Over 400 Scientists disput global warming

theroachman

Cosmo wrote:

...
The deniers are the people in the Bush Administration, not the people on this message board. No one denys the fact that global climate is warming and that the melting polar caps will lead to rising sea levels and violent changes in our weather system... but, people will argue about the cause of it. Man induced or cyclical nature... that's what people argue about.
And most of the people here agree... conservation and reducing the amounts of pollutants we emmit is a good thing... even if it does not curtail the current warming trend. The only one who argue against these things do so because of the economic impact... nothing else.

I did not direct that site posting as an argument against your stance on Global warming. I understand you are not a global warming denier and the link in the post is for a great site that you can share with others. It has a great data base of old photos matched with very recent ones.



I still think your “be happy they are not dead” comment was a shallow comment. Even if they should have left long before the obvious end, the flippant comment about there lives is not going to help the world move forward and survive this rather pivotal moment in the coarse of human history.

Smellyman2

ForestBrain wrote:

The earth has always had climate changes. I don't believe in evolution, either.
Nothing stays the same forever, change is a part of life, why wouldn't the earth change to accommodate its inhabitants?
Unlike many others, I don't believe the earth is being over populated, either. It was meant to be lived in. That's why it was created.

bwahahahaha

Songburst

Smellyman wrote:

bwahahahaha

And on the eighth day, God created contradiction.

ForestBrain

Obviously, I'm surrounded by idiots.

bubbamackdaddy69

I dispute the whole Global Warming thing....just my 2cents...LOL

Smellyman2

ForestBrain wrote:

Obviously, I'm surrounded by idiots.

Well you are from Texas

flywallyfly

ForestBrain wrote:

Obviously, I'm surrounded by idiots.

I'm surrounded by ForestBrains.

Songburst

ForestBrain wrote:

Obviously, I'm surrounded by idiots.

Quite obviously. Only an idiot would question the validity of the rock solid proof of Creation.

Jimmydean55

I think this is basically what Cosmo is trying to say. Except a little more funny. (Sorry, Cosmo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0

godpt3

400 scientists my ass!!!!

*scoffs at dumb-as-fuck "economists"*

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/24/dont-believe-inhofes-hype/

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

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:

onelongsong wrote:

"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...

onelongsong wrote:

"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.

Boston MA

Byrnzie wrote:

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...

onelongsong

Cosmo wrote:

...
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.

Boston MA

godpt3 wrote:

400 scientists my ass!!!!

*scoffs at dumb-as-fuck "economists"*

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/24/dont-believe-inhofes-hype/

Do you dispute that every planet in the solar system is heating up because the sun has grown warmer?

Boston MA

ForestBrain wrote:

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.

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

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.

godpt3

Boston, MA wrote:

Do you dispute that every planet in the solar system is heating up because the sun has grown warmer?

Funny, Neptune doesn't appear to be melting... besides, as the Sun gets older it's actually cooling, not warming up.

jlew24asu

I found this interesting...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212103004.htm

jlew24asu

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100385

Cosmo

jlew24asu wrote:

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100385

...
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.