Must See For Climate Change Skeptics

Options
2456789

Comments

  • butterjam
    butterjam Posts: 221
    polaris_x wrote:
    311jj wrote:
    I disagree with the closer to 100%. Do you understand how many different factors and their magnitude go into the warming of the earth? The effect of humans is such a small part of it. This is agreed upon by many climate researchers. They just conclude that our effect, which is growing, is enough to tip the balances.

    I'm not saying that we should do nothing. We need to be much more responsible, especially the developed countries, with the US carrying most of the responsibility. But to say that humans are the largest cause for the warming of the earth is not justifiable when other factors like the sun, earth's orbit, the oceans, etc. are much larger contributing factors.

    i humbly suggest you do what shadowcast did and read up some more ... your response is like standard talking point #5 of climate change deniers and has been addressed by the science a long time ago ...

    try considering the earth like a human body ... we have a fluctuating body temperature that when things are good is generally around a certain temperature ... how our internal body regulates that temperature is indeed very complex however, when we have a fever ... we can usually account for it such as infection or what not ...

    the earth has been running a fever for a very long time now

    Your response is standard talking point #1 of climate change fanatics, I'm smarter than you so I'm right so do some research and then you'll be as smart as me and agree with me.

    Guess what, I've done plenty of research, had plenty of discussions with very intelligent people(environmental engineers, physicists, geologists, geophysicists, etc) and that is how I got to where I'm at.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    311jj wrote:
    Your response is standard talking point #1 of climate change fanatics, I'm smarter than you so I'm right so do some research and then you'll be as smart as me and agree with me.

    Guess what, I've done plenty of research, had plenty of discussions with very intelligent people(environmental engineers, physicists, geologists, geophysicists, etc) and that is how I got to where I'm at.

    haha ...

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ans-so-ill
  • wolfamongwolves
    wolfamongwolves Posts: 2,414
    inlet13 wrote:

    So, in the end, I think that if we can change the climate (formerly Global Warming), who's to say we can not change it back? No one can predict the future. Maybe, if there are ways to harming the climate, there are also ways to heal it. This healing ability could exist just as much as the harming ability.
    Maybe. But you're not backing that up with anything other than vague speculation. Whereas, maybe, what would be an infinitely more rational and responsible course of action, when there is significant and multi-faceted empirical evidence suggesting a correlation between the astronomical and ever-growing scale of human-generated and climate changes, would be to use the technologies we have at our disposal to prevent it from changing in the first place, if and while we still can.
    inlet13 wrote:
    I do think some, actually a majority of climate change believers are using this issue to push their political/economic ideologies.
    :| ... as opposed to the lobbyists for grotesquely rich and exploitative oil companies, who are among both the worst polluters and the loudest deniers climate change (coincidentally, I'm sure, and nothing to do with the fact that action on global warming threatens to cost them their ill-gotten trillions)
    inlet13 wrote:
    This is not good at all and I, for one, see though it. Some use Climate Change as a movement towards more government control.
    ...which is so much worse than increased conflict, mass displacement of people living in extremely flood-prone areas such as Bangladesh, reductions in the availability of potable water and food, particularly and disproportionately amongst the poorest, those who are already the most food- and water-insecure populations. Yeah, it's more government control that's the real worry, right? :roll:
    93: Slane
    96: Cork, Dublin
    00: Dublin
    06: London, Dublin
    07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
    09: Manchester, London
    10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
    11: San José
    12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/news/c ... of-denial/
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Taking individual, current events and using them to "prove" climate change (or whatever they're calling it these days) simply doesn't work. You can't use singular events (or even just a few events) to prove anything. The fact that someone would even think you could casts immense doubt on their own ability to comprehend the "science".
    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_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    know1 wrote:
    Taking individual, current events and using them to "prove" climate change (or whatever they're calling it these days) simply doesn't work. You can't use singular events (or even just a few events) to prove anything. The fact that someone would even think you could casts immense doubt on their own ability to comprehend the "science".

    what!??

    this is akin to saying ... showing lung cancer on a 2 pack a day smoker is not proof that there is a correlation and anyone who tries to do so is showing poor judgement ...

    do you have a science background?
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    on another note ... can people who are "skeptics" come here and actually debate the topic!?? ... all we ever see is either some standard talking point that has been fed by the PR firms get posted on here or some link to some uncreditable websource ...

    do any of you skeptics actually take the time to read both sides and understand the science before you post or are you just regurgitating what someone or some website told you!??

    because ultimately, i think that is the best way to move past this debate (that has ended pretty much everywhere else in the world except the US) ...

    let's talk about the science because that is what it really is about ... it's not and shouldn't be a partisan issue ... as many conservatives like to preface their posts with pollution is wrong and we should preserve our environment ... so ... it's universally agreed we need to take better care of the environment ... so, let's discuss the science of global warming and how that impacts not only our environment but people ...
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,658
    polaris_x wrote:
    on another note ... can people who are "skeptics" come here and actually debate the topic!?? ... all we ever see is either some standard talking point that has been fed by the PR firms get posted on here or some link to some uncreditable websource ...

    do any of you skeptics actually take the time to read both sides and understand the science before you post or are you just regurgitating what someone or some website told you!??

    because ultimately, i think that is the best way to move past this debate (that has ended pretty much everywhere else in the world except the US) ...

    let's talk about the science because that is what it really is about ... it's not and shouldn't be a partisan issue ... as many conservatives like to preface their posts with pollution is wrong and we should preserve our environment ... so ... it's universally agreed we need to take better care of the environment ... so, let's discuss the science of global warming and how that impacts not only our environment but people ...


    Good point about how almost everybody has it figured out except the U.S.

    Here's another excellent climate change organization (that was started by Bill McKibben and colleagues):

    http://www.350.org/
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni











  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Parachute wrote:
    Godfather. wrote:
    what if you two are wrong about God ? are you ready to deal with what will be the truth? everybody dies and how will you both reply should you both stand before God himself..hopefully your sorry will not be too late. people want everybody to accept and understand their ideas on life and they're quick to make rude comments about anothers faith in God when at the same time say when will people understand that it's ok to be gay or don't drive a SUV, I'm having a hard time putting it to words but the comments you both make about God do not make you any better than anybody else infact you sound angry for something you've missed in life and need to direct you anger away from yourselfs. hope thing's work out for you guy's.

    Godfather.

    This. This is real. I salute you Godfather.

    Its like you can feel a hatred- an envy in their angry words.

    And if they truly do understand what 88% of Americans have been duped into believing (in a God), then you'd think they'd be happy- happier than the rest. But they're not. They are angry, hateful, condescending, envious, and mean.


    I hope something changes for them.


    thanks Parachute !
    truth and understanding....this site is full of people that have and share the same opinion about God and other things,they talk about love and understand..saving the world, compassion...but soon as you mention God or the Bible they act like an un-believing angry mob with little to compassion or understanding for you or your beliefs
    or ideas...must be nice to know it all,you don't even have to mention Gods name or the Bible but as soon as a gay person brings up the gay topic or even climate change they help can't but throw a slanderous comment about God or the Bible into their post maybe it's cause they are afraid they might be wrong...I don't know..

    Godfather.
  • LikeAnOcean
    LikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    Humans will be lucky to last another hundred years on this planet... a few thousand years from now, everything will be back to normal.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    polaris_x wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    Taking individual, current events and using them to "prove" climate change (or whatever they're calling it these days) simply doesn't work. You can't use singular events (or even just a few events) to prove anything. The fact that someone would even think you could casts immense doubt on their own ability to comprehend the "science".

    what!??

    this is akin to saying ... showing lung cancer on a 2 pack a day smoker is not proof that there is a correlation and anyone who tries to do so is showing poor judgement ...

    do you have a science background?

    It's more like seeing a couple of hairs in the sink and stating conclusively that I'm undergoing chemotherapy.

    Humans have a couple of hundred years of accurate records at the very very most. How can we possibly have any idea what is normal for the earth?

    It's just downright ridiculous to use 2 tornados as concrete proof of climate change. It's kind of sad to think there are people who do think that way.
    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.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,021
    i think it has been a little more than two tornados.

    melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i think it has been a little more than two tornados.

    melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.

    over what timeframe are we talking about here? you know mans existence has been but a blip on the radar, so while ive never discounted global warming as a natural part of earths life cycle, i have to question mankinds spazz outs in regards to climate change. do we think climate has been consistent during earths lifespan? and what exactly is climate change? can you tell me without drowning me in links? you speak of long term droughts where there have previously been no droughts. i live in australia and let me tell you droughts are a way of life here. when is that one day when we see the situation as dire??? i have said in the past and will continue to maintain that what is at stake here is not the death of our planet but the exitinction of humans.. and THAT in my opinion is what is the greater fear here. humans have become so comforatble in their own arrogance as the supreme being on this planet that the thought that we may well make ourselves existinct is simply unfathomable.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    I watched the vid over the weekend, not saying one way or the other but the vid reminded me of a propaganda
    bullshit session full of "what if's" and "it looks like"
    if memory serves me right.... :shock:(late 70's and 80's were wild) our planet has has gone thru extreem changes in climate change that some say may have caused extiction of dinosor's and also created the little ice age,valcano's that wiped out whole civilizions and caused extreem winters around the world and all this before the industrial age of man
    so with all the hard proof that everybody seems to want on this forum I am superized that so many of you have taken the stance on this issue you have.....come to think of it.. no I'm not. :lol:

    Godfather.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i think it has been a little more than two tornados.

    melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.
    Care to do a little research into the increase of ocean temperatures and how they are measured?
    Actually Ill just do that for you.
    1) Prior to 1940 - Records collected from ships that used the "bucket method." Which is quite simple, throw a bucket overboard, pull it up and stick a thermometer in it.

    2) Post 1940 (approx) - measurements were taken directly via intakes on the ship.

    3) Post 1980 - RSS, or satellite data, became available.

    So three sets of measurements, all collected differently and each with their own idiosyncrasies. Method 1 is, well, a joke. Method 2 is much more reliable, however, depth of the intakes/sensors is not controlled and can vary significantly by ship design and weight of cargo. Method 3 only measures the first few centimeters of the surface. Obviously, the sun, wind and other factors have a significant effect on those readings.

    One problem shared by one and two is that measurements were only taken from standard shipping lanes and therefore represent a very, very small percentage of sea area.
    It appears that 2/3 of the average global temp was collected by very inconsistent and unreliable means and, IMO, begets more questions than answers. How could you follow something so blindly?
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Godfather. wrote:
    I watched the vid over the weekend, not saying one way or the other but the vid reminded me of a propaganda
    bullshit session full of "what if's" and "it looks like"
    if memory serves me right.... :shock:(late 70's and 80's were wild) our planet has has gone thru extreem changes in climate change that some say may have caused extiction of dinosor's and also created the little ice age,valcano's that wiped out whole civilizions and caused extreem winters around the world and all this before the industrial age of man
    so with all the hard proof that everybody seems to want on this forum I am superized that so many of you have taken the stance on this issue you have.....come to think of it.. no I'm not. :lol:

    Godfather.


    the arrogance of man godfather. though i dont deny we have some effect.. its the level of such that i question.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,825
    edited June 2011
    I have a few questions for people who understand this issue better than I do:

    1) When was it first suspected that man is playing a major role in changing the climate of the earth?

    2) How large is the sample set for collecting data to prove or disprove that man is at least partly responsible for climate change? How old is climate science? How accurate is it when it first began? How much has the instrumentation improved since it began?
    Post edited by VINNY GOOMBA on
  • inlet13
    inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    Hurricane activity is at historical lows:

    http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <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&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    know1 wrote:
    It's more like seeing a couple of hairs in the sink and stating conclusively that I'm undergoing chemotherapy.

    Humans have a couple of hundred years of accurate records at the very very most. How can we possibly have any idea what is normal for the earth?

    It's just downright ridiculous to use 2 tornados as concrete proof of climate change. It's kind of sad to think there are people who do think that way.

    dude ... your regurgitated talking point has been addressed in the science ...

    and it's been more than 2 tornados ... there has been mass flooding all around the world accompanied by mass drought ... did you watch the video in the initial post?

    either way - anytime you want to discuss the science behind global warming ... let us know ... but coming on these threads every now and then and posting the same thing serves no purpose ...
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,021
    edited June 2011
    Blockhead wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i think it has been a little more than two tornados.

    melting icecaps? increase of ocean temperatures? mass die offs of species? abnormal weather patterns, long term droughts where previously there had been no droughts, there is way too much going on here to write it all off as a normal variation. we will see one day for sure that this situation is dire.
    Care to do a little research into the increase of ocean temperatures and how they are measured?
    Actually Ill just do that for you.
    1) Prior to 1940 - Records collected from ships that used the "bucket method." Which is quite simple, throw a bucket overboard, pull it up and stick a thermometer in it.

    2) Post 1940 (approx) - measurements were taken directly via intakes on the ship.

    3) Post 1980 - RSS, or satellite data, became available.

    So three sets of measurements, all collected differently and each with their own idiosyncrasies. Method 1 is, well, a joke. Method 2 is much more reliable, however, depth of the intakes/sensors is not controlled and can vary significantly by ship design and weight of cargo. Method 3 only measures the first few centimeters of the surface. Obviously, the sun, wind and other factors have a significant effect on those readings.

    One problem shared by one and two is that measurements were only taken from standard shipping lanes and therefore represent a very, very small percentage of sea area.
    It appears that 2/3 of the average global temp was collected by very inconsistent and unreliable means and, IMO, begets more questions than answers. How could you follow something so blindly?
    what does any of that have to do with melting ice caps and melting ice on mountain tops?

    you said you were doing research for me yet you only presented different types of methodology, no findings. i was aware of that methodology, but i thought you were going to present some earthshattering finding to debunk climate change. :?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."

Categories