joining together to fight global warming

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

But that's not what happened

But Al Gore is so fat!

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

But that's not what happened

"Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's?"

That's not the same question, now is it?

[Trotskilicious]

ok if we're all on the same page and we think something should be done about impurities in the air and water, what the fuck are you arguing about nimrod

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

ok if we're all on the same page and we think something should be done about impurities in the air and water, what the fuck are you arguing about nimrod

the effect that man has had on planetary temperature in regards to technology

[dean_r_koontz]

never put down your sword proud warrior

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

the effect that man has had on planetary temperature in regards to technology

so we should be concerned about pollution

but it has no effect on the earth

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by BumbleBeeMouth

Sorry, i was ranting. Let me be rational here.

Global warming is currently happening, but this is perfectly natural to happen! The climate of the earth moves in cycles, or glacial periods. hot to cold, then cold to hot. every.... 10,000 years or so (with small fluctuations, did you know the river Thames froze over in the 1600's?)

To confidently attribute the effects of excessive global warming to humanity is absurd when you consider all the random variables present in the climate. Particularly that of the chaotic weather patterns and the quite trule staggering power of the sun. (Check out stuff like the milankovitch cycle here http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geo...1/milankov.htm)

Global warming is not really significant when we sit up and notice all the other fucked up shit we are doing to the planet, things that will get us waaaaay before this will.

So Bumbles, why is it that the 10,000 year cycle corresponds with the weakest solar forcing? Why does it lock step with the variations in orbital eccentricity, when eccentricity has the smallest effect on the amount of solar energy coming in?

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

"Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's?"

That's not the same question, now is it?

Why would people be screaming about global cooling if they didn't think it was going to make any significant difference? People were predicting an ice age then, but not in the scientific community - because they knew that their understanding was extremely limited at such an early stage, and that even if trends pointed toward possible cooling they weren't going to be drawn on making predictions. So the media went for it instead

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

so we should be concerned about pollution

but it has no effect on the earth

We should be concerned about polluting our air and water because of the negative effects it can have on the wildlife and humans who encounter it.

How is that saying it has no effect on the earth? Unless you mean "Gaia" or some insane shit like that...

[Trotskilicious]

I don't think considering the Earth one complex life-form is really all that insane but that's neither here nor there. I just can't possibly fathom the logic that takes you from climate change is a natural process, to the fact that polluting air and water does have a negative effect on life, but has no effect on climate at all.

I just don't see the value in arguing this at all if the conclusion; that we have to take care to prevent and reduce pollutants, is already agreed upon.

[<sp3]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

and i trust my own brain. the issue is actually so crystal clear that i can't be bothered to have an argument concerning if it's actually happening. the more interesting question is what to do about it. and maybe if something will be done at all

same here, however its quite apparent that i am on the other side of the fence. i flat out do not believe that mankind's effects on climate change are anything more than negligible compared to what naturally happens without any interference. i am not stupid, either. i have given up trying to convince people, because i share many similar goals with people who are concerned with "global warming".

i am 100% in favor of stopping the burning of fossil fuels for power generation.

i am against the hype and bullshit, however, and am quite disturbed by everyone's willingness to believe everything that they are told.

[dean_r_koontz]

did you even read the graphs i posted mate?

[<sp3]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

did you even read the graphs i posted mate?

what, you think some graph that god knows who posted on wikipedia is all the proof i need to change my mind? give me a little more credit than that.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by

same here, however its quite apparent that i am on the other side of the fence. i flat out do not believe that mankind's effects on climate change are anything more than negligible compared to what naturally happens without any interference. i am not stupid, either. i have given up trying to convince people, because i share many similar goals with people who are concerned with "global warming".

i am 100% in favor of stopping the burning of fossil fuels for power generation.

i am against the hype and bullshit, however, and am quite disturbed by everyone's willingness to believe everything that they are told.

Frankly, your arguments and others on your side are quite lacking. I'm disturbed by how you ignore pretty much any rebuttal to them.

On what basis do you carry your beliefs? Are you a climate scientist? I am not, so I have to rely on experts I trust (what do you rely on?). I can easily lay out and point to where I get my information from and why I trust it. You, however, resort to ad hominem attack, bringing up al gore and basically whatever else comes out of your ass.

Maybe you like to think that you are somehow superior to everybody by carrying this contrarian view. But your inability to explain them or support them is sad.

[bardy]

my bf studied a lot of climate shit in college and he is on the sp3 guy's side of the argument

[Richard McBeef]

Originally Posted by bardy

climate shit

lol

[<sp3]

listen debaser, i really hate getting heated and flaming people in arguments on the internet.. i obviously dont know your background and you dont know mine. its frustrating.. isnt it? something is so clear in your head but people refuse to listen to everything you say. sorry if i came across as a jerk in earlier posts.

if you want to believe in gobal warming, then fine.. i just hope you are doing something about it by keeping an open mind and contributing to the furthering of knowledge with research, funding or volunteering or whatever you can do on the issue (if it is something you truly are concerned about), and are not just serving to repeat everything that has already been said. everyone knows there is scientific arguments on both sides of the issue, and its the bickering over who is right that is keeping us stagnant and not moving forward.

i am doing my part for the environment, and the stability of the future for my grandkids both in my country and around the world, and i chose to do it from a platform that does not believe in human-induced large scale climate change.

[<sp3]

Originally Posted by bardy

my bf studied a lot of climate shit in college and he is on the sp3 guy's side of the argument

thanks, i felt out numbered

[Debaser]

I thought numbers didn't matter?

We have a handful of global-warming deniers on one side and tens of thousands of scientists on the other.

But yet I ask you directly for your information sources and you just try to change the subject.

You say that there are scientific arguments on both sides of the issue, yet I scan this thread and I don't actually see you delving into them or attempting to address the rebuttal of melankov cycles (which doesn't really need a rebuttal because nobody actually even tries to say that this current warm up is due to the melankov cycles, they just throw out this fact of the melankov cycles and just leave it for you to infer your denialist views).

I've posted repeatedly my sources. You have not. And what little arguments your side has made, I rebut them and/or point to scientific rebuttals. You then ignore these. Why?

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by bardy

my bf studied a lot of climate shit in college and he is on the sp3 guy's side of the argument

Sorry, that's not even an argument.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by < sp3

i flat out do not believe that mankind's effects on climate change are anything more than negligible compared to what naturally happens without any interference.

why?

[Debaser]

The only thing that's frustrating is not the perceived attitudes and possible anger (its only a stupid internet messageboard), its how denialists just declare the discussion is at an impasse without actually ever making a good faith argument in the first place.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Debaser

We have a handful of global-warming deniers on one side and tens of thousands of scientists on the other.

Just to give you perspective, in the 1840s there were tens of thousands of scientists saying that the Irish potato famine was caused by wet rot and a handful of guys that said it was a fungus from the Americas. Guess which one was right.

At the same time I still see no reason why anyone would argue and deny human effected climate change in the first place unless they want to keep driving your SUV down the driveway to get the mail or put a smelting plant on Lake Tahoe, because whether climate change is effected by humans or not it's not going to hurt anything or anyone to assume that we are.

Unlike the potato famine misdiagnosis.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

Just to give you perspective, in the 1840s there were tens of thousands of scientists saying that the Irish potato famine was caused by wet rot and a handful of guys that said it was a fungus from the Americas. Guess which one was right.

Ok, that's a fair point.

But that doesn't in any way mean that just because they are in the minority it means they must be right!

But can a denier please give me a good reason to believe their side? Just saying "oh, people have been wrong before" is only reason to hedge your conclusions (even the IPCC doesn't make these claims with 100% certainty), it's no where near reason enough to dismiss global warming claims entirely as deniers are wont to do.

[Hillzy]

Originally Posted by BumbleBeeMouth

Trev You must be the most awesome troll ever. SINCE WHEN DID THE WEIGHT OF NUMBERS JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF ANYTHING!! flat earth, geocentric view, witches, black people not having rights. You are quite naive, or come across that way.

You give a list of errors caused largely by ignorance and a lack of application of the scientific method in the process of telling us to ignore the current scientific wisdom?

Originally Posted by BumbleBeeMouth

Hillzy, no, it isnt a vast conspiracy, the arguments for and against can both be argued competently, i must admit, that perhaps we are doing something. The fact is that it is difficult to truly know, and that is my sticking point.

Your argument here is "I don't really know much about this so it must be wrong" no?

You still haven't answered why I shouldn't believe the collective opinion of the worlds climate scientists.

[Hillzy]

Originally Posted by bardy

my bf studied a lot of climate shit in college and he is on the sp3 guy's side of the argument

Some guy who took some undergraduate papers one time doesn't believe in global warming? We must have been wrong all along, someone alert the UN!

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Why would people be screaming about global cooling if they didn't think it was going to make any significant difference? People were predicting an ice age then, but not in the scientific community - because they knew that their understanding was extremely limited at such an early stage, and that even if trends pointed toward possible cooling they weren't going to be drawn on making predictions. So the media went for it instead

I said scientists were concerned about cooling. Not that an ice age was imminent.

Also it's fairly well accepted that any period of dramatic heating would eventually result in an ice age, so maybe they were right

[bardy]

Originally Posted by Hillzy

Some guy who took some undergraduate papers one time doesn't believe in global warming? We must have been wrong all along, someone alert the UN!

who said he didnt believe in global warming? that's retarded. Beliving in global warming and BELIEVING THAT WE ARE CAUSING A LOT OF IT are different things. And go fuck yourself he knows more about the earth's history than you ever will.

[bardy]

and the people on the "other wisde" of the argument here are just looking at things from a different perspective and I think everyone in this thread agrees that we should stop polluting our atmosphere. I dont have any desire to drive an SUV. I drive a freaking honda.

Anyway, I had a few geology professors in college who were also on the other side of the argument as well. I mean most...sane.. influential scientists would probably shut up if they didn't fully believe that humans are having as big of an impact as we think.. simply because what is the main stream is helping society change.

[Debaser]

Just to re-set the semantic table here: Whenever I talk about global warming or climate change, I'm really talking about the theory that humanity is affecting the climate (mainly thru a dramatic rise of C02 levels) and causing this recent dramatic acceleration of global warming. Even the bush administration admits that the earth is getting warmer -- the only debate (a debate in which one side has vastly more scientific weight) is whether or not humans are causing an abnormal rapid acceleration.