We can serve drinks here if you like. no need to leave the house or go to the lounge car well just start servin' it up right here in this thread!
Another interesting article was keystone opponents need job program...
I would like to state that there were an awful lot of jobs promoted in alternative energy sources (as well as human services) through americorp and jobscorp til the GOP started shitting on that... my bro got a job working on solar energy project through jobcorp
I mean they are almost like the work camps during the depression... however they are having a rough time giving them a go because ... yah know, hate to say it again and again ... same ol' ...pressure from... yah know... big oil... ugh.
Until then, a lot of you are simply cutting and pasting your opinions from green blogs.
Cutting and pasting? Like in pre-school? Did it ever occur to you that some of us actually educate ourselves on this matter?
I dont see why opinions cannot agree with other peoples opinions? What is your point? I cant agree? Myriad of people cant agree? Whats wrong with collective agreement? Besides, most articles of journalism are slighted to writer's opinions joined together by strict fact and research. Whether its kitchen counter mom blogging or WSJ. Cut or paste and commenting on it doesnt mean you dont have an original thought, it may coincide with your own conclusion. I think that it was very rude of you.
you got to be fucking kidding me... go take college courses then we can talk about this ....
I just read that...
I graduated magna cum laude from the University of Hard Knocks. I dont need to be a scientist to see shit is happening to the planet, Ive based my hypothesis on observation alone. I may not have written in journals, applied a scientific model to it, but however, I have an acute innate sense as a living breathing global community member birthed from the dirt and in touch with nature and my surroundings enough to say some real big shit is happening and it has to be fixed.
I graduated magna cum laude from the University of Hard Knocks. I dont need to be a scientist to see shit is happening to the planet, Ive based my hypothesis on observation alone. I may not have written in journals, applied a scientific model to it, but however, I have an acute innate sense as a living breathing global community member birthed from the dirt and in touch with nature and my surroundings enough to say some real big shit is happening and it has to be fixed.
you got to be fucking kidding me... go take college courses then we can talk about this ....
I just read that...
I graduated magna cum laude from the University of Hard Knocks. I dont need to be a scientist to see shit is happening to the planet, Ive based my hypothesis on observation alone. I may not have written in journals, applied a scientific model to it, but however, I have an acute innate sense as a living breathing global community member birthed from the dirt and in touch with nature and my surroundings enough to say some real big shit is happening and it has to be fixed.
Reminds me of something Edward Abbey wrote- I can't find the quote right now (all those damn books ) but he basically said reading and fact finding is good, getting educated is good (he taught a few college courses himself) but if you really want to learn, live... and go outside and look around, use your sense. It's all there to see.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
right, I went to school for .... I got out of school actually had no clue what the hell I was doing until I hands on experience doing and experiencing it. Now I do things better than what I was taught.... anyway...
My mom and dad always had a saying.... "Well thats all fine in theory, however..."
Until then, a lot of you are simply cutting and pasting your opinions from green blogs.
Cutting and pasting? Like in pre-school? Did it ever occur to you that some of us actually educate ourselves on this matter?
Yes, cutting and pasting "thoughts"... in a way, it's worse than pre-school. Atleast in pre-school you can ask questions and it's encouraged to think outside the box. Instead, this involves no questioning (or critical-thinking) whatsoever; so in that sense, it's worse. It's an unwavering/unquestioning belief in a theory backed by liberal blogs and a set of academics who's career (and in some cases grant money) is based upon this concept. It's an unquestioning belief in statistics and models generated by one side of the argument. It's the equivalent of a person coming on here and claiming to know everything about an issue because they read a bunch of articles on Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh . Neither party knows how the data is produced, or the models from which they come.
To me, both sides there... are not scientific.
I've said all along the whole concept of people such as yourself claiming they are educated on the issue (and claiming anyone who disagrees is not), yet potentially have a limited grasp of statistics and modeling, is scary (especially when the other party can show they do). I'm not saying anymore than it would help to be able to conceptualize every single piece of these models and the statistical matters, so you'd really understand how believable these statistics really are.
I've said all along, I don't know the answer to man-made global warming. I just don't go around acting like I know one way or the other, I'm questioning the entire thing and will continue to do so. That's what science is built on.
Until then, a lot of you are simply cutting and pasting your opinions from green blogs.
Cutting and pasting? Like in pre-school? Did it ever occur to you that some of us actually educate ourselves on this matter?
Yes, cutting and pasting "thoughts"... in a way, it's worse than pre-school. Atleast in pre-school you can ask questions and it's encouraged to think outside the box. Instead, this involves no questioning (or critical-thinking) whatsoever; so in that sense, it's worse. It's an unwavering/unquestioning belief in a theory backed by liberal blogs and a set of academics who's career (and in some cases grant money) is based upon this concept. It's an unquestioning belief in statistics and models generated by one side of the argument. It's the equivalent of a person coming on here and claiming to know everything about an issue because they read a bunch of articles on Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh . Neither party knows how the data is produced, or the models from which they come.
To me, both sides there... are not scientific.
I've said all along the whole concept of people such as yourself claiming they are educated on the issue (and claiming anyone who disagrees is not), yet potentially have a limited grasp of statistics and modeling, is scary (especially when the other party can show they do). I'm not saying anymore than it would help to be able to conceptualize every single piece of these models and the statistical matters, so you'd really understand how believable these statistics really are.
I've said all along, I don't know the answer to man-made global warming. I just don't go around acting like I know one way or the other, I'm questioning the entire thing and will continue to do so. That's what science is built on.
Question everything. Hell yes. Don't believe in anthropogenic global warming? That's your right too. But I never made any personal statements about anyone's intelligence on this thread and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I don't use critical thinking or have an "unwavering/unquestioning belief" on any subject. You've chosen to make this issue personal. I'm not going there. I'm done here.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Looking back on this life. There may be more wrongs than rights. But, when I tried to get away. I did not go the wrong way.
And the flames burned, burn all night. Though my way turned, turned out alright.
I still know I left you behind...
In the Fire. In the Fire.
As the pictures they burn. Memories begin to turn. Time makes wounds feel better. That's not the way they were.
And the flames burned, burn all night. Though my way turned, turned out alright.
I still know I left you behind...
In the Fire. In the Fire.
In the Fire. In the Fire.
Sometimes the only way out is through the fire.
Got to reach down to go higher.
This is your choice, it's your desire.
To stay in,... the fire.
The fire.
The fire.
The fire.
The fire
Looking back on this life. There may be more wrongs than rights. But, when I tried to get away. I did not go the wrong way.
And the flames burned, burn all night. Though my way turned, turned out alright.
I still know I left you behind...
In the Fire. In the Fire.
As the pictures they burn. Memories begin to turn. Time makes wounds feel better. That's not the way they were.
And the flames burned, burn all night. Though my way turned, turned out alright.
I still know I left you behind...
In the Fire. In the Fire.
In the Fire. In the Fire.
Sometimes the only way out is through the fire.
Got to reach down to go higher.
This is your choice, it's your desire.
To stay in,... the fire.
The fire.
The fire.
The fire.
The fire
Question everything. Hell yes. Don't believe in anthropogenic global warming? That's your right too. But I never made any personal statements about anyone's intelligence on this thread and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I don't use critical thinking or have an "unwavering/unquestioning belief" on any subject. You've chosen to make this issue personal. I'm not going there. I'm done here.
Ok. Fair enough.
My point was the - "educate yourself" comments you (and to be fair typically polaris make in threads on GW) are typically directed at anyone who semi-disagrees or raises a red flag on AGW. These comments come off as if the person making them (a AGW supporter) knows more. That is personal right there. My comments, may not have been perfectly laid out, but were a response to those sort of comments. I tried to make that clear when I wrote them by saying "educate yourself comments" (or something like that).
I get it. This an issue you feel passionate about. I understand that and respect that. That said, I do think there's a chance your opinion may be off. That's all.
As for the personal aspect, I don't see how I've made anything more personal than others (perhaps even yourself) have. I respect your input. I don't think you're a dummy. But, I also don't think you're opinion is any more valid than any others, regardless of the amount of liberal blogs you read.... or the amount of Fox New articles they read. As I said before, neither of them, in my opinion, really count as one being more educated.
Question everything. Hell yes. Don't believe in anthropogenic global warming? That's your right too. But I never made any personal statements about anyone's intelligence on this thread and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I don't use critical thinking or have an "unwavering/unquestioning belief" on any subject. You've chosen to make this issue personal. I'm not going there. I'm done here.
Ok. Fair enough.
My point was the - "educate yourself" comments you (and to be fair typically polaris make in threads on GW) are typically directed at anyone who semi-disagrees or raises a red flag on AGW. These comments come off as if the person making them (a AGW supporter) knows more. That is personal right there. My comments, may not have been perfectly laid out, but were a response to those sort of comments. I tried to make that clear when I wrote them by saying "educate yourself comments" (or something like that).
I get it. This an issue you feel passionate about. I understand that and respect that. That said, I do think there's a chance your opinion may be off. That's all.
As for the personal aspect, I don't see how I've made anything more personal than others (perhaps even yourself) have. I respect your input. I don't think you're a dummy. But, I also don't think you're opinion is any more valid than any others, regardless of the amount of liberal blogs you read.... or the amount of Fox New articles they read. As I said before, neither of them, in my opinion, really count as one being more educated.
nice try at saving face
You didnt not say that last post. You made comments in a manner condescending derogatory and self righteous. About taking the college course for all we know Brian could be a a leading Climatologist at University of CA-Berkley. ..
To me by your last paragraph whose opinion do you value or respect ? He doesnt have a valid opinion but you respect his imput? You are something else. Isnt his imput equal to his opinion?. Double talk bs. Im sorry kinda skirted around the issue and said absolutely nothing by contradicting yourself.
Question everything. Hell yes. Don't believe in anthropogenic global warming? That's your right too. But I never made any personal statements about anyone's intelligence on this thread and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I don't use critical thinking or have an "unwavering/unquestioning belief" on any subject. You've chosen to make this issue personal. I'm not going there. I'm done here.
Ok. Fair enough.
My point was the - "educate yourself" comments you (and to be fair typically polaris make in threads on GW) are typically directed at anyone who semi-disagrees or raises a red flag on AGW. These comments come off as if the person making them (a AGW supporter) knows more. That is personal right there. My comments, may not have been perfectly laid out, but were a response to those sort of comments. I tried to make that clear when I wrote them by saying "educate yourself comments" (or something like that).
I get it. This an issue you feel passionate about. I understand that and respect that. That said, I do think there's a chance your opinion may be off. That's all.
As for the personal aspect, I don't see how I've made anything more personal than others (perhaps even yourself) have. I respect your input. I don't think you're a dummy. But, I also don't think you're opinion is any more valid than any others, regardless of the amount of liberal blogs you read.... or the amount of Fox New articles they read. As I said before, neither of them, in my opinion, really count as one being more educated.
nice try at saving face
You didnt not say that last post. You made comments in a manner condescending derogatory and self righteous. About taking the college course for all we know Brian could be a a leading Climatologist at University of CA-Berkley. ..
To me by your last paragraph whose opinion do you value or respect ? He doesnt have a valid opinion but you respect his imput? You are something else. Isnt his imput equal to his opinion?. Double talk bs. Im sorry kinda skirted around the issue and said absolutely nothing by contradicting yourself.
I'm not trying to "save face". I'm trying to be cordial.
As for what I've said, read the thread with an open mind and you'll see I've been much more cordial (and less condescending) throughout then those who disagree with me. I never brought up education until after others had several times. Further, if anyone here was a leading climatologist, they would agree that statistics is as important as I've said here. After all, its' how you try to prove all this stuff. As I've mentioned, anyone who claims to be educated in this material, but is uneducated in statistics does not really know what they are talking about because they are simply assuming all the statistics they read are accurate. That's a huge, huge (and most likely wrong on either side of the debate) assumption.
As for your last point - the word is "input", not "imput". I wouldn't have picked on you about spelling had you not done it twice in one paragraph. Everyone makes mistakes. Anyway, on to your point... I never contradicted myself at all. I've said all along that people who are completely convinced about Global Warming, are entitled to their opinion. Everyone is. But, I can also have the opinion that those who have absolutely no doubt in AGW are no different than those who come to the table with Fox News articles in their hand saying they know with certainty that Global Warming does not exist. To me, both aren't coming to the table with all the information needed to really know with certainty.
i know it's his thread ... but really - y'all should ignore him ... he complains that we/I are attacking him by asking him to educate himself when the truth is he still hasn't bothered to learn what global warming is ... then he accuses us of just copying and pasting blogs ... haha ... that is the most absurd thing ever ... apparently, only opponents of AGW are allowed to copy and paste links to fraud blogs ... meanwhile, i post a link from a meterological weather office and he just ignores it because he thinks it's a blog ... he wants US to read his bs but he won't bother to read ours ... it's totally disingenuous ... we read his shit and post rebuttals but he won't take the time to read ours ... sad ...
i know it's his thread ... but really - y'all should ignore him ... he complains that we/I are attacking him by asking him to educate himself when the truth is he still hasn't bothered to learn what global warming is ... then he accuses us of just copying and pasting blogs ... haha ... that is the most absurd thing ever ... apparently, only opponents of AGW are allowed to copy and paste links to fraud blogs ... meanwhile, i post a link from a meterological weather office and he just ignores it because he thinks it's a blog ... he wants US to read his bs but he won't bother to read ours ... it's totally disingenuous ... we read his shit and post rebuttals but he won't take the time to read ours ... sad ...
And here's a perfect example of what I was saying. According to this poster, no will ever know what global warming is until they agree with him.
And here's a perfect example of what I was saying. According to this poster, no will ever know what global warming is until they agree with him.
it's not about agreeing with me ... just read this thread ... you've shown literally no understanding of the topic whatsoever ... you actually posted a link from some hack who said the earth has been cooling over the last decade ... that is proof you don't know what you are talking about ...
if you do know what it is ... demonstrate it to me by articulating a response to the myriad of opposing viewpoints you've found in this thread ...
is CO2 not a greenhouse gas? ... is the greenhouse effect bogus? ...
i know it's his thread ... but really - y'all should ignore him ... he complains that we/I are attacking him by asking him to educate himself when the truth is he still hasn't bothered to learn what global warming is ... then he accuses us of just copying and pasting blogs ... haha ... that is the most absurd thing ever ... apparently, only opponents of AGW are allowed to copy and paste links to fraud blogs ... meanwhile, i post a link from a meterological weather office and he just ignores it because he thinks it's a blog ... he wants US to read his bs but he won't bother to read ours ... it's totally disingenuous ... we read his shit and post rebuttals but he won't take the time to read ours ... sad ...
Calling it global warming is misleading I think...would it not be better to standardize the term to climate change. I remember back to the winter of 2010/2011 and it was a snowy/cold winter I heard a lot of people saying "where's global warming or so much for global warming"... I just wonder if the term climate change was used and people were shown that the weather is being very unpredictable if there would be less of a debate. This winter around here is the second warmest on record and I've only shoveled my drive once...we go from extreme to another in 1 year and all the meteorologist were wrong.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Calling it global warming is misleading I think...would it not be better to standardize the term to climate change. I remember back to the winter of 2010/2011 and it was a snowy/cold winter I heard a lot of people saying "where's global warming or so much for global warming"... I just wonder if the term climate change was used and people were shown that the weather is being very unpredictable if there would be less of a debate. This winter around here is the second warmest on record and I've only shoveled my drive once...we go from extreme to another in 1 year and all the meteorologist were wrong.
no ... global warming is the correct terminology ... climate change is an effect of global warming ... global warming is the primary problem ... the results of global warming include climate change, rising sea levels, diminishing sea ice, population disruption, etc ...
all these effects including extreme weather events including cold spells is the result of the artificial warming of the planet ...
Calling it global warming is misleading I think...would it not be better to standardize the term to climate change. I remember back to the winter of 2010/2011 and it was a snowy/cold winter I heard a lot of people saying "where's global warming or so much for global warming"... I just wonder if the term climate change was used and people were shown that the weather is being very unpredictable if there would be less of a debate. This winter around here is the second warmest on record and I've only shoveled my drive once...we go from extreme to another in 1 year and all the meteorologist were wrong.
no ... global warming is the correct terminology ... climate change is an effect of global warming ... global warming is the primary problem ... the results of global warming include climate change, rising sea levels, diminishing sea ice, population disruption, etc ...
all these effects including extreme weather events including cold spells is the result of the artificial warming of the planet ...
thanks for clearing that up for me...then just from my observations there is a lot of work/education ahead to convince people.
Do you think that global warming science classes should be mandated as part of the school curriculum? Starting in elementary school and expanding in high school, not just the token section of science class but maybe a whole credit/course. Seems to me that if people are educated on the subject at an earlier age then maybe going forward could be better for society.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
thanks for clearing that up for me...then just from my observations there is a lot of work/education ahead to convince people.
Do you think that global warming science classes should be mandated as part of the school curriculum? Starting in elementary school and expanding in high school, not just the token section of science class but maybe a whole credit/course. Seems to me that if people are educated on the subject at an earlier age then maybe going forward could be better for society.
i would say that it does not require a full credit course primarily because it would be very difficult to create one ... the basic science surrounding global warming could be taught in one or two classes ... the issue is - what is going to be the result? ... models can only speculate on so much when it involves so many moving parts ... we know that we will experience climate change, more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, etc ... but to what extent? ... that's the hard part ...
having said that - you are right, education is the key ... but unfortunately, there is a lot of money being spent making sure people are misinformed ... and sadly, money controls a lot these days ...
thanks for clearing that up for me...then just from my observations there is a lot of work/education ahead to convince people.
Do you think that global warming science classes should be mandated as part of the school curriculum? Starting in elementary school and expanding in high school, not just the token section of science class but maybe a whole credit/course. Seems to me that if people are educated on the subject at an earlier age then maybe going forward could be better for society.
i would say that it does not require a full credit course primarily because it would be very difficult to create one ... the basic science surrounding global warming could be taught in one or two classes ... the issue is - what is going to be the result? ... models can only speculate on so much when it involves so many moving parts ... we know that we will experience climate change, more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, etc ... but to what extent? ... that's the hard part ...
having said that - you are right, education is the key ... but unfortunately, there is a lot of money being spent making sure people are misinformed ... and sadly, money controls a lot these days ...
Lets mandate Captian Planet viewings, that would help all the kiddies understand beter. :roll:
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
And here's a perfect example of what I was saying. According to this poster, no will ever know what global warming is until they agree with him.
it's not about agreeing with me ... just read this thread ... you've shown literally no understanding of the topic whatsoever ... you actually posted a link from some hack who said the earth has been cooling over the last decade ... that is proof you don't know what you are talking about ...
if you do know what it is ... demonstrate it to me by articulating a response to the myriad of opposing viewpoints you've found in this thread ...
is CO2 not a greenhouse gas? ... is the greenhouse effect bogus? ...
I've already answered these question on page five of the thread and asked you questions in response that you did not answer. But to reiterate, I said I don't know for certain. I know you want a yes or no answer, but I think "I don't know" is actually the most sound answer one could provide on this issue.
Let me elaborate - CO2 may be classified as a greenhouse gas (although some may disagree). But, wouldn't you not say that if CO2 was a greenhouse gas, it would need to precede temperature rises? This is one area where statistics comes in, proving that. In my humble opinion, even if it is a greenhouse gas, it may not be the most important factor (or even a statistically significant factor) in AGW.
On the greenhouse effect - once again, I think the answer is largely difficult to prove. I'd side with I'm skeptical. If warming does exist, it may not be due to Co2... it could be due to solar activity or a number of other issues (cloud movement, heat from the ocean may also play a part). After all, CO2 is a relatively small part of the atmosphere. Like I asked before, questions need to be answered such as: do other planets follow our cooling/heating? What's their measure of CO2?
This is where statistics comes in. Hence, why I've explained over and over that one needs to understand statistics and modeling in order to have a real understanding of this issue. This is not as cut and dry as you want it to be... it's not simply you believe or you don't believe... especially, if we're talking science.
It's testing theory with statistics. Those tests and the data associated can have major flaws rendering results useless. This is particularly true when there's reason for a political bias associated with the cause.
Comments
this just came down on the feed, maybe you'll get a chuckle its from Grist.
Cutting and pasting? Like in pre-school? Did it ever occur to you that some of us actually educate ourselves on this matter?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Thanks- needed that right about now. Ef-it. It's Friday, I'm off to the lounge!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Another interesting article was keystone opponents need job program...
I would like to state that there were an awful lot of jobs promoted in alternative energy sources (as well as human services) through americorp and jobscorp til the GOP started shitting on that... my bro got a job working on solar energy project through jobcorp
I mean they are almost like the work camps during the depression... however they are having a rough time giving them a go because ... yah know, hate to say it again and again ... same ol' ...pressure from... yah know... big oil... ugh.
I just read that...
I graduated magna cum laude from the University of Hard Knocks. I dont need to be a scientist to see shit is happening to the planet, Ive based my hypothesis on observation alone. I may not have written in journals, applied a scientific model to it, but however, I have an acute innate sense as a living breathing global community member birthed from the dirt and in touch with nature and my surroundings enough to say some real big shit is happening and it has to be fixed.
Reminds me of something Edward Abbey wrote- I can't find the quote right now (all those damn books
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
My mom and dad always had a saying.... "Well thats all fine in theory, however..."
Yes, cutting and pasting "thoughts"... in a way, it's worse than pre-school. Atleast in pre-school you can ask questions and it's encouraged to think outside the box. Instead, this involves no questioning (or critical-thinking) whatsoever; so in that sense, it's worse. It's an unwavering/unquestioning belief in a theory backed by liberal blogs and a set of academics who's career (and in some cases grant money) is based upon this concept. It's an unquestioning belief in statistics and models generated by one side of the argument. It's the equivalent of a person coming on here and claiming to know everything about an issue because they read a bunch of articles on Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh . Neither party knows how the data is produced, or the models from which they come.
To me, both sides there... are not scientific.
I've said all along the whole concept of people such as yourself claiming they are educated on the issue (and claiming anyone who disagrees is not), yet potentially have a limited grasp of statistics and modeling, is scary (especially when the other party can show they do). I'm not saying anymore than it would help to be able to conceptualize every single piece of these models and the statistical matters, so you'd really understand how believable these statistics really are.
I've said all along, I don't know the answer to man-made global warming. I just don't go around acting like I know one way or the other, I'm questioning the entire thing and will continue to do so. That's what science is built on.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Looking back on this life. There may be more wrongs than rights. But, when I tried to get away. I did not go the wrong way.
And the flames burned, burn all night. Though my way turned, turned out alright.
I still know I left you behind...
In the Fire. In the Fire.
As the pictures they burn. Memories begin to turn. Time makes wounds feel better. That's not the way they were.
And the flames burned, burn all night. Though my way turned, turned out alright.
I still know I left you behind...
In the Fire. In the Fire.
In the Fire. In the Fire.
Sometimes the only way out is through the fire.
Got to reach down to go higher.
This is your choice, it's your desire.
To stay in,... the fire.
The fire.
The fire.
The fire.
The fire
Ha ha. You have issues, man. ha ha.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Ok. Fair enough.
My point was the - "educate yourself" comments you (and to be fair typically polaris make in threads on GW) are typically directed at anyone who semi-disagrees or raises a red flag on AGW. These comments come off as if the person making them (a AGW supporter) knows more. That is personal right there. My comments, may not have been perfectly laid out, but were a response to those sort of comments. I tried to make that clear when I wrote them by saying "educate yourself comments" (or something like that).
I get it. This an issue you feel passionate about. I understand that and respect that. That said, I do think there's a chance your opinion may be off. That's all.
As for the personal aspect, I don't see how I've made anything more personal than others (perhaps even yourself) have. I respect your input. I don't think you're a dummy. But, I also don't think you're opinion is any more valid than any others, regardless of the amount of liberal blogs you read.... or the amount of Fox New articles they read. As I said before, neither of them, in my opinion, really count as one being more educated.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
nice try at saving face
You didnt not say that last post. You made comments in a manner condescending derogatory and self righteous. About taking the college course for all we know Brian could be a a leading Climatologist at University of CA-Berkley.
To me by your last paragraph whose opinion do you value or respect ? He doesnt have a valid opinion but you respect his imput? You are something else. Isnt his imput equal to his opinion?. Double talk bs. Im sorry kinda skirted around the issue and said absolutely nothing by contradicting yourself.
I'm not trying to "save face". I'm trying to be cordial.
As for what I've said, read the thread with an open mind and you'll see I've been much more cordial (and less condescending) throughout then those who disagree with me. I never brought up education until after others had several times. Further, if anyone here was a leading climatologist, they would agree that statistics is as important as I've said here. After all, its' how you try to prove all this stuff. As I've mentioned, anyone who claims to be educated in this material, but is uneducated in statistics does not really know what they are talking about because they are simply assuming all the statistics they read are accurate. That's a huge, huge (and most likely wrong on either side of the debate) assumption.
As for your last point - the word is "input", not "imput". I wouldn't have picked on you about spelling had you not done it twice in one paragraph. Everyone makes mistakes. Anyway, on to your point... I never contradicted myself at all. I've said all along that people who are completely convinced about Global Warming, are entitled to their opinion. Everyone is. But, I can also have the opinion that those who have absolutely no doubt in AGW are no different than those who come to the table with Fox News articles in their hand saying they know with certainty that Global Warming does not exist. To me, both aren't coming to the table with all the information needed to really know with certainty.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
And here's a perfect example of what I was saying. According to this poster, no will ever know what global warming is until they agree with him.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
it's not about agreeing with me ... just read this thread ... you've shown literally no understanding of the topic whatsoever ... you actually posted a link from some hack who said the earth has been cooling over the last decade ... that is proof you don't know what you are talking about ...
if you do know what it is ... demonstrate it to me by articulating a response to the myriad of opposing viewpoints you've found in this thread ...
is CO2 not a greenhouse gas? ... is the greenhouse effect bogus? ...
Calling it global warming is misleading I think...would it not be better to standardize the term to climate change. I remember back to the winter of 2010/2011 and it was a snowy/cold winter I heard a lot of people saying "where's global warming or so much for global warming"... I just wonder if the term climate change was used and people were shown that the weather is being very unpredictable if there would be less of a debate. This winter around here is the second warmest on record and I've only shoveled my drive once...we go from extreme to another in 1 year and all the meteorologist were wrong.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
no ... global warming is the correct terminology ... climate change is an effect of global warming ... global warming is the primary problem ... the results of global warming include climate change, rising sea levels, diminishing sea ice, population disruption, etc ...
all these effects including extreme weather events including cold spells is the result of the artificial warming of the planet ...
thanks for clearing that up for me...then just from my observations there is a lot of work/education ahead to convince people.
Do you think that global warming science classes should be mandated as part of the school curriculum? Starting in elementary school and expanding in high school, not just the token section of science class but maybe a whole credit/course. Seems to me that if people are educated on the subject at an earlier age then maybe going forward could be better for society.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
i would say that it does not require a full credit course primarily because it would be very difficult to create one ... the basic science surrounding global warming could be taught in one or two classes ... the issue is - what is going to be the result? ... models can only speculate on so much when it involves so many moving parts ... we know that we will experience climate change, more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, etc ... but to what extent? ... that's the hard part ...
having said that - you are right, education is the key ... but unfortunately, there is a lot of money being spent making sure people are misinformed ... and sadly, money controls a lot these days ...
Lets mandate Captian Planet viewings, that would help all the kiddies understand beter. :roll:
— Socrates
I've already answered these question on page five of the thread and asked you questions in response that you did not answer. But to reiterate, I said I don't know for certain. I know you want a yes or no answer, but I think "I don't know" is actually the most sound answer one could provide on this issue.
Let me elaborate - CO2 may be classified as a greenhouse gas (although some may disagree). But, wouldn't you not say that if CO2 was a greenhouse gas, it would need to precede temperature rises? This is one area where statistics comes in, proving that. In my humble opinion, even if it is a greenhouse gas, it may not be the most important factor (or even a statistically significant factor) in AGW.
On the greenhouse effect - once again, I think the answer is largely difficult to prove. I'd side with I'm skeptical. If warming does exist, it may not be due to Co2... it could be due to solar activity or a number of other issues (cloud movement, heat from the ocean may also play a part). After all, CO2 is a relatively small part of the atmosphere. Like I asked before, questions need to be answered such as: do other planets follow our cooling/heating? What's their measure of CO2?
This is where statistics comes in. Hence, why I've explained over and over that one needs to understand statistics and modeling in order to have a real understanding of this issue. This is not as cut and dry as you want it to be... it's not simply you believe or you don't believe... especially, if we're talking science.
It's testing theory with statistics. Those tests and the data associated can have major flaws rendering results useless. This is particularly true when there's reason for a political bias associated with the cause.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Polar caps are melting per Nasa.... naw no need to panic
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... stest-pace
Im not concerned about global warming... Id rather just red herring argue about flawed science models, phoney baloney scientist....instead
good grief
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"