the pre-existing bias is on both sides as are the theories with "holes so big in them..." you get the point...still not convinced as there is no PROOF...the one thing you guys can't get around. im not denying global warming, im only denying the human ability to speed up/slow down the process...its a natural process.Bertster7 wrote:
It pretty much has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Global warming and the contributions of human produced carbon emissions to it, is about as well proven as the theory of Darwinian evolution, yet still some people (usually those who don't know anything about it or have a pre-existing bias against it) deny it to be true. It's the same with global warming.Chappy556 wrote:
i was merely stating a fact that global warming hasnt been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. apples and oranges to what youre saying. do i think we consume too much and waste too much? absolutely. do i think that pollution is a problem? absolutely. do i think that we are contributing to the downfall of our climate and environment? nope. you can get oxygen poisoning if too much is in your system. i think people would complain if i said to get rid of all oxygen. and why would i purposely put myself at risk exposing myself to that? nice argument but try again.I'm glad you know enough about the climate to understand that global warming is a precursor to an ice-age. Since your smart enough to have said "it's arrogant for humans to think we can do anything to hurt this earth..." I dare you to go out to a landfill and see how little effect humans have. If that isn't good enough, why don't you just pour your waste into your front lawn and see how well that land ends up. Or since you think people have nothing to do with air quality, just go in your garage and run your car for a couple hours you ignorant fool.
im betting your landfill is just as full as mine
You can pull outdated and completely debunked articles (like those mentioning solar activity) claiming global warming isn't happening, or is part of a natural cycle (which to a certain extent it is), but that really proves nothing. Well reasoned scientific arguments, without holes so big in them that you could drive a bus through them, are the only thing that matter.
I can't be bothered to go through disproving all these retarded arguments at the moment though, I've done it plenty of times before and few people take any real notice - mostly because denial of global warming is an almost religious belief, since scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms that global warming is happening and is a threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone#Arti … productionChappy556 wrote:
we cannot make ozone, we cannot destroy ozone
Try checking your facts (not opinion) before you go on about how something is "junk science".
No one is gonna convince the other side, how about you all just shut the fuck up. Thanks.
well then why arent we making huge ozone bandaids for the holes we're "making"? i meant atmospheric ozonek30dxedle wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone#Arti … productionChappy556 wrote:
we cannot make ozone, we cannot destroy ozone
Try checking your facts (not opinion) before you go on about how something is "junk science".
Last edited by Chappy556 (2007-01-31 13:14:04)
No proof?Chappy556 wrote:
the pre-existing bias is on both sides as are the theories with "holes so big in them..." you get the point...still not convinced as there is no PROOF...the one thing you guys can't get around. im not denying global warming, im only denying the human ability to speed up/slow down the process...its a natural process.Bertster7 wrote:
It pretty much has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Global warming and the contributions of human produced carbon emissions to it, is about as well proven as the theory of Darwinian evolution, yet still some people (usually those who don't know anything about it or have a pre-existing bias against it) deny it to be true. It's the same with global warming.Chappy556 wrote:
i was merely stating a fact that global warming hasnt been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. apples and oranges to what youre saying. do i think we consume too much and waste too much? absolutely. do i think that pollution is a problem? absolutely. do i think that we are contributing to the downfall of our climate and environment? nope. you can get oxygen poisoning if too much is in your system. i think people would complain if i said to get rid of all oxygen. and why would i purposely put myself at risk exposing myself to that? nice argument but try again.
im betting your landfill is just as full as mine
You can pull outdated and completely debunked articles (like those mentioning solar activity) claiming global warming isn't happening, or is part of a natural cycle (which to a certain extent it is), but that really proves nothing. Well reasoned scientific arguments, without holes so big in them that you could drive a bus through them, are the only thing that matter.
I can't be bothered to go through disproving all these retarded arguments at the moment though, I've done it plenty of times before and few people take any real notice - mostly because denial of global warming is an almost religious belief, since scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms that global warming is happening and is a threat.
In science there is really no such thing as proof. Any scientists who say that any single set of conclusions can conclusively prove anything are full of shit. You can disprove something, but proving something is nigh on impossible. You couldn't prove that an object is real, for example. You could touch the object and see the object and all sorts of other things which make it very likely that the object is in fact there, but you can't prove it.
What there is, is an immense amount of data that all suggests climate change is influenced by human factors. I science that is pretty much as good as it gets. Ultimately since you are the one in the minority making outrageous claims that more than 99% of climatologists would laugh at, the burden of showing evidence to back up your claims is on you. If you post a link to a scientific paper published in 2005 or later (papers from before then are ok too, but you'll probably find lots of those, which will be easy to disprove because there were a lot of debunked theories flying around between '90 and '05) that in any way contradicts the claim that human greenhouse gas emissions are significantly increasing the rate at which climate change occurs, then I'll be pleased to go over it point by point and show what is wrong with it. Until you can come up with any sort of real evidence to back up your claims, then please, shut up and do some real reading into the issue.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-31 13:19:47)
why do people say theres no proof of global warming, north pole, antarctica, greenland both are ice covered lands..both are melting into the sea at a unatural rate all due to the earth warming up. when enough of the fresh water from the ice gets into the sea, the gulf stream which keeps britain warm will stop due to the fact that theres not enough salt to keep it going
read up, i have, and if you want to pass legislation and sign treaties and have lemonade sales to stop our accelerating GW, the the burden of proof is up to you. Scientists havent agreed on a thing about GW and my claims are not outrageous...they just point to the holes in the GW theory.
It doesn't matter if you are right, it doesn't matter if I am right. we will all find out soon enough.
and why is it so important that you prove me wrong in the first place? it won't make a damn bit of difference to a bunch of spoiled capitalists who spend a majority of their time playing video games and browsing forums...we're still ALL going to be the wasteful dirty bastards we already are. If you say youre an environmentalist, show me the title to your hybrid car, give me the address to your recycling center, and pictures of the trees you've hugged.
It doesn't matter if you are right, it doesn't matter if I am right. we will all find out soon enough.
and why is it so important that you prove me wrong in the first place? it won't make a damn bit of difference to a bunch of spoiled capitalists who spend a majority of their time playing video games and browsing forums...we're still ALL going to be the wasteful dirty bastards we already are. If you say youre an environmentalist, show me the title to your hybrid car, give me the address to your recycling center, and pictures of the trees you've hugged.
Last edited by Chappy556 (2007-01-31 13:35:50)
I know, I'm happy with it.Vilham wrote:
Some of you guys really need to get a grip on what you are doing to the world.
Not only that, why aren't you vegan if you care about the environment? It does "effect" us all btw!Chappy556 wrote:
read up, i have, and if you want to pass legislation and sign treaties and have lemonade sales to stop our accelerating GW, the the burden of proof is up to you. Scientists havent agreed on a thing about GW and my claims are not outrageous...they just point to the holes in the GW theory.
It doesn't matter if you are right, it doesn't matter if I am right. we will all find out soon enough.
and why is it so important that you prove me wrong in the first place? it won't make a damn bit of difference to a bunch of spoiled capitalists who spend a majority of their time playing video games and browsing forums...we're still ALL going to be the wasteful dirty bastards we already are. If you say youre an environmentalist, show me the title to your hybrid car, give me the address to your recycling center, and pictures of the trees you've hugged.
has any of you guys even watched the video? you should if you havnt already!
No. It's most likely all the same bull shit I hear at school and on the news all the time. I won't waste an hour of my life listening to it.ELITE-UK wrote:
has any of you guys even watched the video? you should if you havnt already!
I've read all your posts and there is nothing resembling a proper scientific paper amongst any of them. Media drivel is pretty much all you've posted. I'm talking about academic research, which there has been a lot of.Chappy556 wrote:
read up, i have, and if you want to pass legislation and sign treaties and have lemonade sales to stop our accelerating GW, the the burden of proof is up to you. Scientists havent agreed on a thing about GW and my claims are not outrageous...they just point to the holes in the GW theory.
It doesn't matter if you are right, it doesn't matter if I am right. we will all find out soon enough.
Scientists have agreed. If you want me to list the agreements by scientists I'm sure I can find them again. The Joint Academies of Sciences have certainly agreed, NASA agree, who doesn't? A few individuals, that's who - making up less than 1% of researchers in the relevant scientific field.
Well, since you've done such a poor job of answering any points with anything resembling a coherent argument than I'll put a few points down for you.
Richard Lindzen, he doesn't agree. He is one of the most outspoken critics of global warming and actually has some pretty decent credentials to add weight to his claims. What he doesn't have are any reasoned scientific arguments that have stood up to any sort of scrutiny by the scientific community in general.
If you want to look into the work of the minority of scientists who are climate change skeptics, you might want to start here.
You might be able to find an actual scientific perspective on global warming.
nah, you win, i still disagree with you, but you win
only because im too lazy to actually do the googling and the reading and the what-not
plus its time to go home from work and play video games
only because im too lazy to actually do the googling and the reading and the what-not
plus its time to go home from work and play video games
Last edited by Chappy556 (2007-01-31 13:52:15)
First article, first major point, they write the 2 in CO2 as a superscript, not a subscript.Chappy556 wrote:
i'm not going to pick through another thread and try and defend anyone but here ya go boss
http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8177
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm (a uk website)
its junk science only perpituated by pony-tailed "scientists" wanting to keep their jobs ie take away global warming and government takes away grants to study global warming
its like trying to prove that Santa Clause exists or he doesn't
Credibility gone. QED.
I sometimes agree that global warming is a little bullshit just because politicians have made it into a political issue, not a scientific issue. Global dimming makes sense. Think about it, you're in a room with a light fixture. Some douche smokes a cigarette between you and the light. The light gets dimmer. Its all about black body radiation. The particles between you and the light will absorb the EMR, but since they are black bodies the reemission of that gets sent out radially in all directions fairly isotropically. This means that only half the light can possibly reach you. And they have empirical evidence... enter the pan evaporation logs. Or the 4 year experiment in Malaysia. Or the data collected over USA immediately following 9/11 (not damning proof, but undeniably suggestive and certainly worth more research). Now that we've certified this dimming as at the very least a distinct possibility, lets look again at global warming. If this dimming is acting as a cooling force in our climate, then that makes all the data on global warming improperly analyzed. The point of science is to try to observe and experiment and gain knowledge. There's nothing wrong with investigating the possibility of global warming, in fact it would be irresponsible to not do so.
Who ever said I was an environmentalist? I do a bit to reduce my carbon footprint, buy nothing that will significantly impact on my lifestyle. Small things, like insisting my electricity comes exclusively from renewable energy sources, can make a big impact - the more consumers demand that from their suppliers, the more pressure there is on suppliers to produce cleaner energy. Consumer forcing is a very important factor in allowing these changes to take place in an economically viable way. I hate hybrid cars, along with the majority of so called 'clean cars', but then I also hate people driving stupidly large cars - in the US there is the problem of SUVs (along with the fact the US have stupid emission standards, which actually serve to damage American car manufacturers profits massively - see Fords booming profits for example), in the UK and much of Europe there is the so-called 'Chelsea Tractor' problem.Chappy556 wrote:
and why is it so important that you prove me wrong in the first place? it won't make a damn bit of difference to a bunch of spoiled capitalists who spend a majority of their time playing video games and browsing forums...we're still ALL going to be the wasteful dirty bastards we already are. If you say youre an environmentalist, show me the title to your hybrid car, give me the address to your recycling center, and pictures of the trees you've hugged.
I think a massive global shift to nuclear power generation is the best way forwards - you won't find many environmentalists agreeing with me there, scientists who agree can be found by the bucketload however.
You must of course also remember that reducing carbon emissions alone can never solve the problem. The problem is there and we need to find a solution. Of course reducing emissions must be a part of that, but it is not a solution. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for between 200 and 450 years, the damage is done. Unless measures to instigate global cooling (say based upon the way volcanoes contribute to global cooling) are introduced, we will still see the disappearance of the Arctic and much of Greenland and Antarcticas ice shelves. The rise in sea levels will cause mass homelessness, poverty, drought and economic turmoil, especially in developing nations.
thank you for responding like a stand up guy
seriously dude, I'm just too lazy to get in depth any more about it so the beer's on me
seriously dude, I'm just too lazy to get in depth any more about it so the beer's on me
in other words you ran out of things to sayChappy556 wrote:
thank you for responding like a stand up guy
seriously dude, I'm just too lazy to get in depth any more about it so the beer's on me
if thats how you want to look at it...okay, its just going to keep going back and forth anyways. no one is budging on their opinion. the video was well done but just a theory.
Clearly you dont understand what proof is, because there was quite a lot of that in the documentary.
clearly you dont know what proof is because i didnt see any of it
Agreed, the ignorance on this forum grows proportionally to the raise in CO2 in our atmosphere..Commie Killer wrote:
No one is gonna convince the other side, how about you all just shut the fuck up. Thanks.
Leave it to people who actually know what they're talking about. You can make your own bullshit theories, but they're just that.. bullshit theories. Most of you guys are just making yourselves look like asses by spewing out the shit you hear on your news station of choice.
BTW.. most of congress now realizes that it's a problem and John McCain even went as far as to say "the debate is over" ... but now we just have to figure out how to stop fucking ourselves...
because you didn't watch it. Save my eyes, stop posting, kthnxChappy556 wrote:
clearly you dont know what proof is because i didnt see any of it
Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2007-01-31 17:44:05)
Saw An Inconvenient Truth in Film study this week. End result: Al Gore is right. Most interesting evidence: Visual receding ice on mountain tops (in only a few decades time), and the south pole. He shows a specific case in which a few pools of melted water on the top of an ice shelf acted as a radiator for the sun and destroyed the whole ice shelf in an extremely short period of time.
O yeah that would be a realy interesting program.. i can imagine it now.. the camera pans across pages and pages of figures. The BBC has a reputation to uphold when it says there is evidence that they have seen it doesn't lie...Chappy556 wrote:
clearly you dont know what proof is because i didnt see any of it
That's how Hitler came to power. Everyone just "STFU" and let things happen, without questioning.Commie Killer wrote:
No one is gonna convince the other side, how about you all just shut the fuck up. Thanks.
Bush seems to be convinced.
What puzzles me most is, even if you don't believe in global warming/dimming, or don't believe we have much of a part in it, why not support switching over to alternative sources anyway?
Pollution is pollution, and whether or not it's causing the world to melt down, it is still harmful to our lungs and, quite frankly, sucks. IMHO saying "We aren't affecting global warming, it's a natural process, so we should just continue doing what we are doing" is only procrastinating the problem for future generations. We WILL run out of fossil fuels, sometime or another. I think the sooner we find a way to replace the millions of gasoline dependent cars with cars that burn biofuels, or run on electricity, the better.
Last edited by Spearhead (2007-01-31 19:08:16)
dad? is that you?CommieChipmunk wrote:
Agreed, the ignorance on this forum grows proportionally to the raise in CO2 in our atmosphere..Commie Killer wrote:
No one is gonna convince the other side, how about you all just shut the fuck up. Thanks.
Leave it to people who actually know what they're talking about. You can make your own bullshit theories, but they're just that.. bullshit theories. Most of you guys are just making yourselves look like asses by spewing out the shit you hear on your news station of choice.
BTW.. most of congress now realizes that it's a problem and John McCain even went as far as to say "the debate is over" ... but now we just have to figure out how to stop fucking ourselves...because you didn't watch it. Save my eyes, stop posting, kthnxChappy556 wrote:
clearly you dont know what proof is because i didnt see any of it