posted
Gordon, you are trying to debate with a closed mind that has very little foundation to begin with. His notions and the extent of his comprehension about scientific study is reflected in his insistance that it is all a scheme by the devil anbd communism to undermine the bible.
He won't answer questions (can't?), but will claim he has repeatedly, then act as if he has some reason to resent it when you point that out. He is neither truthful nor well informed and prefers to maintain that bliss. When he has been pinned down to a point that even a normally bull headed person whould admit defeat and own up to their misrepresentations of fact, he will resort to name calling (in case you missed it, he started that way too) and hollering that you are the one that is changing the subject in order to change the subject.
No one asked him to inject his religious bigotry and hate into these discussions and communications, but he ignores that, demanding to know why you don't accept his bigoted drivel and lack of logic, as he jumps into thread after thread and assumes the right to order people around. Then he has the gall to suggest we aren't sticking to the topic of the thread!
He is a crude loudmouth racial and religious bigot who believes he has the right to impose religious doctrine on us all. Quoting him, The Constitution does not give you freedon from religion." That seems to be his argument for constantly harrassing us with his nasty attitude and idiotic misunderstanding of almost everything.
IP: Logged |
I already addressed that post. Bringing it up again doesn't change the fact that global warming has been occuring long before man could have influenced it and this scientist with his article ignores that.
You still haven't answered the original question and sidestepped around the others.
Where did you hear I was doing well in Real Estate?
Are you lying or is the "person" who told you I was doing well in real estate lying?
What are you trying to imply with your series of posts about real estate and the scriptures?
I notice you suddenly like to get back to the topic in hand when you step in it on your off topic "attacks".
IP: Logged |
Describing yourself again. You really don't have much going for you you know it. Sad really. You can improve however by letting go of the hatred and bigotry and open your mind to the real world.
IP: Logged |
1) Aragorn, from skimming the thread occasionaly, I suspect your argument is rooted in your take of Crichton's novel, State of Fear, yes?
2) GB, I don't see how your recent link "proves" anything...also, I have some questions, re these excerpts:
quote:His research reveals that the troposphere is warming almost precisely as the models predict it should: by about 0.2C (0.4F) per decade. Satellites have not previously detected the trend as they have been confused by colder temperatures in the atmospheric layer above.
If there's support for "the models," I missed it... what models? who built em?
"Satellites" can't *get confused*: If they provide contradictory or confusing data, it's due either to the original program, the odd behavior of the phenomenon, or confusion re the interpreters.
quote:Sceptics have often argued that if temperatures are rising at all, this is down to natural variation in the climate as the world emerges from a “little Ice Age”.
"Little Ice Age"? We've had a little Ice Age amidst global warming?
quote:The tropospheric trend, however, is precisely what scientists would expect to see if man-made emissions of greenhouse gases were causing it to heat up.
Why? What's the isolation factor re "man-made"?
quote:“I think this could convince not just scientists but the public as well,” Dr Fu said.
Why? I can read OK: this article/summary, at least, (ie not the study) does not convince me--why would "the public" suddenly sign off on it?
quote:The raw data for the troposphere, as measured by the instruments’ channel 2 setting, showed no pronounced warming trend.
Dr Fu realised, however, that about a fifth of the signal picked up on channel 2 in fact originated in the stratosphere — the higher level of the atmosphere between 10km and 50km above the Earth’s surface. This had skewed the data, as the stratosphere is known to be cooling rapidly.
“Because of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases, the stratosphere is cooling about five times faster than the troposphere is warming, so the channel 2 measurement by itself provided us with little information on the temperature trend in the lower atmosphere,” Dr Fu said.
His team then used measurements from weather balloons and from another channel on the microwave units to determine precisely how much of the channel 2 signal was coming from the stratosphere.
Once this stratospheric error was eliminated, the remaining data showed that the troposphere had indeed been warming, by about 0.2C (0.4F) a decade.
“This tells us very clearly what the lower atmosphere temperature trend is, and the trend is very similar to what is happening at the surface,” Dr Fu said.
Everything's warming, but *not* the stratosphere . . . which is "cooling rapidly" ???
quote:The new tropospheric data does not suggest that the pace of global warming is increasing or decreasing.
So it's staying the same?
If the study's good? The study-folk ought to hunt down the reporter and beg him not to cover their studies...
[ February 04, 2006, 17:33: Message edited by: BuyTex ]
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I have learned fom many boards...don't talk religon over the internet. It just causes frustration.
I'll impart two things though just to confuse things a little more.
Gordan, you seem to enjoy Matthem 19:24
quote:And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
The first thing I would say is that this discussion took place shortly after Jesus his disciples and a crowd who wished to hear Jesus's teachings left the city of Capernaum in Galilee.
It has been told to me (I claim no first hand knowledge) that in Capernaum there was a small gate in the city wall. A suitable exit point for one or two people but by no means a main gateway. It has been told to me that the name of that gate translates into "Needle's eye." If Jesus was speaking of this gate, getting a camel through would have been difficult but not impossible as a literal translation suggests.
Secondly I would like to add the next two verses to give further context.
quote: When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
That will likely be the last time anyone hears specifics about religion from me on this board.
Enjoy,
The Bigfoot
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
These satellites used instruments known as microwave-sounding units to measure microwave radiation emitted by oxygen molecules, and thus to calculate the temperature.
no wonder the earth is heating up! they are microwaving it
you know strider? one of the reasons i didn't like Gore? even tho he's a fairly intelligent guy, especially as politicians go? he always seemed to be talking DOWN to US...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
"I suspect your argument is rooted in your take of Crichton's novel, State of Fear, yes?"
No, I never read the novel. My basic arguement is rooted in a very large interest in Dinosaurs that started when I was a kid. With that interest came the knowledge that the globe was once warmer than it is today. I've also studied up on the ice ages to a lesser degree which also established that the globe was once much colder than it is today. So when I see scientists, conduct survey's or studies where they exclude these very basic facts, I automatically question their validity and motive.
Because like some like to point out, all factors must be considered in scientific research. The study of global warming is complicated by several factors, chief of which there is no control model. We do not know the effects of natural warming, so how can we establish the amount that man contributes to it.
The theory of a little ice age as a result of global warming is a possibility. I know it sounds strange but it revolves around the ocean currents specifically the Gulf Stream. I'm not going to take the time to look it up but it has something to do with the salt content of the water. Increased fresh water from the melting of the polar ice caps changes the balance of these currents and can shut them down. As the Gulf Stream is the primary reason England and norhern Europe climate is as warm as it is, if it is shut down, it will get much colder there, thus the little ice age. Europe is at a much higher latitude than much of the United States. Thier winters will become much more severe and summer growth cycles much shorter.
This could occur in a fairly short period of time. It is believed to have occured before. The middle ages is one such period.
Over time, the polar ice caps reform, the ocean balance is restored and the Gulf Stream starts up again and reverses the process.
Bigfoot,
I've also heard your story concerning the "needle" being a gate.
Your lesson of context is also a good one that is often ignored in religious discussions.
IP: Logged |
He had problems of public speaking. No doubt. I think it has something to do with the current political machine. I think these guys get so used to addressing an empty senate room they forget what it is like to talk to real people.
The Bigfoot
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
If you think I am talking "down" to you, I apologize as it was never my intent.
You may find it interesting that I often feel the same way about you. That however does tend to happen most when you leave the topic to make implications of intelligence etc.
IP: Logged |
my long-time, casual take on global warming is that an ice-age could reasonably be a result...I see that possibility has now entered the debate, at least in a few quarters...when i first mentioned it, got some strange looks...
of course, I also believe polarity-reversal had a much bigger influence on the fossil record than is acknowledged...or at least *was* acknowledged when I was up on all that stuff...
Here's the bottom-line re catastrophes: we need to know what to expect, regardless of whether it's "man-made"
One good point in Crichton's novel that I mention? at *least* the possibility that crooks have adopted eco-clothing and are as "dirty" as the pollution-mongerers...
[ February 04, 2006, 18:01: Message edited by: BuyTex ]
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
Start regulating companies that move to third world countries to avoid the tougher pollution controls.
Start funding of environmental protections in the 3rd world nations.
Education as you mentioned is very important.
Start actually having some expectations from all the aid money we provide many of these nations. If they want aid, they have to follow certain guidelines. I'd even be for increasing the aid to help meet these conditions if it would work.
I don't really agree with the setting the example idea you propose. I understand that in an ideal world that would work fine but the world unfortunately is not ideal. A lot of these nations take our aid, turn around and laugh like crazy at our naivity of giving it to them. The leadership of these nations restrict what the common person learns. The examples would fall on deaf ears and the people would still have a bad opinion of us even if we did set an example.
All good options in my book.
Regulation of American companies going down South to avoid environmental protocols is something that has needed to happen for quite some time. Honestly, if that were to happen it may well put an end to exporting American jobs! There have already been many companies that have found out the money saved by going over to lower wage countries is not the huge savings they tought it would be. Extra overhead gets in the way. If environmental protections were added to that...could be a very good thing.
Education is huge! I will always support education as important in every way, shape, and form.
Another good option. Aid money and food programs are almost universally exploited. Have you seen the CNN special about North Korea? Goverment officals selling the food aid meant for the people at inflated prices.
Only thing I personally can think to do there is send aid to the embassy's in each country and disperse aid first hand from there. Huge problem!
I'm not nieve in thinking that we wouldn't be laughed at by some. But they'll come around one by one, as resources begin to become more precious, until only a handful of countries will be left. And that small handful will find themselves known as the cesspool's of the world. They won't have anything to laugh about then.
The Bigfoot
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
I'm not suggesting this be done only by the United States.
A treaty similar to Kyoto, international where the developed nations fund the "upgrades" to the third world nations.
BuyTex,
Man made global warming? If global warming were man made, we could also stop it. That's the issue. The current bunch on the global warming bandwagon want to blame man. So they study theorys of reducing or eliminating it. I do not believe this changes the danger.
My position is we cannot stop it, it is occuring naturally. Man may play a small role in that, but not the over riding role. So in concentrating our efforts on restrictions, or ways of eliminating it, etc and not on the very real future possibilities and the means to adapt to them, we leave ourselves very unprepared.
IP: Logged |
1) "If global warming were man made, we could also stop it. That's the issue."
2) "My position is we cannot stop it, it is occuring naturally."
First, you're positing that anything originated by humans could be stopped. For argument's sake, let squash that with all-out nuclear war...or worse--I could eventually posit a logical proposition that would be clear re humans *could* set in motion enough chain of events to at least render civilization a tenuous prospect...
Second, you're also positing that anything "natural" should run it's course.
Without delving into symantics (ie "humans" are "natural"), this argument mirrors parents who won't allow treatment of a child with meningitis, because it's "not natural."
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: Bigfoot,
I'm not suggesting this be done only by the United States.
A treaty similar to Kyoto, international where the developed nations fund the "upgrades" to the third world nations.
BuyTex,
Man made global warming? If global warming were man made, we could also stop it. That's the issue. The current bunch on the global warming bandwagon want to blame man. So they study theorys of reducing or eliminating it. I do not believe this changes the danger.
My position is we cannot stop it, it is occuring naturally. Man may play a small role in that, but not the over riding role. So in concentrating our efforts on restrictions, or ways of eliminating it, etc and not on the very real future possibilities and the means to adapt to them, we leave ourselves very unprepared.
make sense? If not, we can take it point by point...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
Sure a multinational treaty could work. We could even tie it in as a requirement for debt forgiveness of developing nations.
Maybe it is just the Science Fiction geek in me but I tend to think that, given enough time/knowledge/resources, we could learn to control even non-man made global phenomena. I believe it's called Terra-forming.
Until that day though, I believe it is important to become self-sufficient. Somewhat akin to the ideology of "Take with you only pictures (I am not a minimalist), leave behind you only footprints."
I freely admit I am an idealist. I also believe I am not blinded by my own idealism from seeing the problems inherent in moving to a sustainable society model. I just believe that given adequite attention no problem is insurmountable.
The Bigfoot
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
It is a logical flaw but I don't follow that belief. You took the first portion out of context of the entire paragraph, or I didn't explain it clearly. With the global warming crowd which wants to blame man, man is the only cause, thus by their theory as we are the sole cause, we are also the sole means to stop it. Eliminate man, eliminate global warming. Obviously we can't do that.
So we need to concentrate on preparing for the inevitable future, not something that will have little or no effect on that future occuring all on its own.
I'm not saying that anything natural must be left to run it's course although in many cases that probably is what we should do, forest fires for example. Man works to stop them when they are needed for regeneration of the forests. Some trees cannot reproduce unless their seeds are heated in a forest fire. Our attempts to prevent them usually lead to larger, uncontrolled fires in the future. In global warming, we have little choice in the matter. We do not have the means to cool the planet with the possible exception of nuclear winter or some other drastic means which would be even worse for the environment.
On kids, while I've never been a huge "fan" of doctors, I don't hesitate to take the kids for their shots etc.
On the environment, I also do what I can to minimize my impact on it. Not necessarily for the prevention of global warming but simply because it makes sense. Man has the ability to be either destroyers or stewards of the environment. I prefer we be stewards while recognizing that there are simply some things we cannot change or prevent.
Have you seen the specials on the Yellowstone National park? How it is a natural "caldera" (not sure on that) that has exploed on a fairly regular cycle and according to scientists is already past due for exploding again, they can't really decide). If and when it does, it will outright destroy about a quarter of the US and plunge the rest of the world into a very real winter and ice age.
It would be great if we could figure out a way to release the pressure to prevent the explosion but knowing us, we would probably just end up setting it off prematurely.
IP: Logged |
posted
Not going away...but having to "chip through" this 'graf...
quote:"It is a logical flaw but I don't follow that belief. You took the first portion out of context of the entire paragraph, or I didn't explain it clearly. With the global warming crowd which wants to blame man, man is the only cause, thus by their theory as we are the sole cause, we are also the sole means to stop it. Eliminate man, eliminate global warming. Obviously we can't do that."
any chance you could clarify while I'm reading the rest?
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
Right now you are right, we probably would. I tend to think the whole west coast is a landmine about to go, which is why DWE is welcome to it.
I prefer my winter's cold.
I think Mt. Rainier will go first before Yellowstone personally.
So...Aragorn...what would it take to convince you that emissions from human activities are responsible for excelerating global warming to a measureable extent?
The Bigfoot
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
If you think I am talking "down" to you, I apologize as it was never my intent.
You may find it interesting that I often feel the same way about you. That however does tend to happen most when you leave the topic to make implications of intelligence etc.
i didn't think it really was your intent... or Gores for that matter... Gore just is what 'e is...
i really don't take myself that seriously...
i have spent a lot of time around overacheivers.. and i'm NOT an over acheiver...just a trubbamaker
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Hopefully this will clarify a little. The people who are concerned about man's impact on global warming fall into several categories, those on the extreme left who believe man is the sole cause. There are a few of them here on these boards and it appears that the scientist who wrote the piece Gordon Benett presented as proof falls into that category. Then there is the group that believes man has some impact, but is not the sole impact, that is the majority. This group will obviously have different views on the amount of the effect man plays. On the extreme right are those that feel man has no affect at all. The paragraph you are questioning deals only with those on the extreme left, their beliefs, not what is or is not proven.
I tend to be further to the right but not on the extreme right. It's not that we don't have an impact, it is just that natural forces are such that any effect we have is not going to stop it from happening. It has been going on throughout the earth's existence and we have only been on it for a comparitively short period of time. Our stay on this planet can be measured in thousands of years while dinosaurs roamed the planet for millions of year.
Bigfoot,
It's not that I'm not convinced we are responsible for accerating global warming, we probably are, just not to the extremes many believe. As far as measuring goes, we haven't even been keeping track of global temperatures long enough to know whether we are currently in a natural cycle or not. Modern man hasn't recorded temperatures in a method that can be consistently evaluated from one cycle to the next.
Keep an eye out on the History Channel. I don't recall the name of the program but they did a special on global temperatures and their impact on man just a month or so ago. They generally recycle their programs. This program was the one dealing with the little ice age in the Middle Ages in Europe.
IP: Logged |
posted
It was my daughter by the way that brought up the Yellowstone thing. It was making the rounds of her school. Again, the History Channel seemed to be the guilty culprit in this as well. It's supposed to blow every 100,000 years or so.
So next time you think of that friendly little "Old Faithfull", remember that underneath lies the "end of the world". :-)
IP: Logged |
quote:It is a logical flaw but I don't follow that belief. You took the first portion out of context of the entire paragraph, or I didn't explain it clearly. With the global warming crowd which wants to blame man, man is the only cause, thus by their theory as we are the sole cause, we are also the sole means to stop it. Eliminate man, eliminate global warming. Obviously we can't do that.
1 ata time...
quote:It is a logical flaw
your "logic-rating" among other posters may have gone up, here. I know you may post sumpin to the effect of "I don't care," but it matters to me if ya wanna engage in these amusements...
quote:but I don't follow that belief.
seriously? I have neither earthly nor moonly idea what you're saying, here.
quote:You took the first portion out of context of the entire paragraph,
No. True, I *might* do that, for fun...but I did not
quote:or I didn't explain it clearly.
accepted
quote:With the global warming crowd which wants to blame man, man is the only cause, thus by their theory as we are the sole cause, we are also the sole means to stop it.
With the true"global warming crowd", that is, those who are truly concerned with no axe to grind, the questions remain (1) is this real? (2) what valid studies can be devised to inform us (3) do we have to wait until those studies are complete before we make common-sense decisions?
make sense?
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
"It is a logical flaw" - Believing man is the sole cause of global warming while ignoring the long history of global warming and cooling which has gone on all of earths existence.
"I don't follow that belief" - Thus I don't follow the logical flaw that man is the sole cause. I believe that the long history of global warming and cooling shows that man is not the cause. He may be a factor but he is not the cause. Global warming will occur whether man is here or not.
Is global warming real? Yes, I believe it is.
What valid studies can be devised to inform us? I prefer studies to prepare us for the inevitable. It's going to happen.
Do we have to wait until those studies are complete before we make common-sense decisions? No, we already have made many decisions. We minimize our emissions, cars have catelytic converters, factories are required to have special filters. We are encouraged to conserve and recycle and in some areas laws have been passed to force recycling. We know without further studies that our actions have an impact on the environement at large which is enough reason to regulate it. What further studies are needed to show this?
IP: Logged |
Not sure where you are going here and I've already spent enough time on the puter today but I'll make the attempt.
"if man-made, we can stop it"
This is part of the example of logical flaw. It is ONLY an example. Those that believe we are the sole cause of global warming, also seem to believe we can stop it.
I do not share that belief on either count. Man is not the cause, we cannot stop it.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
