i am stating opinion i believe to be fact. i should not have to complie years of research and post that on a message board where opinions are presented. i would have to publish a book. HOWEVER; why does my model recognise and take into consideration the displacement of weight by the meltwater on the earths crust? why does my model take into consideration all the pollution in that ice; which includes massive amounts of CO2 from the extinction 55 million years ago and massive amounts of methane and CO2 from the extinction 65 million years ago. both of which were caused by global warming? it also includes large quantities of lead from the invention of the internal combustion engine until leaded fuel was banned? there has not been 1 publication anywhere which mentions these two factors and i challenge you to find one.
my uncle and Godfather is a retired government scientist. his wife is still a government scientist but will be retiring in a year or two. i'm privy to information and software not released to the public. i follow nasa's findings and the results of expeditions published in science journals most people here don't subscribe to. i get these sent to me by my uncle. i will not pay the hundreds of dollars to subscribe and i doubt anyone else here would either. so once again; how is that confirmable? i certainly wont breach copyright laws to retype the articles here just to have someone like you say i made it up because you won't pay the subscription price to verify it.
i post my opinions i believe to be fact. i can discuss the subject intelligetly with an intelligent person. if you don't believe my opinions; fine; most scientists can't agree. but intelligent people don't make childish attacks on others. einstien presented many theories that couldn't be proven. many were proven later on. but i don't recall him being attacked in a childish way by those who couldn't understand his theories. yes; he was challenged; but not in a childish attack as you presented.
i don't care if you believe me. i don't care if anyone believes me. if i liked people; i would live near people. i think losing 2/3 of the population is great for the earth. it'll cut pollution by 2/3 and those who die will be the biggest offenders. i think returning to hunter/gatherers is just what the earth needs to heal. and when our ice caps are gone; the oceans will no longer circulate; causing an ice age. these are my predictions. predictions don't need to be verified. they can't be. you either believe and prepare; or you don't believe and write them off as the rantings of a madman. but if you noticed; out of all the people on this board; you're the only one who's made childish personal attacks. most of us here respect eachothers opinions; whether we agree with them or not. maybe you should think about that.
...
Oh, quit being such a cry baby.
I just asked for some sort of proof of your claims of 'Your Model'... which I don't believe exists. I don't believe you even HAVE a model. You have opinions that you have probably come to after watching The Discovery Channel and the Oh! Network... but, that is not a scientific model. Then, you claim to have already posted it... In Your Own words:
"i've posted my results and predicted the ice amount to be melted this year; last year. the scientists predicted that ice to melt by 2050. i was right".
... to which I asked for the link. And all of a sudden I'm making childish attacks? Questioning your claims are attacks? Why? Because they don't exist? Direct me to this evidence... put up the link and let me read your words from a year ago that predicted what is happening today.
...
Then, you claim that this is some sort of secret scientific journal that only scientists can see...
"i follow nasa's findings and the results of expeditions published in science journals most people here don't subscribe to. i get these sent to me by my uncle. i will not pay the hundreds of dollars to subscribe and i doubt anyone else here would either. so once again; how is that confirmable? i certainly wont breach copyright laws to retype the articles here just to have someone like you say i made it up because you won't pay the subscription price to verify it."
... but, didn't you just say,
"i've posted my results and predicted the ice amount to be melted this year; last year.."
Doesn't that mean you have ALREADY breached copyright laws???
Well, you know what... I don't want to break any copyright laws... so, GIVE ME THE NAME AND LOCATION TO SUBSCRIBE TO THESE SECRET SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AND I'LL PAY THE "HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS" FOR A SUBSCRIPTION. I work in the Military Industrial Complex for a Large Aerospace Corporation and can justify the subscription to my department. I work with Integrated Defense Systems, Satellite, Communications and Space systems... hell... we contract from NASA... we probably already HAVE these 'Secret Scientific' journals on site. Tell me where to subscribe and I will. Just give me the Edition, Volume and Number of the specific publication(s) so I can verify them. Or... just give me the name of the publication and I will check with company's publications library.
And if you are stating these publications as proof... they are NOT YOUR MODELS. They are findings and results of others who have gathered and analyzed and tested data... they are not yours.
...
Finally... these statements tell me a lot about you:
"i am stating opinion i believe to be fact."
... I don't believe... no... I KNOW my opinions are not FACTS, they are my opinions. Just as most people will agree to. Facts are FACTS and I'll base my opinions upon as many facts I can gather. But, that does not make my opinions facts.
and...
"if i liked people; i would live near people. i think losing 2/3 of the population is great for the earth."
... I would rather find some sort of means to educate 2/3s of the Earth's population to respect their planet and share in her abundance... than to have to deal with their 4.4 billion rotting human corpses to dispose of.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
That's great! We can all carry on polluting and destroying the environment then!
We should focus on pollution and killing off species more than global warming that is happening on every planet in this solar system. And hemp should be planted everywhere to replace toxic plastic. It is also better than cotton for clothes which uses pesticides where hemp doesn't. And hemp is better than cutting trees for paper which also require tons of chemicals. Al Gore and the like get no respect when they never mention hemp as being a great fuel, paper, food, clothing, or as a replacement for toxic, petrolium based plastic...
...
Oh, quit being such a cry baby.
I just asked for some sort of proof of your claims of 'Your Model'... which I don't believe exists. I don't believe you even HAVE a model. You have opinions that you have probably come to after watching The Discovery Channel and the Oh! Network... but, that is not a scientific model. Then, you claim to have already posted it... In Your Own words:
... to which I asked for the link. And all of a sudden I'm making childish attacks? Questioning your claims are attacks? Why? Because they don't exist? Direct me to this evidence... put up the link and let me read your words from a year ago that predicted what is happening today.
...
Then, you claim that this is some sort of secret scientific journal that only scientists can see...
... but, didn't you just say, Doesn't that mean you have ALREADY breached copyright laws???
Well, you know what... I don't want to break any copyright laws... so, GIVE ME THE NAME AND LOCATION TO SUBSCRIBE TO THESE SECRET SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AND I'LL PAY THE "HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS" FOR A SUBSCRIPTION. I work in the Military Industrial Complex for a Large Aerospace Corporation and can justify the subscription to my department. I work with Integrated Defense Systems, Satellite, Communications and Space systems... hell... we contract from NASA... we probably already HAVE these 'Secret Scientific' journals on site. Tell me where to subscribe and I will. Just give me the Edition, Volume and Number of the specific publication(s) so I can verify them. Or... just give me the name of the publication and I will check with company's publications library.
And if you are stating these publications as proof... they are NOT YOUR MODELS. They are findings and results of others who have gathered and analyzed and tested data... they are not yours.
...
Finally... these statements tell me a lot about you:
... I don't believe... no... I KNOW my opinions are not FACTS, they are my opinions. Just as most people will agree to. Facts are FACTS and I'll base my opinions upon as many facts I can gather. But, that does not make my opinions facts.
and...
... I would rather find some sort of means to educate 2/3s of the Earth's population to respect their planet and share in her abundance... than to have to deal with their 4.4 billion rotting human corpses to dispose of.
i'm allen's daughter and after reading the last 2 pages of this, i've never seen such a compilation of idiots. you ask about posting links. where's your links to other scientists climatological models? you won't find any unless you can get into their computers. just like you won't find my daddys model anywhere but his computers. i know he subscribes to AAAS. i'm at the hospital so i can't give you others. daddy was part of the first earth day which i believe was in the 1970s. so those 2/3 of the populous were being educated for at least 30 years. i think you have a serious problem and should seek help. from what i've read; you are making personal attacks. anyone who's had any debate class in high school knows the rules of debate. he has presented his opinion, now its your turn to prove him wrong. you do this by presenting evidence to the contrary. since you won't accept his written analasis; the only acceptable evidence would be another scientists model. not a written opinion because you've already dismissed that as evidence. so if this truely is reasoned debate as it says at the top, its still your move to present such evidence.
I don't believe in global warming, but I do believe there could be a heck of a lot more done to keep the world clean. It's a stinkin' garbage can right now.
Global warming is likely to be real, the question is what creates it? With every planet in the solar system getting warmer, could it be the sun burning hotter?
Agreed about the fact that it is not likely to be man made yet we should focus on cleaning up our environment, especially saving endangered species, planting hemp to replace petrolium based plastic, and cotton (which needs pesticide) and paper which kills trees, and uses a ton of chemicals where hemp need none.
i'm allen's daughter and after reading the last 2 pages of this, i've never seen such a compilation of idiots. you ask about posting links. where's your links to other scientists climatological models? you won't find any unless you can get into their computers. just like you won't find my daddys model anywhere but his computers. i know he subscribes to AAAS. i'm at the hospital so i can't give you others. daddy was part of the first earth day which i believe was in the 1970s. so those 2/3 of the populous were being educated for at least 30 years. i think you have a serious problem and should seek help. from what i've read; you are making personal attacks. anyone who's had any debate class in high school knows the rules of debate. he has presented his opinion, now its your turn to prove him wrong. you do this by presenting evidence to the contrary. since you won't accept his written analasis; the only acceptable evidence would be another scientists model. not a written opinion because you've already dismissed that as evidence. so if this truely is reasoned debate as it says at the top, its still your move to present such evidence.
...
Hello... nice to meet you.
Well, first off... I think you have it backwards. If you make a claim about something... you are supposed to provide facts to support your claim. It is not other people's responsibility to disprove your claims. Like, I can claim... I have a pride of wild lions living in my patio... it is not up to you to prove to me I don't... it is up to me to prove to you I DO. Therefore, I would have you come over and see me with my wild lions... or provide you with some sort of proof of the lions in my patio, right?
Also, you cannot "Prove an opinion wrong". It's like your trying to prove to me that apples taste better than oranges. Those are opinions. Opinions are not facts. Facts regarding this debate between apples and oranges would be oranges are citris fruit while apples are a pomaceous fruit, more closely related to the rose. Nothing to do with taste.
Next, he has not presented any written analysis... that's what I'm looking for. If he did, I'd be able to verify it and validate his findings. He previously stated that he had presented his model as a warning to us a long time ago. I missed it the first time around and would like to see it myself. And based upon the last 'Experiment' he conducted around here... I would be an idiot for accepting his claims without verification. His 'Scientific Method' in that case was... in the nicest terms... really, really terrible.
And as you have even stated yourself... the only acceptable evidence would be OTHER SCIENTIST'S MODELS... not his. Those are models those other scientists came up with, not him. Wouldn't that be like you reading 'Tom Sawyer' and re-telling it to me while claiming that story was yours?
Finally, As for rules of debate... remind me, what role do facts play in all of that? From what I can recall... facts play an important role in discovering which is true and which is not. I don't remember opinion carrying a lot of weight... for example, the statement, "In my opinion, the Earth is Flat" didn't hold up to well against the mountain of factual data that stated otherwise.
Sounds like you might need to retake that High School Debate Class again this Summer.
...
Now... as for AAAS.org... great. I am well aware of them... and their membership... not hundreds of dollars... about $100.00. If that is where his source resides, they have an extensive catalogue of articles online so this should be real easy. Simply tell me which of these titles I should read. I also have full access to our company's hardcopy technical library and we have their publications, probably dating back to about the mid-1940s. So, if the article is not listed online, then, simply direct me to the year of publication, the Volume Number and the title of the article. Very simple.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I'm with you on this one.
I know the weather is getting warmer... I do not deny that. But, I am not certain what the cause is. Greenhouse gases, hotter Sun, volcanoes...
However, I still believe in reducing our pollution because cleaner air and water is a good thing. This is a beautiful planet and we should be taking better care of it. If not for ourselves... then, how 'bout for the kids?
Plus... the big benefit... let's get away from fossil fuels so we don't have to deal with that Middle East bullshit.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Hello... nice to meet you.
Well, first off... I think you have it backwards. If you make a claim about something... you are supposed to provide facts to support your claim. It is not other people's responsibility to disprove your claims. Like, I can claim... I have a pride of wild lions living in my patio... it is not up to you to prove to me I don't... it is up to me to prove to you I DO. Therefore, I would have you come over and see me with my wild lions... or provide you with some sort of proof of the lions in my patio, right?
Also, you cannot "Prove an opinion wrong". It's like your trying to prove to me that apples taste better than oranges. Those are opinions. Opinions are not facts. Facts regarding this debate between apples and oranges would be oranges are citris fruit while apples are a pomaceous fruit, more closely related to the rose. Nothing to do with taste.
Next, he has not presented any written analysis... that's what I'm looking for. If he did, I'd be able to verify it and validate his findings. He previously stated that he had presented his model as a warning to us a long time ago. I missed it the first time around and would like to see it myself. And based upon the last 'Experiment' he conducted around here... I would be an idiot for accepting his claims without verification. His 'Scientific Method' in that case was... in the nicest terms... really, really terrible.
And as you have even stated yourself... the only acceptable evidence would be OTHER SCIENTIST'S MODELS... not his. Those are models those other scientists came up with, not him. Wouldn't that be like you reading 'Tom Sawyer' and re-telling it to me while claiming that story was yours?
Finally, As for rules of debate... remind me, what role do facts play in all of that? From what I can recall... facts play an important role in discovering which is true and which is not. I don't remember opinion carrying a lot of weight... for example, the statement, "In my opinion, the Earth is Flat" didn't hold up to well against the mountain of factual data that stated otherwise.
Sounds like you might need to retake that High School Debate Class again this Summer.
...
Now... as for AAAS.org... great. I am well aware of them... and their membership... not hundreds of dollars... about $100.00. If that is where his source resides, they have an extensive catalogue of articles online so this should be real easy. Simply tell me which of these titles I should read. I also have full access to our company's hardcopy technical library and we have their publications, probably dating back to about the mid-1940s. So, if the article is not listed online, then, simply direct me to the year of publication, the Volume Number and the title of the article. Very simple.
for someone who talks so much; you sure don't say anything. from what i've read; he's presented evidence in plain english. i think the most intelligent of the responses have been I DON'T BELIEVE YOU and left at that. if i give you my opinion you either believe it or you don't. if it's that important to you to prove me right or wrong; that's on you. daddy always told me not to waste my time explaining myself to insignificant piss ants. it gets you nowhere. i suppose if he were explaining this to congress or a scientific panel, it would be much different. einstein had no evidence to prove his E=MC2 theory. it was proven years later. after reading your responses, i wouldn't waste my time with you. i've seen your kind. unfortunately too much. instead of being a man and presenting evidence to prove him wrong, you moan and cry you need this and you need that; when it's clear you're not intelligent enough to find the information yourself. i think you should either show the people here a model proving him wrong; and open that to scrutiny; or stop talking. because until then, i don't think anyone is listening.
*michelle*
for someone who talks so much; you sure don't say anything. from what i've read; he's presented evidence in plain english. i think the most intelligent of the responses have been I DON'T BELIEVE YOU and left at that. if i give you my opinion you either believe it or you don't. if it's that important to you to prove me right or wrong; that's on you. daddy always told me not to waste my time explaining myself to insignificant piss ants. it gets you nowhere. i suppose if he were explaining this to congress or a scientific panel, it would be much different. einstein had no evidence to prove his E=MC2 theory. it was proven years later. after reading your responses, i wouldn't waste my time with you. i've seen your kind. unfortunately too much. instead of being a man and presenting evidence to prove him wrong, you moan and cry you need this and you need that; when it's clear you're not intelligent enough to find the information yourself. i think you should either show the people here a model proving him wrong; and open that to scrutiny; or stop talking. because until then, i don't think anyone is listening.
*michelle*
...
Uh... **AHEM**...*michelle*.
Boy... there's definately a family resemblance, ain't there? Uncanny.
...
Thank you for your time and explaining that neither you nor your father are able to provide any factual data to substantiate his any of the claims he makes other than, "I believe it" or "Because I already said it" to support it. The people here who base the truth upon the, "Because I say it is so" principle will agree with you and your Dad... those of us whom rely on silly things... such as facts, will know otherwise and take it with a ton of salt. Although, I STILL don't believe that those African lakes (the largest of which is almost the size of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron combined) have evaporated into mud puddles due to Global Warming, because contradictory facts point otherwise. But, if you want to believe that... well, then you go right ahead and believe that, Sweetheart. After all, my little niece believes that Santa delivered that Wii Station with the Pet Cats 2 game, just as she had asked for. Who am I to question her, right?
So, I guess in your world... debate comes down to who can come up with any made up story and back it up with anecdotal evidence, huh?
And I really think you all got short changed by that Debate Class teacher you had in High School... are you sure it wasn't just the Gym Coach pulling double duty?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Mine quit teaching about five or six years ago and is now a lawyer
i watched the presidential debates and i didn't see them producing links or documents. they spoke their opinions which they believe to be fact (true); and went on. the audience then decided who they believed. one would think that the presidential debates would be held to the highest standards concerning the rules of debate.
did your teacher require supporting documents during a debate? especially when debating a theory. a simple search of global warming will produce thousands of links both for and against. who do we believe? supporting documents can be produced for both sides of the argument. so where does that leave us? with opinions. back to square one.
I read that originally most scientists didnt believe that global warming was man made, so why should we believe them any more now? Im not saying that man doesnt play a part in global warming, i just find it funny how people even take the word of scientists to be fact all the time. Yes they are often very intelligent, far more intellligent than i, but can we really trust the words of these people who are talking about our planet, which essentially, is a big ball spinning around in some universe somewhere? I think scientists make out they know more than they think. One day the planet is 75000 years old, then, after a while and some recalculation, its 4.5 billion years old. They are making this shite up im telling you!!
Im sure there there is much a scientist can teach you, but how much can they possibly really know for absolutely sure about the planet and global warming when they are here on this planet like you and me, for nothing more than a dot of time in the grand scheme of things. Maybe im too sceptical but i just take whatever they say with a pinch of salt.
People say im paranoid. Well, they dont say it, but i know that's what they are thinking.
I read that originally most scientists didnt believe that global warming was man made, so why should we believe them any more now? Im not saying that man doesnt play a part in global warming, i just find it funny how people even take the word of scientists to be fact all the time. Yes they are often very intelligent, far more intellligent than i, but can we really trust the words of these people who are talking about our planet, which essentially, is a big ball spinning around in some universe somewhere? I think scientists make out they know more than they think. One day the planet is 75000 years old, then, after a while and some recalculation, its 4.5 billion years old. They are making this shite up im telling you!!
Im sure there there is much a scientist can teach you, but how much can they possibly really know for absolutely sure about the planet and global warming when they are here on this planet like you and me, for nothing more than a dot of time in the grand scheme of things. Maybe im too sceptical but i just take whatever they say with a pinch of salt.
I think you're too sceptical indeed. But I do agree that you shouldn't just accept whatever a scientist says.
As far as I know, scientist don't claim to know the truth about something. They research something and they publish their findings, anyone can review their work and point out possible mistakes. The scientist can then respond in a number of ways.
They're researchers, they work with facts... we've seen a technological revolution, so naturally that has made it possible to do somethings more accurately.
It's when politics and science mix that 'scientific' backwaters grow and pseudo-science becomes ubiquitous.
I think you're too sceptical indeed. But I do agree that you shouldn't just accept whatever a scientist says.
As far as I know, scientist don't claim to know the truth about something. They research something and they publish their findings, anyone can review their work and point out possible mistakes. The scientist can then respond in a number of ways.
They're researchers, they work with facts... we've seen a technological revolution, so naturally that has made it possible to do somethings more accurately.
It's when politics and science mix that 'scientific' backwaters grow and pseudo-science becomes ubiquitous.
Maybe i am. I just think for example that if the results of findings between two equally brainy scientists can differ so greatly, how do you know who to believe, or pay attention to even.
People say im paranoid. Well, they dont say it, but i know that's what they are thinking.
I think you're too sceptical indeed. But I do agree that you shouldn't just accept whatever a scientist says.
As far as I know, scientist don't claim to know the truth about something. They research something and they publish their findings, anyone can review their work and point out possible mistakes. The scientist can then respond in a number of ways.
They're researchers, they work with facts... we've seen a technological revolution, so naturally that has made it possible to do somethings more accurately.
It's when politics and science mix that 'scientific' backwaters grow and pseudo-science becomes ubiquitous.
very good.
i think i posted this before but i don't remember.
starting about 10 to 12 years ago; the easiest way to get a grant was to say you're using it to study global warming. since not everyone is honest; a person could watch his thermometer every day and use the rest of the money for his "pet" project. this is what screwed the real problem. AND if everyone is saying global warming exists; you can become famous by saying it doesn't. and if you say it doesn't the oil companies will seek you out to testify on their side.
to make a long story short; politics took a serious problem and buggered up our ability to get true facts with which to make our own decisions.
and i still insist that the government is covering up the truth to avoid panic.
I read that originally most scientists didn't believe that global warming was man made, so why should we believe them any more now?
I read that originally, most scientists didn't believe that the earth was round and that the earth was the center of the universe, so why should we believe them any more now?
Years and years ago, my grandmother gave me a book called "Our Plundered Planet," which talked about how man's actions were threatening our very survival. It was published in 1949!
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
did your teacher require supporting documents during a debate? especially when debating a theory.
A good debater doesn't need anything more than logic and common sense to win an argument. And sometimes you've just got to stand up there and say, "This guy is an idiot." Then you take the audience, calmly and logically, through your argument.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
very good.
i think i posted this before but i don't remember.
starting about 10 to 12 years ago; the easiest way to get a grant was to say you're using it to study global warming. since not everyone is honest; a person could watch his thermometer every day and use the rest of the money for his "pet" project. this is what screwed the real problem. AND if everyone is saying global warming exists; you can become famous by saying it doesn't. and if you say it doesn't the oil companies will seek you out to testify on their side.
to make a long story short; politics took a serious problem and buggered up our ability to get true facts with which to make our own decisions.
and i still insist that the government is covering up the truth to avoid panic.
...
Are you OneLongSong... or is this still OneLongSong's daughter?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
we are passed the point of no return and those not prepared will die. i predict 2/3 of the earths population. this includes the tens of thousands that have already died as a result of global warming.
Everyone's mind is made on this issue, and hardly any minds will be changed regardless of what evidence (no matter how strong) is shown, proving one side or the other. It's all about "rooting for your team" at this point.
Most of us are "rooting" for climate change to be a statistical blip or at least easily managable. But we ought to be smart about it and see what the evidence suggests.
i'm basically retired. i watch buffalo eat. so i've got all the time in the world to do studies and mess with the computer and do things like that. i've posted my results and predicted the ice amount to be melted this year; last year.
i watched the presidential debates and i didn't see them producing links or documents. they spoke their opinions which they believe to be fact (true); and went on. the audience then decided who they believed. one would think that the presidential debates would be held to the highest standards concerning the rules of debate.
I saw Ron Paul produce a list of sources supporting his contention that blowback played a roll in 9/11. Regardless presidential debates are very different than scientific debates, and I would not think that they would be held to any standard that the politicians might fear would expose their lies.
did your teacher require supporting documents during a debate? especially when debating a theory. a simple search of global warming will produce thousands of links both for and against. who do we believe? supporting documents can be produced for both sides of the argument. so where does that leave us? with opinions. back to square one.
Scientific debates are supported with data that is reviewable by all involved. What is debated is the meaning, significance, methods and accuracy of the data. But without the observed data there is no science to debate.
...
"There is no single cause for the disappearance of Lake Chad.
Global warming is one factor blamed and local people say rainfall has been steadily reducing by about five to 10mm a year.
Other factors include irrigation and the damming of rivers feeding the lake for hydro-electric schemes, which have all combined to devastating effect.
"Desertification is moving southwards," said William Bata Ndahi, director of the Lake Chad Research Institute.
"The water is moving further and further away. We believe desertification has contributed most to the demise of Lake Chad."
"This lake has to be saved; we know the benefit; we know how people have suffered; we know what we have lost."
Wakil Bakar
Lake Chad Basin Commission
Global Warming is a contributing factor, yes.. but, I think if you dig deeper into the cause, you will probably find the root problem is the lake being shared by the countries of Niger, Chad, Cameroon and Nigeria and mismanagement and national selfishness (usage, waste, irrigation and dams) are the main culprits.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Global Warming is a contributing factor, yes.. but, I think if you dig deeper into the cause, you will probably find the root problem is the lake being shared by the countries of Niger, Chad, Cameroon and Nigeria and mismanagement and national selfishness (usage, waste, irrigation and dams) are the main culprits.
I haven't dug deep enough to find the root problem of Lake Chad. But I do know that Global Warming will dry up some lakes.
I haven't dug deep enough to find the root problem of Lake Chad. But I do know that Global Warming will dry up some lakes.
...
I agree with you. I also know of lakes that have dried up from resource mismanagement, diversion and dams. Edwards Lake in the Owens Valley (California) comes to mind.
The point is... Global Warming alone is not the cause, as the initial comment stated. A contributing factor, yes.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
Oh, quit being such a cry baby.
I just asked for some sort of proof of your claims of 'Your Model'... which I don't believe exists. I don't believe you even HAVE a model. You have opinions that you have probably come to after watching The Discovery Channel and the Oh! Network... but, that is not a scientific model. Then, you claim to have already posted it... In Your Own words: ... to which I asked for the link. And all of a sudden I'm making childish attacks? Questioning your claims are attacks? Why? Because they don't exist? Direct me to this evidence... put up the link and let me read your words from a year ago that predicted what is happening today.
...
Then, you claim that this is some sort of secret scientific journal that only scientists can see... ... but, didn't you just say, Doesn't that mean you have ALREADY breached copyright laws???
Well, you know what... I don't want to break any copyright laws... so, GIVE ME THE NAME AND LOCATION TO SUBSCRIBE TO THESE SECRET SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AND I'LL PAY THE "HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS" FOR A SUBSCRIPTION. I work in the Military Industrial Complex for a Large Aerospace Corporation and can justify the subscription to my department. I work with Integrated Defense Systems, Satellite, Communications and Space systems... hell... we contract from NASA... we probably already HAVE these 'Secret Scientific' journals on site. Tell me where to subscribe and I will. Just give me the Edition, Volume and Number of the specific publication(s) so I can verify them. Or... just give me the name of the publication and I will check with company's publications library.
And if you are stating these publications as proof... they are NOT YOUR MODELS. They are findings and results of others who have gathered and analyzed and tested data... they are not yours.
...
Finally... these statements tell me a lot about you: ... I don't believe... no... I KNOW my opinions are not FACTS, they are my opinions. Just as most people will agree to. Facts are FACTS and I'll base my opinions upon as many facts I can gather. But, that does not make my opinions facts.
and... ... I would rather find some sort of means to educate 2/3s of the Earth's population to respect their planet and share in her abundance... than to have to deal with their 4.4 billion rotting human corpses to dispose of.
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.mikecann.net/2009/02/best-smoking-song-poll.html
Vote on Our Best Smoking Poll with Pearl Jam song!
i'm allen's daughter and after reading the last 2 pages of this, i've never seen such a compilation of idiots. you ask about posting links. where's your links to other scientists climatological models? you won't find any unless you can get into their computers. just like you won't find my daddys model anywhere but his computers. i know he subscribes to AAAS. i'm at the hospital so i can't give you others. daddy was part of the first earth day which i believe was in the 1970s. so those 2/3 of the populous were being educated for at least 30 years. i think you have a serious problem and should seek help. from what i've read; you are making personal attacks. anyone who's had any debate class in high school knows the rules of debate. he has presented his opinion, now its your turn to prove him wrong. you do this by presenting evidence to the contrary. since you won't accept his written analasis; the only acceptable evidence would be another scientists model. not a written opinion because you've already dismissed that as evidence. so if this truely is reasoned debate as it says at the top, its still your move to present such evidence.
http://www.mikecann.net/2009/02/best-smoking-song-poll.html
Vote on Our Best Smoking Poll with Pearl Jam song!
Agreed about the fact that it is not likely to be man made yet we should focus on cleaning up our environment, especially saving endangered species, planting hemp to replace petrolium based plastic, and cotton (which needs pesticide) and paper which kills trees, and uses a ton of chemicals where hemp need none.
http://www.mikecann.net/2009/02/best-smoking-song-poll.html
Vote on Our Best Smoking Poll with Pearl Jam song!
Hello... nice to meet you.
Well, first off... I think you have it backwards. If you make a claim about something... you are supposed to provide facts to support your claim. It is not other people's responsibility to disprove your claims. Like, I can claim... I have a pride of wild lions living in my patio... it is not up to you to prove to me I don't... it is up to me to prove to you I DO. Therefore, I would have you come over and see me with my wild lions... or provide you with some sort of proof of the lions in my patio, right?
Also, you cannot "Prove an opinion wrong". It's like your trying to prove to me that apples taste better than oranges. Those are opinions. Opinions are not facts. Facts regarding this debate between apples and oranges would be oranges are citris fruit while apples are a pomaceous fruit, more closely related to the rose. Nothing to do with taste.
Next, he has not presented any written analysis... that's what I'm looking for. If he did, I'd be able to verify it and validate his findings. He previously stated that he had presented his model as a warning to us a long time ago. I missed it the first time around and would like to see it myself. And based upon the last 'Experiment' he conducted around here... I would be an idiot for accepting his claims without verification. His 'Scientific Method' in that case was... in the nicest terms... really, really terrible.
And as you have even stated yourself... the only acceptable evidence would be OTHER SCIENTIST'S MODELS... not his. Those are models those other scientists came up with, not him. Wouldn't that be like you reading 'Tom Sawyer' and re-telling it to me while claiming that story was yours?
Finally, As for rules of debate... remind me, what role do facts play in all of that? From what I can recall... facts play an important role in discovering which is true and which is not. I don't remember opinion carrying a lot of weight... for example, the statement, "In my opinion, the Earth is Flat" didn't hold up to well against the mountain of factual data that stated otherwise.
Sounds like you might need to retake that High School Debate Class again this Summer.
...
Now... as for AAAS.org... great. I am well aware of them... and their membership... not hundreds of dollars... about $100.00. If that is where his source resides, they have an extensive catalogue of articles online so this should be real easy. Simply tell me which of these titles I should read. I also have full access to our company's hardcopy technical library and we have their publications, probably dating back to about the mid-1940s. So, if the article is not listed online, then, simply direct me to the year of publication, the Volume Number and the title of the article. Very simple.
Hail, Hail!!!
Funny, Neptune doesn't appear to be melting... besides, as the Sun gets older it's actually cooling, not warming up.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212103004.htm
I'm with you on this one.
I know the weather is getting warmer... I do not deny that. But, I am not certain what the cause is. Greenhouse gases, hotter Sun, volcanoes...
However, I still believe in reducing our pollution because cleaner air and water is a good thing. This is a beautiful planet and we should be taking better care of it. If not for ourselves... then, how 'bout for the kids?
Plus... the big benefit... let's get away from fossil fuels so we don't have to deal with that Middle East bullshit.
Hail, Hail!!!
for someone who talks so much; you sure don't say anything. from what i've read; he's presented evidence in plain english. i think the most intelligent of the responses have been I DON'T BELIEVE YOU and left at that. if i give you my opinion you either believe it or you don't. if it's that important to you to prove me right or wrong; that's on you. daddy always told me not to waste my time explaining myself to insignificant piss ants. it gets you nowhere. i suppose if he were explaining this to congress or a scientific panel, it would be much different. einstein had no evidence to prove his E=MC2 theory. it was proven years later. after reading your responses, i wouldn't waste my time with you. i've seen your kind. unfortunately too much. instead of being a man and presenting evidence to prove him wrong, you moan and cry you need this and you need that; when it's clear you're not intelligent enough to find the information yourself. i think you should either show the people here a model proving him wrong; and open that to scrutiny; or stop talking. because until then, i don't think anyone is listening.
*michelle*
Uh... **AHEM**...*michelle*.
Boy... there's definately a family resemblance, ain't there? Uncanny.
...
Thank you for your time and explaining that neither you nor your father are able to provide any factual data to substantiate his any of the claims he makes other than, "I believe it" or "Because I already said it" to support it. The people here who base the truth upon the, "Because I say it is so" principle will agree with you and your Dad... those of us whom rely on silly things... such as facts, will know otherwise and take it with a ton of salt. Although, I STILL don't believe that those African lakes (the largest of which is almost the size of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron combined) have evaporated into mud puddles due to Global Warming, because contradictory facts point otherwise. But, if you want to believe that... well, then you go right ahead and believe that, Sweetheart. After all, my little niece believes that Santa delivered that Wii Station with the Pet Cats 2 game, just as she had asked for. Who am I to question her, right?
So, I guess in your world... debate comes down to who can come up with any made up story and back it up with anecdotal evidence, huh?
And I really think you all got short changed by that Debate Class teacher you had in High School... are you sure it wasn't just the Gym Coach pulling double duty?
Hail, Hail!!!
Mine quit teaching about five or six years ago and is now a lawyer
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
i watched the presidential debates and i didn't see them producing links or documents. they spoke their opinions which they believe to be fact (true); and went on. the audience then decided who they believed. one would think that the presidential debates would be held to the highest standards concerning the rules of debate.
did your teacher require supporting documents during a debate? especially when debating a theory. a simple search of global warming will produce thousands of links both for and against. who do we believe? supporting documents can be produced for both sides of the argument. so where does that leave us? with opinions. back to square one.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22global+warming%22+triton
http://www.mikecann.net/2009/02/best-smoking-song-poll.html
Vote on Our Best Smoking Poll with Pearl Jam song!
solar activity; ie sunspots etc; is causing the warming. but man has destroyed our protection from this.
Im sure there there is much a scientist can teach you, but how much can they possibly really know for absolutely sure about the planet and global warming when they are here on this planet like you and me, for nothing more than a dot of time in the grand scheme of things. Maybe im too sceptical but i just take whatever they say with a pinch of salt.
I think you're too sceptical indeed. But I do agree that you shouldn't just accept whatever a scientist says.
As far as I know, scientist don't claim to know the truth about something. They research something and they publish their findings, anyone can review their work and point out possible mistakes. The scientist can then respond in a number of ways.
They're researchers, they work with facts... we've seen a technological revolution, so naturally that has made it possible to do somethings more accurately.
It's when politics and science mix that 'scientific' backwaters grow and pseudo-science becomes ubiquitous.
naděje umírá poslední
Maybe i am. I just think for example that if the results of findings between two equally brainy scientists can differ so greatly, how do you know who to believe, or pay attention to even.
very good.
i think i posted this before but i don't remember.
starting about 10 to 12 years ago; the easiest way to get a grant was to say you're using it to study global warming. since not everyone is honest; a person could watch his thermometer every day and use the rest of the money for his "pet" project. this is what screwed the real problem. AND if everyone is saying global warming exists; you can become famous by saying it doesn't. and if you say it doesn't the oil companies will seek you out to testify on their side.
to make a long story short; politics took a serious problem and buggered up our ability to get true facts with which to make our own decisions.
and i still insist that the government is covering up the truth to avoid panic.
I read that originally, most scientists didn't believe that the earth was round and that the earth was the center of the universe, so why should we believe them any more now?
Years and years ago, my grandmother gave me a book called "Our Plundered Planet," which talked about how man's actions were threatening our very survival. It was published in 1949!
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
A good debater doesn't need anything more than logic and common sense to win an argument. And sometimes you've just got to stand up there and say, "This guy is an idiot." Then you take the audience, calmly and logically, through your argument.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
Are you OneLongSong... or is this still OneLongSong's daughter?
Hail, Hail!!!
if there are facts out there (facts are true no matter how you slice it) then there is no room for opinion.
from my window to yours
And the Bush administration uses fearmongering?
Most of us are "rooting" for climate change to be a statistical blip or at least easily managable. But we ought to be smart about it and see what the evidence suggests.
I assume he is refering to Lake Chad.
Are these posted results still accessible?
But he did show his work and it was mathematically consistant.
I saw Ron Paul produce a list of sources supporting his contention that blowback played a roll in 9/11. Regardless presidential debates are very different than scientific debates, and I would not think that they would be held to any standard that the politicians might fear would expose their lies.
Scientific debates are supported with data that is reviewable by all involved. What is debated is the meaning, significance, methods and accuracy of the data. But without the observed data there is no science to debate.
Maybe this is why Greenland's ice is melting faster than we predict based on greenhouse gas emmissions alone.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
"There is no single cause for the disappearance of Lake Chad.
Global warming is one factor blamed and local people say rainfall has been steadily reducing by about five to 10mm a year.
Other factors include irrigation and the damming of rivers feeding the lake for hydro-electric schemes, which have all combined to devastating effect.
"Desertification is moving southwards," said William Bata Ndahi, director of the Lake Chad Research Institute.
"The water is moving further and further away. We believe desertification has contributed most to the demise of Lake Chad."
"This lake has to be saved; we know the benefit; we know how people have suffered; we know what we have lost."
Wakil Bakar
Lake Chad Basin Commission
Global Warming is a contributing factor, yes.. but, I think if you dig deeper into the cause, you will probably find the root problem is the lake being shared by the countries of Niger, Chad, Cameroon and Nigeria and mismanagement and national selfishness (usage, waste, irrigation and dams) are the main culprits.
Hail, Hail!!!
I haven't dug deep enough to find the root problem of Lake Chad. But I do know that Global Warming will dry up some lakes.
I agree with you. I also know of lakes that have dried up from resource mismanagement, diversion and dams. Edwards Lake in the Owens Valley (California) comes to mind.
The point is... Global Warming alone is not the cause, as the initial comment stated. A contributing factor, yes.
Hail, Hail!!!