good points and you reply with name calling. Is that the best you can do? Telling someone their too stupid to understand something is another way of saying, "I really don't know what I'm talking about, and I don't have any facts to give you, so I'll just belittle you and hope you go away..."
-------------------- Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth -- Proverbs 27:1
IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean nobody can support a inteligent argument. Almost the whole scientific community of the world states that it is a given. I have not made a study of this but the only people that have to say that it is false are people that represent large capital. Like conservative think tanks that are supported buy the poluting corporations. I am going to get more info on this subject. But to me it sounds like the people that think there is no harm are like the people that used to say smoking doesn't hurt you. All you have to do is watch the news and you can see people that have nothing to gain they all have the same opinion that since the industrial revolution we have artificialy raised the temperature of the earth and it is having its affect. Exuse me there is really no smog either I suppose and if there is it doen't hurt you maybe one of the country 50 to 60 million people that have upper and lower respitory problems are just people with wild imaginations and whinners
IP: Logged |
He presented NO argument of any kind, just a bunch of rightwing religious bs and Party line worship of the Great Prevaricator.
There is NOTHING scientific or scientifically based in appeals to nameless "authorities" and imaginary "facts" or to religious or Party doctrine.
Bond's points out that he has made no study of environmental conditions and states tht he does not speak as an authority I have done such studies. (And those studies appear in responsible published documents.)
There is NO responsible scientific argument that is contradictory to the fact that man is causing global warming. It is a fact that ice ages and warm periods do indeed swing well beyond modern temperature ranges. (And based on quite valid and well founded data, sufficient warming results in catastrophic entries into ice ages, by the way.) "THAT DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE FACT THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY, PRINCIPALLY BURNING FOSSIL FUELS AND VEGITATION, HAS RAISED THE GREEN HOUSE GAS CONTENT OF THE ATHMOSPHERE TO A LEVEL THAT IS CAUSING THE WORLD'S TEMPERATURE TO ESCALATE DANGEROUSLY. PROBABLY TO A POINT THAT WE ARE FACING MORE THAN A SMALL CHANCE OF AN SUDDEN DIVE INTO AN ICE AGE. The argument that you want to accept is equivalent to: since the world is full of billions of people that are capable of having pulled the trigger, then the one witnessed to have done it is innocent. If you can't find the logical flaw in that, I've wasted my time.
Irresponsible and ignorant goose stepping to the drum of the modern Furher's ignorance does not constitute a scientific argument.
This is NOT a political question!
This is NOT a religious question!
Global warming is far more dangerous to life on Earth than all the terrorist that ever existed!
IP: Logged |
Actually I presented quite a bit of scientific evidence. I learned it first in elementary school for the most part so it isn't coming from any right wing source and most definately no religious source.
It is a scientific fact that the globe is cooler now than when the dinosaurs existed.
It is a scientific fact that the world has warmed and cooled quite dramatically without any influence of man.
There are ancient cities which are now below sea level that once were flourishing ports. One was most recently uncovered during the tsunami on the coast of India. There are others off the coast of North Africa. They did not sink, the ocean levels rose to cover them as the earth warmed. Are you suggesting that primitive bronze age man was responsible for global warming?
The earth was once so cool that there was a land bridge between Russia and Alaska. Man migrated across this land bridge to North America. Did "cave men" then cause global warming which resulted in this land bridge disappearing with higher sea levels?
We have been actively measureing global temperatures for a short time. Not long enough to establish that we are even in a cycle of warming, let alone that we are the cause.
I personally believe that we are in a period of warming. This period was predicted by scientists that study the sun. We are in a very active period of solar activity which has increase radiation to the Earths atmosphere. This is a direct cause of warming which can be measured.
IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting story about Portugal by the way.
Are you aware that the Sahara desert was once a lush and green environment? As the climates changed it became desert. This all occured long before man had any capability to influence it.
IP: Logged |
posted
the latest/best theory of why the Wurm ice age ended isn't due to the phase of sun....
it is due to a massive underwater landslide off the coast of Norway, this landslide disturbed the floor of the ocean, causing methane hydrate ice to melt... massive amounts of CH4 (a significant greenhouse gas) were released into the atmosphere.... there are 80 times more calories stored in methane hydrate ice on the floor of the ocean than there is ESTIMATED oil reserves...
one single volcano can spew as much pollution into the air in a single day as we do in years....
global warming doesn't HAVE to be caused by us people, but only an idiot would say that our rate of polluting the atmosphere is not a problem, and not contributing to the precariousness of the situation... maybe a stressed system would go "over the edge" due to just that extra "push" from us.... which is that one straw that eventually breaks the camels back???
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
I'm all for reducing or the outright stopping of pollution but this "WE ARE THE CAUSE" is little but political activism and isn't supported by hard science. We haven't studied it long enough to prove anything and have no means of measuring mankinds effects vs the effects of nature.
As you pointed out, volcanos can and do spew out more pollution than we do, so blaming us is inaccurate.
IP: Logged |
posted
blaming us humans for being irresponsible is not innaccurate...
Bush has proven he is willing to sell our kids future on the cheap in all kinds of ways...
read "State of Fear" by Crichton... pollution is politisized by the "tree huggers" but the "tree huggers" are correct... we are destroying the planet and it's just about profit....
"be responsible for your actions" is true conservatism... Bush is a "fake conservative"...
take a look at how much plastic is showing up in sea animals guts... it's criminally irresponsible
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Let me see now about the impecable logic of this argument?
You say that since a volcano spews out more polution than we do (need to define a thing or two there, like polution and we need to put some sort of time frame and size markers on things, like how much time do humans get and what size volcanic eruption) humans can't be awarded any blame for what they do in the way of polution.
Let me concoct an equivalent development.
If a single hurricaane kills more people than John Wayne Gacy did, we can't blame him for what he did and what he did was ok.
Talk about simple minded and illogical!
IP: Logged |
posted
bdgee's point is dead on.... i would have made the same KIND of point eventually.
associtive thinking can't be taught to college students no matter how good the school is...
the seeds for associative thinking must be sown and nurtured much earlier in life...
the "TREE HUGGERS" have no choice but to create a "political machine" because people still have to raise families while they run their "campaigns"...
as far as you questioning the science? you are not reading the papers or you wouldn't question that we are producing too many greenhouse gases. you are reading off the politicians "talk points" cheat sheets...
Yes, businesses have to survive, but, remeber what Jordan said in the Wheel o'Time? "Take what you want, and PAY for it"... Dubya is always looking for someone else to pay. And he can't help it, he was raised that way...
fact? pollution costs $$$.... we can pay as we go? or give the bill to our kids... Bush likes to put the bill on the kids credit cards.. he does it in every venture...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
If you tried to "make the same kind of point" I'm sure you would have done a much better job of it than bdgee.
You are correct that associative thinking cannot be taught we see the proof of that right here with illogical comparisons that have little or no relationship to the discussion at hand.
We can't stop hurricanes, we can't stop the Gacy's of the world. All we can do is clean up after them.
First, bdgee believes we are the cause of global warming, we are not. We are but one tiny portion of global warming, one so small it has minimal impact on global temperatures. Yet because of this we are to stop all our activities.
You yourself said the globe is on the precipice of a cliff that we have the ability to push over the edge. If we are on that cliff, there is nothing we can do to stop it.
The earth has been in a warming cycle for thousands of years. We did not cause it when it started, we are not causing it now. We could shut down all activity and have no effect on global temperatures. As you said, one volcanic eruption can produce more gasses than all of man can in years. How many volcanic eruptions are there every year? How many forest fires.
This "science" of global warming is politically motivated. In the 70's it wasn't global warming, it was global cooling that scientists were worried about. They take short term temperature measurements and try to interpret long term effects. It doesn't work that way.
That is why I asked "what science" because long term science shows that this period of warming in not unusual, but normal.
Our activities should not be how we are going to stop it, because we can't, but how we can adapt to it.
Yet because it sounds "good" we can use global warming to try to redistribute wealth, take power away from the United States and other developed nations and simply ignore the vast amounts of unregulated and uncontrolled pollutants that nations like China are pumping into the atmoshere each day.
You say we are pumping too much greenhouse gasses into the air. How do you know what is too much? Have you read history books concerning the atmoshere in the industrial age of the 1800's. The skys were black, birds fell dead from the sky. People died early deaths because of the pollutants in the air. The waters were poisoned. The United States has cleaned up its act considerably. Our air and water is much cleaner now than in the 70's when this first came to national attention and we have a much larger population and economy. Yet we are still causing global warming?
There is a balance in the world. We may produce greenhouse gasses but they don't remain in that form. They are converted by other means, plants into other compounds. They are scrubbed from the air.
Does man have an effect? Probably. But the effect is not as great as the tree huggers want us to believe and is about the same as a mouse entering a football stadium and farting.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yet because it sounds "good" we can use global warming to try to redistribute wealth, take power away from the United States and other developed nations and simply ignore the vast amounts of unregulated and uncontrolled pollutants that nations like China are pumping into the atmoshere each day.
take wealth? try this on for size... it's not about taking wealth from nations... it's about taking wealth from IRRESPONSIBLE, GREEDY people that refuse to be "conservative" of our planet.... you mention China? the Bush family is part of the group that has supported and helped build them from the day Nixon opened talks with them....
your example of the 1800's was in very specific loactions... London primarily... the whole world is headed there if we don't wake up... China's pollution is measurable HERE already.... some "liberal" scientists measured it...
the US has cleaned up considerably but the current admin is turning back the clock on pollution control and the argument is we can't compete...
the other issue? i feel the current admin has been very unfriendly toward scintists in general. they are accused of bein "overeyeducated liyeberals" you are doing it yourself...
scientists have given you all the technology we have, and they will save our azzes from the pollution or we will die...
We may produce greenhouse gasses but they don't remain in that form. They are converted by other means, plants into other compounds. They are scrubbed from the air. by the rainforests? heh!!!!
once again? you been reading the Bush line... conservation of our planet shouldn't be a dem/gop thing... (how to adapt to it?)
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I will believe science because they don't have a reason to lie and don't have any material gain on this matter they are just providing us with the information that they find.
PS: I am all for industrial and corporate growth in all sections of the economy. But not at the cost of humanity and comon sense.
IP: Logged |
posted
Either shut up or stop contributing to what you "think" the problem is.
If all these millions of scientists and Earth concious people and global warming pimps would stop their consumption of fossil fuels and other so called causes of global warming, things would change.
Go to any eco-earth/global warming conference or seminar and those folks are arrivng by car, truck, SUV, and plane. What a joke!!! If you really care and are serious, take a rickshaw!
My point is, if you're that compassionate about change and the salvation of the earth, alter your lifestyle to make that change. When I decided to get off drugs and clean my life up, I completely altered my lifestyle. If I hadn't I'd still be exactly where I was... lead with your life, not with your words.
-------------------- Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth -- Proverbs 27:1
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: Either shut up or stop contributing to what you "think" the problem is.
If all these millions of scientists and Earth concious people and global warming pimps would stop their consumption of fossil fuels and other so called causes of global warming, things would change.
Go to any eco-earth/global warming conference or seminar and those folks are arrivng by car, truck, SUV, and plane. What a joke!!! If you really care and are serious, take a rickshaw!
My point is, if you're that compassionate about change and the salvation of the earth, alter your lifestyle to make that change. When I decided to get off drugs and clean my life up, I completely altered my lifestyle. If I hadn't I'd still be exactly where I was... lead with your life, not with your words.
You are way out of line!
We aren't takling about things we only "think" the problem is. We have done the work.
You are shouting "shut up" while you can't and don't offer anythings but bias and selfish rantings of hate toward people that do actually do what you can't and won't.
Get caught up with the times and get off the selfish wagon. It leads to doom for most of us....and a very painful sad end, by the way. Just because you are too egocentric to bother and listen and learn doesn't make that a suitable or sensable route to send the world. You provide nothing but just horribly limited "thoughts", my man, so maybe you should be telling yourself to shut up.
As to the tenor of the world's scientist, i.e., those that actually study the question and don't rant on without thinking things out:
Now, what is your point? I mean one that you "know" is true, rather than what you "choose" to "think" is, since you so bluntly and rudely object to that sort of positioning?
IP: Logged |
posted
"I will believe science because they don't have a reason to lie and don't have any material gain on this matter they are just providing us with the information that they find."
That is a very naive view of science. They have a very good reason to lie, funding, and they have a lot of material gain at stake. Science doesn't come cheap these days, and people don't work for free.
Funding comes from many sources, the largest being various governments and corporate agencys. Most research involves new products or technologies for profit (or war). Some involves the good of mankind but unfortunately, not much. Other sources of funding are wealthy individuals or special interest groups with one sort of pet project or another. Sometimes these are politically motivated, sometimes they are simply generous donations for actual true research. The latter becomming more rare.
The way science these days works (and it's not the correct way) is to have a result and conduct research to prove that result. If the result isn't proven, the funding often gets cut and the scientist is out of a job.
So they do have a reason to tweak their results, to ignore certain obvious facts and say this thing occurs because... and to the exclusion of...when in reality, they only sought to prove their result and not the true reason for what they are studying in the first place.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bond006: I won't shut up and you are a moron Team sleep most likly a dim witted draft doger and an inbred and you are iggied
....................lol........
And I can't even guess what "iggied" means......ha ha ha ha ha
IP: Logged |
posted
The way science these days works (and it's not the correct way) is to have a result and conduct research to prove that result. If the result isn't proven, the funding often gets cut and the scientist is out of a job.
and you say others have a very naive view of science.
you are speaking of DEVELOPMENT, not research.....
genomic research is a perfect example of how far off base you are...
researchers have developed a huge databases of genetic sequence and put them in a 'puter.
then other researchers go to their own datasets and start comparing the sequences....
AFTER!!!! they find something to compare? then they start DEVELOPING new ways to apply the genes...
like finding new ways to produce enzymes...
yes, researchers are forced to beg for funding, and yes there is just as much dirty nasty politics in science as their is on Capitol Hill, BUT?
our lives are surrounded by the fruit of their work in every way, and they've always conducted DEVELOPMENT in this way you describe: The way science these days works (and it's not the correct way) is to have a result and conduct research to prove that result. If the result isn't proven, the funding often gets cut and the scientist is out of a job.
the only exception to that is when a few very wealthy indivivuals could afford to be researchers on their own dime (see England 18/19th centuries)
you have a biology degree and you speak of research in this way? i think you should pick up a copy of SCIENCE every day for a year.... you might discover that a bachelors degree in biology, no matter how good the school, is doesn't make you an expert on research at all...
have you noticed Tide coldwater yet on the commercials?
a guy did RESEARCH on bacteria that were decomposing whale carcasses to discover the new enzyme responsible for this minor but important cost saving product...
(see Diversa Corp.)
it was an expensive and seemingly esoteric project.... but it will save US billions in heating $$$$ over the years.....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
I was specifically referring to research, not development. Development generally comes after research has made some sort of discovery, funding is nearly automatic if the discovery has soem "worth" to mankind. All research competes for $$$$. They don't get the $$$$ unless they can show to their benefactors some theory which will eventually offset the cost and hopefully turn a profit. It is much easier to get $$$$ when you can theorize that something already "liked" by the benefactor can be proven. So while we still do have some research conducted in the old fashioned just for science sake, most is not and is conducted in the manner in which I described. So no, I'm not being naive at all.
Global warming studies are one such case. They enter with the premise that man is the cause and work to prove that while excluding all evidence that global warming occurs naturally. Not good science, it is political science.
IP: Logged |
I was specifically referring to research, not development. Development generally comes after research has made some sort of discovery, funding is nearly automatic if the discovery has soem "worth" to mankind. All research competes for $$$$. They don't get the $$$$ unless they can show to their benefactors some theory which will eventually offset the cost and hopefully turn a profit. It is much easier to get $$$$ when you can theorize that something already "liked" by the benefactor can be proven. So while we still do have some research conducted in the old fashioned just for science sake, most is not and is conducted in the manner in which I described. So no, I'm not being naive at all.
Global warming studies are one such case. They enter with the premise that man is the cause and work to prove that while excluding all evidence that global warming occurs naturally. Not good science, it is political science.
Where on Earth do you come up with these absurd idiotic ideas. You must have been listening to and kissing the feet of Fat Rush the Doper again. Man, you base your whole approach to the world on the drivel that he and his sort spread. Nonsense from fools.
Hey, hint.....they aren't and you aren't either qualified to understand the techniques of research or disseminate them. Just as it is necessary to have an unbiased approach to be successful at research, it is also necessary to be unbiased in it's dissemination. Clearly, you are not open minded on this subject, based on nothing else but your own admissions.
Moreover, it is clear that you have never participated in any form of actual research and have never reached any form of conclusion from an actual research project or reported those results to anyone. The kind of things you claim to be happening won't get by the referees of a scientific journal, who, by the way, are not paid and are not participants in the research articles they referee. (They are kept secret too, so there is no way to bribe or influence them.)
I note that you begin your description of "research techniques" with the assumptioon that research assumes a conclusion, then procede to argue to support exactly that conclusion. The logical flaw you seem to be pointing out is exactly the same as that you are using! You assume it is biased, then present arguments (actuaully not arguments, just personal beliefs and faith) to support that prior conclusion only, with no consideration that that assumption may be false. You are a mite too narrow minded and limited to be taken seriously.
IP: Logged |
posted
Contrary to assertions by the Party and it's faithful followers, no one among the scientist (90%+ of all qualified scientist have voiced an opinion that man is causing global warming...the other 10%- dodge the question) that are warning us that man's polluting of the athmosphere is causing global warming has assumed that climate warming and cycling has not also happened in the past independent of man's activity or that there is not non-"man made" contribution to the present condition of warming in the athmosphere.
That claim, which is being made again above, is false and absurd and points out how little its maker knows about the whole area of study or even what questions are involved.
What those 99% of scientist are saying is that, this time, NOW, the major reason the climate is in danger of reaching a point of critical mass of temperature increase is man made pollution and that any and all other contributions to that escalation are insignificant in comparison. In short, since all other factors that may be involved are insufficient to raise the temperature to dangerous levels and since the rate of temperature increase due to human pollution is that dangerous, we need to curtail it.
Do you really expect the race horse to understand what a picture is, let alone be able to understand how the camera works that took the picture that showed he was short by 3 inches from winning the race? "Hey", says the race horse, "I was the was there and I won and you can't prove to me I didn't with some contraption you can't even explain to me."
IP: Logged |
posted
Let's get this straight, because from your posts it isn't clear at all.
It sounds like what you are saying is that 90% of all scientists are saying man is the primary cause of global warming. That while they recognize that global warming occured naturally in the past, it is not the case now and any naturally occuring warming is insignificant in comparison to what man is causing.
Is that correct?
If so, WHERE ARE THE STATISTICS AND EVIDENCE OF THE 90% OF SCIENTISTS.
You don't even realize how absurb that sounds do you? That even though global warming has occured naturally throughtout the earths history, it is now trivialized by man.
The earth has been in a near contiunal state of warming since the most recent ice age. Yet man is suddenly THE cause.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
