how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to jc100
Re: A few million Euros (Francs) Later said by jc100:Don't even take what I said out of context. I meant modern record that was verifiable. Now, we can use carbon dating and other such tests to check weather. However, in this case I was referring to the practice of written record. I don't know if I trust what the Roman's did in 450B.C as historical fact. People take the bible as Historical Fact and we see how many variations and takes there are on religion itself. Let's just say I'd prefer the modern, educated record keeping practices. See how in 450 B.C. sea monsters and the world was flat. While SOME OF THEIR SCIENCE has stood the test of time, there were far more errors than successes. The difference? We have technology to test our work, versus say, best guess practices.
Sorry, but taking weather patterns only for the last 100 years is by no means accurate since patterns take MUCH longer to manifest themselves. The Ice Age was millions of years ago yet we know this through geology because man was not around to record it. The Romans were known for their record keeping. However, even their period was too short to record much data plus it was only for their little area. said by jc100:Though for Pre Modern Times, Pythagorean and others did figure out some complex stuff. Once again, not all wrong, but a lot. There lies the difference. Our science is based off computer models, satellite data, historical photographs, carbon dating / weather patterns. Their data was a best guestimate if you wish to call it that. Again, if the formulas behind the models are off, so is the data and our sat data is barely 50 years old. That is not enough data. Even the sunspot cycle takes 13 years. You want to limit your data to barely 100 years, be my guest but my logical people would laugh at you and dismiss ANYTHING you said about the subject. Try again. | | |
|
1 edit | A) We are NOT SIMPLY COMPARING WEATHER PATTERNS FROM 100 Years
- Looking at Written Data From 100 years that we can Verify
- Using Science to dig further Back where records cannot be proven without doubt
- Using Photographs / Satellite Imagery etc to Supplement.
Contrary to your Stance, Rocks, Trees, fossils all hold evidence of growth and change over the millenias. We can compare this to records to paint a picture.
B) Chopping down Animals Habitat means less places for them to live and less trees to take carbon dioxide out of the air. Basic Science. Trees take Carbon and turn it into Oxygen. less Trees, Less Carbon "Filters". More species extinct as less habtitat to live.
No trying again on my part. | |
| said by jc100:A) We are NOT SIMPLY COMPARING WEATHER PATTERNS FROM 100 Years - Looking at Written Data From 100 years that we can Verify - Using Science to dig further Back where records cannot be proven without doubt - Using Photographs / Satellite Imagery etc to Supplement. Contrary to your Stance, Rocks, Trees, fossils all hold evidence of growth and change over the millenias. We can compare this to records to paint a picture. B) Chopping down Animals Habitat means less places for them to live and less trees to take carbon dioxide out of the air. Basic Science. Trees take Carbon and turn it into Oxygen. less Trees, Less Carbon "Filters". More species extinct as less habtitat to live. No trying again on my part. First only the last 100 years of data is reliable then you bring in other stuff.
The key to winning a debate is to take one side and hold it, not flip flop like John Kerry.
 | |
1 edit | Flip Flopping? You're the one trying to do that. I've picked a side and substantiated it FAR BETTER than a 35 year old article by ONE SOURCE.
Empirical data (Look up the word)..
100 years of weather Data is Reliable. That's about as far back as the weather service goes BY HUMAN RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. Not including Photographs. Thats about 150-170 years.
From there you can use Carbon Data, Growth Patterns on Trees, Rock Formations, etc to tell RELIABLY HOW THINGS OCCURRED. IE... Where the Written Proof ends, Nature provides documentation.
Also, Photographs, Satellites, etc aid too in comparing pictorial evidence.
Basic Science bud. You get an "F". Trees = Animal Habitat. Trees = Turn Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.
Fewer Trees (Deforestation) = Less "Air Filters for Pollution" and less animal habitat.
No conjecture. Simple, plain facts. Flip Flop? Nope. Reasonable? Far more than your ONE 35 year old article. | |
| said by jc100:Flip Flopping? You're the one trying to do that. I've picked a side and substantiated it FAR BETTER than a 35 year old article by ONE SOURCE. Empirical data (Look up the word).. 100 years of weather Data is Reliable. That's about as far back as the weather service goes BY HUMAN RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. Not including Photographs. Thats about 150-170 years. From there you can use Carbon Data, Growth Patterns on Trees, Rock Formations, etc to tell RELIABLY HOW THINGS OCCURRED. IE... Where the Written Proof ends, Nature provides documentation. Also, Photographs, Satellites, etc aid too in comparing pictorial evidence. Basic Science bud. You get an "F". Trees = Animal Habitat. Trees = Turn Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen. Fewer Trees (Deforestation) = Less "Air Filters for Pollution" and less animal habitat. No conjecture. Simple, plain facts. Flip Flop? Nope. Reasonable? Far more than your ONE 35 year old article. 100 years of data is not enough in a system that has known fluctuations over thousands of years.
And if 100 years is enough, why bring up tree rings, rock formations and carbon data? That becomes "theoretical" data, not empirical. Why is it theoretical? Because while we might have a reasonable theory as to what happened, it is not always proven.
FAIL! | |
| You just don't get it do you?
Its called building the big picture. You take all your data, compile it, to create a layout of the environmental changes that have taken place.
You might want to look up the word Theoretical. Its too big for you to use. Obviously, you don't know the meaning. When something is theory, it's not fact. Trees without a doubt show the climate changes that have occurred over millennium. Soil samples show the different layers that have formed and the climate at that time. Rock Formations and Geology show fossilization and what took place. None of that is theory.
Then again, I'm talking to the Kentucky's Creation Museums #1 visitor. The man who probably believes earth is 10,000 years old and we roamed it with dinosaurs.
Failing is something you do bud. Not me. Science looks at the big picture, not a narrow one tracked view based on a 35 year old article. Not everyone is right or uses a practical approach. Technology, however has improved. We can compare pictures over the last 170 years. We can compare weather data over the last 100. And to go further back, we use soil, rock, geological, and carbon dating. All of which gives evidence of whats happened.
Your evidence, an article. Failing. You give that word a new perspective and a whole new meaning. Obviously, you couldn't pass first grade science.
Trees WITHOUT A DOUBT REMOVE CARBON DIOXIDE. We are deforesting the planet. Animals live in Forests. We chop them down, species disappear. Less trees, less things to purify our air. More factories, cars, and pollution with less trees, = more sticks around.
This isn't rocket science. Then again, I'm trying to convince someone who couldn't get passed high school and believes wikipedia is a source the fundamentals of life. AH yes, this is a big challenge to say the least. | |
| said by jc100:You just don't get it do you? Its called building the big picture. You take all your data, compile it, to create a layout of the environmental changes that have taken place. Big picture with barely 100 years of data? Yeah, that makes sence.
said by jc100:You might want to look up the word Theoretical. Its too big for you to use. Obviously, you don't know the meaning. When something is theory, it's not fact. Trees without a doubt show the climate changes that have occurred over millennium. Soil samples show the different layers that have formed and the climate at that time. Rock Formations and Geology show fossilization and what took place. None of that is theory. Then again, I'm talking to the Kentucky's Creation Museums #1 visitor. The man who probably believes earth is 10,000 years old and we roamed it with dinosaurs. Looks like I am talking to Al Gore sheeple #1.
said by jc100:Failing is something you do bud. Not me. Science looks at the big picture, not a narrow one tracked view based on a 35 year old article. Not everyone is right or uses a practical approach. Technology, however has improved. We can compare pictures over the last 170 years. We can compare weather data over the last 100. And to go further back, we use soil, rock, geological, and carbon dating. All of which gives evidence of whats happened. Your evidence, an article. Failing. You give that word a new perspective and a whole new meaning. Obviously, you couldn't pass first grade science. Trees WITHOUT A DOUBT REMOVE CARBON DIOXIDE. We are deforesting the planet. Animals live in Forests. We chop them down, species disappear. Less trees, less things to purify our air. More factories, cars, and pollution with less trees, = more sticks around. This isn't rocket science. Then again, I'm trying to convince someone who couldn't get passed high school and believes wikipedia is a source the fundamentals of life. AH yes, this is a big challenge to say the least. ORLY?
Check out this website.
»omniclimate.wordpress.com/
Specifically:
quote:
During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.
The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.
The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years — evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.
And here is an other couple paragraphs you should read:
quote:
About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.
The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.
GAME, SET, MATCH!! | |
| Big picture with barely 100 years of data? Yeah, that makes sence
You don't make "Sense". No one claimed 100 years of data. I said 100 years of weather data that is written down. THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE CANNOT USE SCIENCE TO ANALYZE DATA PRIOR TO SUCH RECORDINGS. Does stupid come with a tshirt? I'll buy you a few.
- Carbon Dating
- Geological Surveys
- Pictorial Comparisons
- Environmental Surveys
- Fossil Patterns / Life
All show o lets say 100s of millions of years. So Written Data is one thing. I know a man of your lack of intelligence probably is religious. You believe that fictional work called the bible right? Why, cause it's written down so it has to be right. Prove to me Jesus existed? Were you there? I want proof. O wait, you can't. Damn. Yet, your church have you believe he was real with "loads of evidence". Funny... You take their word but oddly enough, come science, it's all magical hokey pokey ay?
I give up. Your "BLOG" of "Blogs" has won me out. I mean some wackjobs writings just overpower me with evidence. All bow to the might conspiracy theory blogs. O and he claims 150 scientist agree. Wow... The church claims to have scholars on religion. Funny enough, for bright minds, I'm wondering why the world has like 1000s of different beliefs. Seems if these scholars were any damn good, theyd have convinced the world that their religion is right. O snap, that's right. This same church has you believing the world is 10,000 years old and we walked with Dinosaurs.
Non Conjecture = Trees Take Carbon Dioxide from the air and turn to Oxygen. That's FACT. That's Proven. 100 percent of scientists agree on it.
Fact #2 = Cutting down trees lessens the numbers of forests. IE causes species to disappear. If I bulldoze your house, you are homeless. If you cut down a forest, animals have less space to live. Not to mention See Fact 1 which is universally agreed upon. Trees are the world's air purifiers. You cut a tree in half, and it's rings show growth patterns and weather change. Trees filter out carbon dioxide.
O wow, the mighty Graph. Part of the Global Warming theory smart one is that SOME AREAS OF THE EARTH WILL ACTUALLY GET COOLER while others heat up. The Poles are melting and ocean temperatures rising. However, just like any other weather, changes are going to fluxuate. I guess you've never heard of a nuclear winter. Yea Hokus Pokus Ay? I guess a Volcano Erupting has no effect on Climate either. All conjecture. Changes have no cause and effect. Got any tin foil?
Um you're guy is a blogger. Ya, his credentials speak wonders. The Mighty Blogger. Once again. yes, the Earth has seen MANY CHANGES. NO FUCKING SHIT. The earth has also seen many species come extinct. Keep believing our actions have no effect on the planet.
Increased pollution doesn't increase cancer rates.
Drugs do no harm on people. They're just sugar pills.
Radiation is good for the Human Body. The Atomic Bomb did nothing to cause Birth Defects and Malformations.
Our actions are TOTALLY WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.
No game set Match. Might try reserving that for when you're brain has five minutes to FIND A TEE TO PUT FROM. Right now, you're smacking air and tossing your clubs. | |
| Repeating the same BS with nothing to back it up.
You have nothing.
But, I have more:
»www.earthtimes.org/articles/show···95.shtml
quote:
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."
The same evidence you say proves global warming is the same set used to call into question your conclusions.
I have yet to see you post one credible piece of evidence. Just one.
The fact is this has become a highly political issue and most people, like you, fail to use any real science to prove your point.
Go drink so more of the global warming Kool Aid. | |
| Well let's see. You don't offer but a 35 year old article, A Blogger, and Conjecture.
I at least give you known facts of life. Go verify them yourself.
Here's something you might understand in stupid people lingo. Take A Box. Go stick a Cigarette in it. Put the lid on. What happens? Box fills with smoke. Now add a fan to that box, what happens? Smoke still says in the box, but blows around. Now, add some napkins in there and blow in another cigarette (Filter). What happens? Less smoke enters the box?
See stupid people experiment tailored towards you? Lesson here. Earth = Box. We're a Closed system. What happens here stays here. Our Pollution does not disperse. Our Ozone layer which protects us also acts as a shield encasing the shit we pump into this planet. Trees are natures way of sorting that out. We chop them down, there goes the filters.
People like you have us believe we can dump toxic waste into a river.. It does Nothing.
We can chop down a Forest, Consequence free.
We can use tons of radiation, as hell, it doesnt hurt anyone.
Here's the difference. All this is known to be inaccurate.
Hiroshima led to MASSIVE AMOUNTS of Birth Defects in People. Chemicals we create have IMMEDIATE and long lasting effects on ourselves. Common sense says they effect other things too.
Ah yes... Logic to stupidity. Checkmate. | |
| said by jc100:Well let's see. You don't offer but a 35 year old article, A Blogger, and Conjecture. I at least give you known facts of life. Go verify them yourself. An article from a respected magazine. A blogger with links to verify his claims. And Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery with climate physicist S. Fred Singer.
What do you have? NOTHING.
You have no clue what you are talking about except what Al Gore told you and the rest of the sheeple.
Post proof or your opinion means nothing. That's the scientific method. | |
1 edit | Um.. No what I posted are not opinions. Five minutes of your time can verify that what I posted is actually a legitimate experiment used in classrooms and done as a science fair. Strange huh. People actually focus on science to prove things rather than hokus pokus. As per the Magazine, it was done 35 years ago and it's not like there was a universal consensus. It was the opinion of some, but definitely NOT a majority. There by, people write articles all the time. Hell, scholars in the Church seem to Claim they can prove Jesus is God. Good luck on that. People can write and claim anything they want. Doesn't mean it's true. What is needed is evidence. We seem to have plenty (see above) to at least substantiate we're at least partially to blame for what's occurring. In this case, a MAJORITY of scientists do agree. Unlike your 35 year old article which didn't even have a MINORITY consensus.
There by, the evidence can be found in what I listed above. Is it full proof? Nothing is absolutely fool proof. However, is it more likely than not when combining ALL THE "Evidence" Together we're a factor in this change. So Yes and as I stated above in Layman's terms (so you'd understand), we have MANY TOOLS to assess what's going on. When all adds up to a conclusion, odds are it's more likely right than wrong. Some things are definitive. The world is round. Some things are HIGHLY LIKELY (Global Warming is taking place and Man has SOME IF NOT A GOOD DEAL to do with it).
As with the project I listed to you. Think of Earth as a Glass Ball. Things trapped in a glass ball do not leave. IE, Light a cigarette in that ball, the smoke stays. Add outside stimulus, and reactions occur. In this case, shine a Heat Lamp into that smoke filled ball, and now you have more than air reacting with heat. So on So forth.
More or less, while I believe the earth DOES GO THROUGH NATURAL ROTATIONS, Evidence suggests our activities are at least moderately or substantially to blame for causing this process to happen more rapidly.
In Summation, believe what you want. You can argue with me until you are blue in the face, but your lack of any actual scientific awareness will lead you to proving nothing. A First grader can elaborate the concepts I've posed to you. I don't see why you can't grasp them. Maybe you just weren't good at the topic. I can tell. Long story short, I'm not going to rehash things. You can read back through this and sort out the simple fundamentals yourself, and combine that with a little googling. It'll do you some good. | |
| said by jc100:Um.. No what I posted are not opinions. Five minutes of your time can verify that what I posted is actually a legitimate experiment used in classrooms and done as a science fair. Strange huh. People actually focus on science to prove things rather than hokus pokus. As per the Magazine, it was done 35 years ago and it's not like there was a universal consensus. It was the opinion of some, but definitely NOT a majority. There by, people write articles all the time. Hell, scholars in the Church seem to Claim they can prove Jesus is God. Good luck on that. People can write and claim anything they want. Doesn't mean it's true. What is needed is evidence. We seem to have plenty (see above) to at least substantiate we're at least partially to blame for what's occurring. In this case, a MAJORITY of scientists do agree. Unlike your 35 year old article which didn't even have a MINORITY consensus. So in a debate, when you state something as fact, you tell others to get get you the proof. I bet you did the same with papers in school.
Oh, and when some people thought the world was round instead of flat, they were in the MINORITY but yet, they were still proven right. What about the contention that the Earth was the center of the solar system? That was considered fact until proven wrong. How? Exploration and discovery. Not rash judgements and politicized science.
said by jc100:There by, the evidence can be found in what I listed above. Is it full proof? Nothing is absolutely fool proof. However, is it more likely than not when combining ALL THE "Evidence" Together we're a factor in this change. So Yes and as I stated above in Layman's terms (so you'd understand), we have MANY TOOLS to assess what's going on. When all adds up to a conclusion, odds are it's more likely right than wrong. Some things are definitive. The world is round. Some things are HIGHLY LIKELY (Global Warming is taking place and Man has SOME IF NOT A GOOD DEAL to do with it). Where is your proof. Post it or it means nothing.
Oh, and you are starting to see that we no longer have GLOBAL WARMING but it has now become GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. Funny considering we were all supposed to be roasting in a drought and yet this winter (in the USA) we have had a lot of snow and cold. Where is the warming?
said by jc100:As with the project I listed to you. Think of Earth as a Glass Ball. Things trapped in a glass ball do not leave. IE, Light a cigarette in that ball, the smoke stays. Add outside stimulus, and reactions occur. In this case, shine a Heat Lamp into that smoke filled ball, and now you have more than air reacting with heat. So on So forth. Ummmm, you seem to forget things can still get in like meteorites which aren't from this globe and can cause massive destruction. Therefore, the Earth is not a closed system. Never has been and even the sun and moon affect us. Read again what I posted about sun spot cycles affecting climate.
said by jc100:More or less, while I believe the earth DOES GO THROUGH NATURAL ROTATIONS, Evidence suggests our activities are at least moderately or substantially to blame for causing this process to happen more rapidly. First, it was all to blame and now only partially to substantially? Didn't you make this same mistake when arguing over congressional votes?
said by jc100:In Summation, believe what you want. You can argue with me until you are blue in the face, but your lack of any actual scientific awareness will lead you to proving nothing. A First grader can elaborate the concepts I've posed to you. I don't see why you can't grasp them. Maybe you just weren't good at the topic. I can tell. Long story short, I'm not going to rehash things. You can read back through this and sort out the simple fundamentals yourself, and combine that with a little googling. It'll do you some good. I have posted links and proof, you have posted NOTHING to back up your claim. The burden of proof is on YOU. Therefore, you would FAIL any scientific review.
You seem to have this habit is almost all your posts. You cite things that have no backup.
The first rule of debate is to back up your claims. Otherwise, you have already lost. | |
| Well Gee.... Fine dude. I'll take First Grade Concepts and give Proof. I really didn't think I had to belittle you're Intelligence to the form of ABSOLUTELY BRAIN DEAD. Here we go step by step:
1) Trees Process Carbon Dioxide, turn it into OXYGEN, and Reduce Air Pollution. So on and so Forth.
»www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/publ···an2.html
(The Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service)
- Strike 1 Against you (Basic Science is not your friend)
2) Tree Rings Tell about Climate Changes that take place over time.
»www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=anc···s-tell-o
- Strike 2 (Hey batter your E.R.A. is terrible)
3) Carbon Dating lets you study Fossils. Fossils can tell us about life and changes in time.
»science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
- Strike 3 you're out.
P.S. The world was flat because people in the 1600s didn't have Satellites, computers, or Space Crafts to tell otherwise. Science is a measure of available equipment and an understanding of the world around you. People in the 1600s couldnt go into space and check their assumptions or monitor changes using computers, now could they =).
As for this Argument taking on Another tone, Global Warming and Climate Change are INTERCHANGEABLE. Yes, see weather patterns do happen. NO ONE DISPUTES THAT. What is being questioned is why things are happening rapidly. Such as the Polar Ice caps receding Tens of Miles in only the last 20 or 30 years. How our actions are directly correlating with this change, and what amount they are having. Read above once again on How trees act as Air Filters, Reduce Pollution, etc.
Um.... Closed Systems are still Subject to Outside Stimulus Smart one. Just because something is closed, does not mean something doesn't get in at times. A Meteor Strike the Earth can lead to catastrophic Changes. There ARE OUTSIDE STIMULUS that work on the earth. However, in terms of Wind Patterns, climate, etc That all happens locally. The earth rotates the sun around the same pattern. It's not as if we're magically moving Extremely closer to the sun on some warp speed pace to cause heating. Think of Earth as that glass globe. Just because it's contained and encircled, doesn't mean it's not subject to outside influence. Even a Closed environment is not absolute. However, Outter space is not inject Earth with the Chemicals and Crap we're pumping into our planet. That's our own doing and the Ozone layer traps that shit in.
Some terms for you to look up:
Nuclear Winter
Weather Changes After Volcanic Eruptions
Radiation's effect on Mankind and Animals
It doesn't take much to cause malformations in humans or force the earth to be thrown into another cycle. Something as simple as a volcano erupting can make the earth see climate changes in a region for many years. So if that's the case, what makes you think our actions are any different. We can force such changes the same as nature.
quote:
First, it was all to blame and now only partially to substantially? Didn't you make this same mistake when arguing over congressional votes?
Prove to me where I said we were ALL TO BLAME. I never once stated that in any of my arguments. I said we are moderate or substantially. I never said "ALL". Nice making things up as you go along. Please find me here I said we're ALL TO BLAME. Like your HOKUS POKUS Data, you won't find this statement to be fact in the least.
Well here you go. Plenty of proof. Now you're out. If I were placing money with a bookie on the odds of you failing, I'd be a rich rich man. | |
| said by jc100:Well Gee.... Fine dude. I'll take First Grade Concepts and give Proof. I really didn't think I had to belittle you're Intelligence to the form of ABSOLUTELY BRAIN DEAD. Here we go step by step: Finally you understand the basic concept of proof. However, you still fail at your main point.
said by jc100:1) Trees Process Carbon Dioxide, turn it into OXYGEN, and Reduce Air Pollution. So on and so Forth. » www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/publ···an2.html(The Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service) - Strike 1 Against you (Basic Science is not your friend) Very good. But we are not arguring basic science. We are debating whether or not global climate change is caused mainly by human intervention or by a natural cycle.
Now explain this:
quote:
Methane: Burning fossil fuels, livestock waste, landfills and rice production.
So, when do we get rid of cows and tell China and Japan to stop growing rice?
And did you read this part?
said by jc100:Some of the longer cycles are probably a result of varying solar activity. That article points out volcanic activity and possible solar activity. None of which is man made.
This will bring me to a later point.
And they still don't have a definite reason as to why the dinosaurs died out rather quickly. Was it climate change or was it that meteorite that struck off the Yucatan coast? Still in the theory stages on that.
Why did some species die out before man even showed up? Still not sure about those are we? Even Darwin's theory has holes in it but it is the most credible out there.
said by jc100:P.S. The world was flat because people in the 1600s didn't have Satellites, computers, or Space Crafts to tell otherwise. Science is a measure of available equipment and an understanding of the world around you. People in the 1600s couldnt go into space and check their assumptions or monitor changes using computers, now could they =). Two Greek astronomers postulated the world was round way before Columbus even was born. They had the math and the science to back it up and yet, the MAJORITY did not believe them. Seems the MAJORITY WAS WRONG! Just because most people think it is true, doesn't mean it is.
said by jc100:As for this Argument taking on Another tone, Global Warming and Climate Change are INTERCHANGEABLE. Yes, see weather patterns do happen. NO ONE DISPUTES THAT. What is being questioned is why things are happening rapidly. Such as the Polar Ice caps receding Tens of Miles in only the last 20 or 30 years. How our actions are directly correlating with this change, and what amount they are having. Read above once again on How trees act as Air Filters, Reduce Pollution, etc. And, by your own admission, we only have 100 years of hard data while we know climate changes can happen over thousands of years.
said by jc100:Um.... Closed Systems are still Subject to Outside Stimulus Smart one. Just because something is closed, does not mean something doesn't get in at times. A Meteor Strike the Earth can lead to catastrophic Changes. There ARE OUTSIDE STIMULUS that work on the earth. However, in terms of Wind Patterns, climate, etc That all happens locally. The earth rotates the sun around the same pattern. It's not as if we're magically moving Extremely closer to the sun on some warp speed pace to cause heating. Think of Earth as that glass globe. Just because it's contained and encircled, doesn't mean it's not subject to outside influence. Even a Closed environment is not absolute. However, Outter space is not inject Earth with the Chemicals and Crap we're pumping into our planet. That's our own doing and the Ozone layer traps that shit in. So we don't get bombarded by solar radiation? Really? From your definition of the Earth being a closed system, the sun sure has a large influence on our planet. The Earth is not a glass globe. Radiation leaks out. We send stuff out into space that doesn't come back.
said by jc100:Some terms for you to look up: Nuclear Winter Weather Changes After Volcanic Eruptions Radiation's effect on Mankind and Animals It doesn't take much to cause malformations in humans or force the earth to be thrown into another cycle. Something as simple as a volcano erupting can make the earth see climate changes in a region for many years. So if that's the case, what makes you think our actions are any different. We can force such changes the same as nature. Nuclear winter was a coin termed by what might happen if we had global nuclear war. Massive volcanic eruptions have done the same thing to the term is outdated and a misnomer. Look up Mount Tambora which is the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history. That created a world without summer in 1816.
As for our own actions, are we partially to blame, yes. Are we the main cause? Not enough data to support that. Again, you base some of your conclussions on 100 year data spans and then bring in parts of data streams lasting over a thousand years only when it supports your side of the argument.
said by jc100:Prove to me where I said we were ALL TO BLAME. I never once stated that in any of my arguments. I said we are moderate or substantially. I never said "ALL". Nice making things up as you go along. Please find me here I said we're ALL TO BLAME. Like your HOKUS POKUS Data, you won't find this statement to be fact in the least. Here are your exact words:
quote:
We are polluting Rivers, Cutting down Forests (Which reduce carbon dioxides), and harming are air at record rates.
That implies you are setting most of your blame on the human race.
said by jc100:Well here you go. Plenty of proof. Now you're out. If I were placing money with a bookie on the odds of you failing, I'd be a rich rich man. A legend in your own mind as usual. The scientific method escapes you but you like generalities like calling all texans morons. And before you spout off your usually stupidity, I am not from texas nor have I ever been to texas.
Keep jumping through hoops, maybe you'll make it through. | |
| Sure we are arguing basic Science. What do you think we're talking about here? Science in General. Simple concepts that make this argument on my side HOLD WATER.
Simple Science - Trees Purify the AIR and REMOVE CARBON
Man = Cutting Down trees and deforesting the planet at record reates
Cutting down trees = Less Animal Habitat (Species Extinction) AND LESS AIR PURIFIERS. Simple.
Simple Science.. Obviously it's above your head because SIMPLE SCIENCE Backs up what I say.
Now to Reply to your nonsense.
quote:
So, when do we get rid of cows and tell China and Japan to stop growing rice?
Well so you're saying our activities have an effect on the planet? Strange, you seem to tell me whatever we do has no harm what so ever. We can HACK DOWN all the forests, Pollute all the rivers, and set off nuclear warfare and there's no environmental consequence. Right? This is your preposterous stance. Anyway, as for the above, we look for more earth friendly methods to cultivating rice. Cows, well there's not much we can do ab out that one. Some stuff is unavoidable.
quote:
And did you read this part?
»www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=anc···s-tell-o
In the second paragraph from Scientific American. Reading isn't too hard. It's a very short article. Take the time to read proof.
quote:
That article points out volcanic activity and possible solar activity. None of which is man made.
This will bring me to a later point.
Yes... This does back up what I have continually said. Thanks for using MY POINTS. I said Volcanic Eruptions can cause changes in climate. Non man made. It goes to show (which I said before thank you) actions from Nature can change climate. What makes you think MAN cannot have the same effect. Just as natural occurrences can cause catastrophic events, our actions can too! Amazing, how that works hand in hand.
quote:
And they still don't have a definite reason as to why the dinosaurs died out rather quickly. Was it climate change or was it that meteorite that struck off the Yucatan coast? Still in the theory stages on that.
Why did some species die out before man even showed up? Still not sure about those are we? Even Darwin's theory has holes in it but it is the most credible out there.
I don't know. Maybe we weren't alive 300 million years ago. Then again, according to "Scholars" from churches, we haven't been alive more than 10,000 years. We roamed the earth with Dinosaurs and everyone lived happily ever after. I guess this theory from "Scholars" is the right answer in your mind. Science to you is Hokus Pokus. So let's just setting on we all lived together with huge dinosaurs and science is fake. After all, Scholars from Christianity claim it, so this must be true right. A sect of the religion has it's best minds on it. Since they claim it (contrary to the rest of Christianity).... It's absolute fact. O wait, Just cause a few people agree on something, doesn't make it true... One needs evidence. Got ya. Isn't that what the scientific community is doing now. O wait I said science. Bad word. Since we did not live during that age, the best we can do is make a hypothesis based upon geological, climate, and fossil data we find.
Once again, NO ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST THE EARTH HAVING NATURAL CYCLES. I said that o like 50 times. What I did say, too, is that OUR ACTIONS CAN ALSO CAUSE WEATHER / Climate to change. Seriously, do you not bother reading or selectively choose what you want to hear.
quote:
Two Greek astronomers postulated the world was round way before Columbus even was born. They had the math and the science to back it up and yet, the MAJORITY did not believe them. Seems the MAJORITY WAS WRONG! Just because most people think it is true, doesn't mean it is.
It was the 1600s. Witches, sea monsters, etc roamed the earth. Not like we had computers and satellites to check the data. What's your point here? I'm really at a loss. So the Majority did not believe them. That's like me taking the Theories of the 16th century of uneducated people and applying it to modern day reality. Yes, I understand that you are STUCK on the 35 year old article of a FEW PEOPLE. I understand that you can't let it go. However, a Majority in this case also use SIMPLE SCIENCE LIKE ABOVE when determining Global Warming.
We know that trees clean the air. We know man is taking them down. At best, we're having a moderate effect on the earth, it's species, etc. Or does cutting down forests, polluting, etc do nothing what so ever? Mexico City and L.A. had the worst quality air before man came along. Just Coincidence we moved in and it became smoggy.... Or that Chernobyl is uninhabitable because of radiation. Radiation is Hokus Pokus. We should build a resort there. Our actions have no consequence on the environment and people. Hell, The Atomic bomb was also just a fire cracker. It didn't cause 40 years of birth defects from radiation, kill 100s of thousands, or harm the environment either. Man is without fault for all. Our actions do not have consequences.. (Sarcasm).
quote:
And, by your own admission, we only have 100 years of hard data while we know climate changes can happen over thousands of years.
Never said that. You're making claims which are BOGUS. I said we have PLENTY OF DATA. Carbon Dating, Fossils, Geological Surveys, etc. Written record is only 100 years or so. Other sources go back millions =). You're just upset because you're stuck on the fact you're being proven wrong. Not everything HAS TO BE IN WRITING to understand it, right. O I forgot, you're the guy who probably sticks to the bible and earth being 10,000 years old to get your facts. Got ya. If not in writing, it can't be true.. As if Writing can't be wrong (it can). So where man errors or has lack of data, other sources obviously have to be used to verify. See above. =).
quote:
So we don't get bombarded by solar radiation? Really? From your definition of the Earth being a closed system, the sun sure has a large influence on our planet. The Earth is not a glass globe. Radiation leaks out. We send stuff out into space that doesn't come back.
In Terms of the Earth itself. WE ARE A CLOSED. Not 100 percent, but MOSTLY A CLOSED SYSTEM. Man does not leave earth. The Ozone layer holds in what we do (pollute, etc). I said when you read my analogy, the sun acts on the earth. Sure there is Solar Radiation, we have that big ball known as the sun heating us daily. The Moon also acts by using it's gravitational force on earth. We are also subject to meteorites and other outside stimulus. This is a given. I am not talking about the known affects on earth. I'm talking about OUR ACTIONS ONLY when referring to a closed system. We're a sphere and man lives on this sphere. The Ozone layer closes in this sphere and traps our activity. Like a Glass Globe. So what we do gets stuck here. Our activities are trapped on this planet. Sure the sun has an affect, along with the moon. Yes we shoot stuff into space. Once again A GIVEN. However, if I pollute the air, the earth TRAPS THIS POLLUTION IN LIKE A CLOSED BOX via the ozone layer. The Wind patters cycle this are around earth and it sticks right. Right? Yes. See my analogy.
quote:
Nuclear winter was a coin termed by what might happen if we had global nuclear war. Massive volcanic eruptions have done the same thing to the term is outdated and a misnomer. Look up Mount Tambora which is the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history. That created a world without summer in 1816.
As for our own actions, are we partially to blame, yes. Are we the main cause? Not enough data to support that. Again, you base some of your conclussions on 100 year data spans and then bring in parts of data streams lasting over a thousand years only when it supports your side of the argument.
DING DING DING.. AND YOU FINALLY ADMIT IT! Volcanic Eruptions (Like I said 50 times) can change our climate. Nuclear Bombs can change our Climate. NATURE CAN HAVE AN EFFECT IS PROVEN.
So If Nature can do something, I am damn well sure Man's actions can do the same. You yourself just admitted, OUR ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. You're stuck on that 100 Number. How about we have MILLIONS OF YEARS. We have Fossils, Carbon Dating, Geological Surveys, etc. WHAT IS 100 Years is WRITTEN ONLY. Not everything has to be written in a story to understand it, right =). So you just proved my point. Thank you. Man has something to do with climate change, and our actions (Cutting Down Trees, Polluting, etc) has consequences.
quote:
That implies you are setting most of your blame on the human race.
Yes. This implies man shares more than 50 percent blame in our current Predicament. Animals are losing their habitat because Dogs are coming along and eating their forests. Man's coming along and chopping them down. If you don't have a house, you go homeless. Enough people homeless (or species) and then food becomes scarce and disease and hunger kill you off. Gee simple science relates again. Our cutting down trees not only REMOVES EARTH'S FILTERING SYSTEM but displaces and forces animals to die off. So yes, I think we are at least 51 percent responsible for Species Extinction and Global Warming. We're removing the trees that are meant to protect us.
quote:
A legend in your own mind as usual. The scientific method escapes you but you like generalities like calling all texans morons. And before you spout off your usually stupidity, I am not from texas nor have I ever been to texas.
Science escapes you. When you have to agree with the other party, the argument is pretty much over, ay? | |
| Again, using less than 100 years of data to argue something that might take thousands of years.
You arguments hold NO WATER WHATSOEVER.
Now, if you can explain why scientists are retreating from "global warming" then maybe you might get a clue as to how you and many others were suckered into "chicken little" BS.
»www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/pd112498b.html
quote:
The ranks of those who believe man-made emissions are increasing world temperatures are thinning, observers report. Even James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, who put the phrase "global warming" into popular usage, has reportedly backed off.
More scientists are acknowledging that so may factors influence the climate that it is not yet possible to state with certainty how and why climate change takes place.
- In the August 18 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Hansen wrote: "The forces that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change."
- Experts report that as climate models have been refined, they have tended to predict less global warming.
- In 1990, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that the average global temperature would rise 3.3 degrees Celsius over the next century -- but in 1995 predicted only a 1.0 degree increase due to human activity.
Scientists agree that natural factors -- such as volcanic or sunspot activity, clouds and oceans -- are important variables in raising or lowering Earth temperatures, but their role is still only imperfectly understood.
Source: Anna Bray Duff, "Greenhouse Warming Cools Off," Investor's Business Daily, November 24, 1998.
Seems the majority is saying man might not be the BIG factor in all of this.
And here is another article for you:
»www.globalwarminghysteria.com/bl···way.html
quote:
A key article of faith for the "warmists" is a supposed increase in the incidence of extreme weather events, such as droughts. As Al Gore claimed to a US Senate committee in March, "droughts are becoming longer and more intense".
But US researchers, led by Gemma Narisma, have now shown that, far from becoming more frequent in recent decades, serious droughts have in fact become rarer than they were a century ago.
In a paper (reported on the website CO2Science.org) they identified the 30 most "severe and persistent" drought episodes of the 20th century.
Seven of these occurred before 1920, seven between 1921 and 1940 and eight between 1941 and 1960, dropping to five between 1961 and 1980.
The last two decades of the century, when the world was supposedly hotting up more than ever, saw just three. The worst drought affecting the developed world was the US Dust Bowl disaster of the mid-1930s.
This corresponds with the recently revised figures for US surface temperatures published by Gore's leading scientific ally, James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
Last month, when Steve McIntyre, an expert statistical analyst, spotted a fundamental flaw in the method Hansen had used to calculate his figures, GISS was forced to publish a new graph, showing that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998, as generally accepted, but 1934. Of the 10 hottest years since 1880, four were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade.
This in turn followed the latest satellite figures from the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration showing how global temperatures in recent years have flattened out at about 0.2 degrees below their 1998 level, and that this summer's figures have been lower than they were in 1983, despite a continuing rise in CO2.
It is clear that 2007 is proving quite a turning point in the climate change debate.
Even with all your computer models and satellite imagery, we are cooling down from 1998. | |
| Using reliable sources and ONES not from blogs, "Think Tanks" with Political Agendas (NCPA)... IE lobbyists, etc is kind of important when one is looking to prove his or her case. I won't even bother giving you a reply. Your sources lack any credence.
Also, for the 10000000000000 times. IT'S NOT 100 YEARS.... NOT 100 YEARS.. NOT 100 YEARS ... NOT 100 YEARS.
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT POINT?
100 years is WRITTEN ONLY. We have Pictorial Data going back 170. We can use Carbon Dating, Geological Surveys, Growth Patterns of Trees to go back MILLIONS OF YEARS.
Keep trying. | |
| said by jc100:Using reliable sources and ONES not from blogs, "Think Tanks" with Political Agendas (NCPA)... IE lobbyists, etc is kind of important when one is looking to prove his or her case. I won't even bother giving you a reply. Your sources lack any credence. Also, for the 10000000000000 times. IT'S NOT 100 YEARS.... NOT 100 YEARS.. NOT 100 YEARS ... NOT 100 YEARS. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT POINT? 100 years is WRITTEN ONLY. We have Pictorial Data going back 170. We can use Carbon Dating, Geological Surveys, Growth Patterns of Trees to go back MILLIONS OF YEARS. Keep trying. Sort of like you using junk science and small sets of data.
Pot...kettle...you know the rest. | |
| Pot / Kettle doesn't come into play when one uses CREDIBLE SOURCES..... IE not ones from BLOGS (Unverified) or Lobbyist Group / Think Tanks with the Agenda of securing funds.
No pot kettle.. But common sense.
Keep grasping for straws.....
- Yet to refute that we have millions of years of data..
- Yet to refute basic science that Trees are the World's Air filter and that cutting them down has removed the filter and caused massive habitat destruction and animal extinction.
so on so forth..... | |
|
