Ok stop disputing (man's effect on) climate change

124678

Comments

  • mca47
    mca47 Posts: 13,337
    know1 wrote:
    Since you're "in the field" why don't you explain how the data that they have ISN'T just a fraction of the possible data since the earth began.


    What's amazing about studying the earth is the ability to understand it without having to read it from someone who lived here before us. That may seem like a bizaar concept to some, but it is in fact true.
    I would highly recommend you refining your knowledge on the following topics:
    - Bio-diversity
    - Geology
    - Paleontology
    - Evolution
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Obi Once wrote:
    They don't genius, or you know another earth like planet able to support life? They know how it was, how it changed and what changed it and we added the things that changed it.

    what are you doing?

    he is not worth the time ... he's been posting the same thing for the last few years and in all that time - he has yet to go and do any real reading on the subject ... save yourself the grief ... he ain't worth it ...

    the only thing he is interested in is carrying on a conservative agenda ... one that has everyone including bush jump off of ... he'll be left standing there with a few people at the front lines while everyone else hides ...
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    polaris wrote:
    what are you doing?

    he is not worth the time ... he's been posting the same thing for the last few years and in all that time - he has yet to go and do any real reading on the subject ... save yourself the grief ... he ain't worth it ...

    the only thing he is interested in is carrying on a conservative agenda ... one that has everyone including bush jump off of ... he'll be left standing there with a few people at the front lines while everyone else hides ...

    And you are showing your poor reading comprehension and understanding as well (which probably explains where your opinions come from). Just look back in this thread. I'm very much interested in and supportive of pollution reduction. I just do not believe the science of humans' impact on climate change.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    know1 wrote:
    And you are showing your poor reading comprehension and understanding as well (which probably explains where your opinions come from). Just look back in this thread. I'm very much interested in and supportive of pollution reduction. I just do not believe the science of humans' impact on climate change.

    dude ... this is a thread about climate change ... maybe you should check your reading comprehension ...
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    polaris wrote:
    dude ... this is a thread about climate change ... maybe you should check your reading comprehension ...

    Right, and that's what I oppose. But then when people who have trouble understanding simple concepts automatically assume that means you're not for pollution control, I have to point it out to them that it's two different things...like I did earlier in the thread.

    So, your little rant about me pushing the conservative agenda is entirely inaccurate.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    know1 wrote:
    Because it's junk science. It may very well be true, but there's just no way these scientist can be sure that it's true. So when they come out with these assertions based upon a miniscule observable timeframe when compared to the history of the earth it's ridiculous.

    And no, it's not a bad thing to slow the release of toxins, but then let's just call for that and leave this climate change stuff out of it.


    oh, thats right. you know more than the scientific community?

    give me a break. the overwhelming scientific information points to global warming, mostly due to the human species impact on the planet and atmosphere

    dont be afraid of science people
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    know1 wrote:
    I just do not believe the science of humans' impact on climate change.

    why not?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    know1 wrote:
    Right, and that's what I oppose. But then when people who have trouble understanding simple concepts automatically assume that means you're not for pollution control, I have to point it out to them that it's two different things...like I did earlier in the thread.

    So, your little rant about me pushing the conservative agenda is entirely inaccurate.

    again ... i'm talking about climate change ... i never once mentioned pollution ...

    maybe i should listen to my own advice
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    I had to leave the house of god
    Because the cross replaced the wheel
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    know1 wrote:
    I just do not believe the science of humans' impact on climate change.
    Maybe you should go read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn and see if you still beieve that. Or talk to Stone.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    polaris wrote:
    again ... i'm talking about climate change ... i never once mentioned pollution ...

    maybe i should listen to my own advice

    No - you said I was pushing the conservative agenda on this issue. And that's false.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    my2hands wrote:
    why not?

    Already said why. Go back and read if you like.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Obi Once
    Obi Once Posts: 918
    polaris wrote:
    what are you doing?

    he is not worth the time ... he's been posting the same thing for the last few years and in all that time - he has yet to go and do any real reading on the subject ... save yourself the grief ... he ain't worth it ...

    the only thing he is interested in is carrying on a conservative agenda ... one that has everyone including bush jump off of ... he'll be left standing there with a few people at the front lines while everyone else hides ...
    I started the thread I'll debate him, but if he wants a control group I propose he finds one and we'll compare the data. The retorical conservative routine is growing old. I betrust the search for knowledge to science, I think I can not seriously argue woth somehow who thinks there is truth in creationism. I respect his opinion yet think he doesnt know(1) he is wrong yet.
    your light's reflected now
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    Know1, do you accept the science behind the greenhouse effect?
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Man, I'm far from being a conservative, I think it's BS based on concordance charts of CO2 and global temperature.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • fanch75
    fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Scientists have enough training, education, intelligence and research to be able to take an analysis and make an objective prediction in their field. Same with anyone else with that much experience...In Their Field. If you are not in the scienctific field, you cannot logically dismiss their findings "just because" you don't agree with it.

    Ok, so do you dismiss the studies of scientists that say global warming (a warming trend that in of itself I think we're all in agreement is happening) is NOT the faul of man, but the result of a natural warming trend? Or that man is a small percentage of the cause, but not the predominant one?

    Your statement works both ways, not "just because" ;) you don't agree with it.

    Anyway, during the history of the earth, it has had climate changes, warming & cooling. Ice ages came & went. The last ice age was what, in the 1300's? It ended. The ice melted. I'm sure polar bears were tragically (I'm not being sarcastic) stranded on isolated shrinking islands of ice. There was no industrialization. What caused that that warming trend?

    Nature did. There are folks, scientists, who believe this as well for the current climate shift.

    For those cynical, I don't have an agenda here, the earth is either materially warming due to man or it isn't. If it is, then something needs to be done. If not, then no. Truth is what matters, not politics/agenda.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    fanch75 wrote:
    Ok, so do you dismiss the studies of scientists that say global warming (a warming trend that in of itself I think we're all in agreement is happening) is NOT the faul of man, but the result of a natural warming trend? Or that man is a small percentage of the cause, but not the predominant one?

    Your statement works both ways, not "just because" ;) you don't agree with it.

    Anyway, during the history of the earth, it has had climate changes, warming & cooling. Ice ages came & went. The last ice age was what, in the 1300's? It ended. The ice melted. I'm sure polar bears were tragically (I'm not being sarcastic) stranded on isolated shrinking islands of ice. There was no industrialization. What caused that that warming trend?

    Nature did. There are folks, scientists, who believe this as well for the current climate shift.

    For those cynical, I don't have an agenda here, the earth is either materially warming due to man or it isn't. If it is, then something needs to be done. If not, then no. Truth is what matters, not politics/agenda.
    The fact is that there are very, very, very few scientists who dismiss climate change and its relationship to human activity. There is no real debate. I'm not saying that there are zero skeptics in the scientific community, but there is such a small percentage that we can say that the debate is over. Similarly, you will find tiny fraction of scientists who dismiss evolution, however the debate in science is largely over in that forum as well. The problem is that the media tries to find some amount of balance when covering these subjects. So, although 95+% of scientists concede that humans are to blame, the other small percentage will be over represented in the media in order to create "balance".

    No one here disputes that there has been climatic changes in the past w/o the help of humans, but never has it been this abrupt of a shift. Also, unlike in previous instances there has not been such a dramatic change in atmospheric composition due to a pollutant. (Yes, I know CO2 is natural, but it can be classified as a pollutant if there is an overabundance of it where it becomes damaging).

    Do you accept the science behind the greehouse effect?
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    sourdough wrote:
    The fact is that there are very, very, very few scientists who dismiss climate change and its relationship to human activity. There is no real debate. I'm not saying that there are zero skeptics in the scientific community, but there is such a small percentage that we can say that the debate is over. Similarly, you will find tiny fraction of scientists who dismiss evolution, however the debate in science is largely over in that forum as well. The problem is that the media tries to find some amount of balance when covering these subjects. So, although 95+% of scientists concede that humans are to blame, the other small percentage will be over represented in the media in order to create "balance".

    No one here disputes that there has been climatic changes in the past w/o the help of humans, but never has it been this abrupt of a shift. Also, unlike in previous instances there has not been such a dramatic change in atmospheric composition due to a pollutant. (Yes, I know CO2 is natural, but it can be classified as a pollutant if there is an overabundance of it where it becomes damaging).

    Do you accept the science behind the greehouse effect?

    Even if there's never been this abrupt of a shift, they have NOTHING to compare it against. It's not like an experiment where you add humans to the beaker and leave the other beaker alone and see what happens.

    This abrupt shift is just replacing the last abrupt shift. At the time the last one happened, it was abnormal.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    sourdough wrote:
    Know1, do you accept the science behind the greenhouse effect?

    Good question. I'm not sure I understand enough of it to offer an opinion.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Smellyman2
    Smellyman2 Posts: 689
    "If humans came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around?"

    oops wrong thread.

    Science is for people who like facts and evidence.

    I like imaginary worlds. A world like Miller's

Categories