Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8408821.stm



With the global crisis you think this is a fare share of money....or just simply enough!

I don't know if that's the tone that countries receiving aid should take.

Call me an isolationist, but doesn't the EU have issues of its own to take care of regarding climate change?

Originally posted by inimalist
Call me an isolationist, but doesn't the EU have issues of its own to take care of regarding climate change? Well, I guess the point about climate change is that we are all somewhat in the same boat.

But yes, I'd be interested what this aid is based on anyways. I mean what is the reason for the EU to pay it. Good will? Reparations? Self service?

Related topic:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6788399/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Brown-pledges-1.5bn-global-warming-aid-to-poor-countries.html

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I guess the point about climate change is that we are all somewhat in the same boat.

So I can expect someone from Trinidad and Tobago to come up here and put some environmentally sound windows in my home?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But yes, I'd be interested what this aid is based on anyways. I mean what is the reason for the EU to pay it. Good will? Reparations? Self service?

poor countries don't have the money to do it themselves and, because of their lack of infrastructure will be disproportionately effected by climate change.

Originally posted by inimalist
So I can expect someone from Trinidad and Tobago to come up here and put some environmentally sound windows in my home?

Not likely.

Originally posted by inimalist
poor countries don't have the money to do it themselves and, because of their lack of infrastructure will be disproportionately effected by climate change.

So it is help out of the kindness of the EU's hearts? I think the reaction is rather crass then.

Originally posted by inimalist
Call me an isolationist, but doesn't the EU have issues of its own to take care of regarding climate change?

Not that it matters. Anything the US and Europe does to decrease pollution into the air and water on their end, will be offset(many times over) by countries like China and India.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know if that's the tone that countries receiving aid should take.

You think. I'd send bombs, with that shit attitude.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So it is help out of the kindness of the EU's hearts? I think the reaction is rather crass then.

the policies of international aid have left a sense of entitlement in poorer nations. Their failures are seen as a failure of the international community. While there is some truth to this, in the legacy of Colonialism and the exploitation of corrupt regimes by Western corporations/governments, the onus is placed entirely on Western nations to make them into functional nations.

It is really weird. On one hand, I think its great that we can help out the poor in other nations, but when they feel it is my obligation to take care of them because of where I was born, it sort of rubs me the wrong way. So yes, I agree, crass.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not that it matters. Anything the US and Europe does to decrease pollution into the air and water on their end, will be offset(many times over) by countries like China and India.

its more issues like raising sea levels. While this will have marginal impact on Western nations, poor island nations are in huge risk of loosing communities and having thousands of displaced peoples. Warmer climates effect fish and other wildlife populations which disrupt local economies.

These issues also lead to increased conflict among people.

Its not even the pollution at this point, just the ability to adapt to what the pollution is going to do to the world.

I don't mind our country giving money to help other countries, but I'd rather Mr. Brown thought of our country first, we have problems here that could use a lot of money.

I'd also like to know where this money will actually end up... if it even does go to the people who actually NEED it.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm



the respective links have more full answers. Lets stop the meme game and have a real science discussion on this, svp


Alright, let's do science:





http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html



Also, the US is seeing record lows all over the place, as of late.

Also, the global mean temperature, from satellite, shows almost no change in temperature, if not cooling ...for the last 30 years (As I've cited before.) The "faulty" numbers come from ground based data that comes from faulty or poor locations. Sine Meteorologists predict a cooling trend...some show a cooling trend in the last decade.


Right now in Earth's history, it is cold. Way below average. Our C02 content is also way below average.

I have yet to see solid evidence for global warming. Sure, warming may be happening, but so is cooling. This global warming shit really took with El Nino. I think that's what got everyone shitting themselves.



What we SHOULD do is improve our energy technologies from polluting the environment. That would be a much better environmental and economic goal.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Alright, let's do science:

wouldn't those just prove that Earth's climate is linked to CO2 levels and show how vulnerable it is to changes in them?

also:



http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, the US is seeing record lows all over the place, as of late.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, the global mean temperature, from satellite, shows almost no change in temperature, if not cooling ...for the last 30 years (As I've cited before.)



http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Originally posted by dadudemon
The "faulty" numbers come from ground based data that comes from faulty or poor locations. Sine Meteorologists predict a cooling trend...some show a cooling trend in the last decade.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right now in Earth's history, it is cold. Way below average. Our C02 content is also way below average.

irrelevant

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have yet to see solid evidence for global warming.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

again, check the links for more thorough and well cited arguments.

Originally posted by inimalist
wouldn't those just prove that Earth's climate is linked to CO2 levels and show how vulnerable it is to changes in them?

also:



http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm





http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm





http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm





http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm



irrelevant





http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

again, check the links for more thorough and well cited arguments.


Ah, so you only have one source, which happens to be heavily "pro-human caused global warming."


Where are these record highs that they predicted? Satellite measurements indicate little to no change. However, we ARE setting quite a few record lows.

That one little blurb from an obviously biased source does nothing to disprove what I've stated and cited previously. Let me show you what you've done, "I'll ignore the fact that an analysis of the ground temperature recording devices turned up 89% failure rates on proper placement and setup, ignore the more accurate satellite measurements, and, instead, go with an obviously biased source that conveniently states that th satellite measurements had some statistical errors."


Your next point is factually incorrect. See the previous point as to why.

Your next three points can easily be refuted by any number of studies that show a cooling trend or cooling measures in other environs as well. Doing spot comparisons is is pointless. (We'd have to compare the planet as a whole, as you've already pointed out.)

The fact that the Earth is cold is not irrelevant. You can't just brush aside the climate history of the Earth when talking about climate change. If you do that, you destroy the very foundation that you stand on, yourself.

Also, I've already cited no less than two sources that show the sun as being almost the entire source for any global warming trends noticed, any cooling trends noticed, etc.


I can certainly provide you with an equally biased and cited source as your skepitcalscience website.

Here, read every article every done on this website (lol):

http://www.iceagenow.com/




Here's a fact for you: C laming that humans have caused some of global warming is not fact. It is a theory. Claiming that the Earth is warming in the last decade may be fact, but there are conflicting studies. The may start to cool off as early as 2013, destroying the global warming theory (based on SOME sun activity models.)

I still stand by, and will always stand by the following statement:





Edit - Also, you have yet to provide a counter for the Earth being in a stage that had 18 times the CO2, yet had temperatures around the same as they are now. Are you placing the blame on Carbon emissions?

So, you obviously didn't follow the links, which have very detailed arguments citing peer-reviewed climate science. Other than that you dismissed, for no real reason, everything that site had to say and restated issues already addressed (but by a biased source, of course).

cool.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

NASA: "2012 is not the end of the world"

KMC FORUM: "woo hoo, go NASA, stupid people who doubt science"

NASA: "Global warming is man made"

KMC FORUM: "boo NASA, bloated over funded partisan waste of money"

Stop pumping money into Africa and just bomb it already.

Good riddance.

Originally posted by inimalist
So, you obviously didn't follow the links, which have very detailed arguments citing peer-reviewed climate science. Other than that you dismissed, for no real reason, everything that site had to say and restated issues already addressed (but by a biased source, of course).

cool.

I did follow the links .

I also knew of and go to that website in my free time because it's got interesting shit on it.

I have a hard time tolerating an obviously biased source for information, though. Did you go to the website that is the exact opposite position of the skeptical science website? You know, it has very detailed arguments with cited and peer-reviewed sources, etc. It also has everything relevant and already addresses what we are talking about.

Do you see how this works? It's not funny. It's a two-way street. And it gets pissy.


I picture myself as objective in the "global warming" debate, seeing both sides, and looking at where each side shit-slings at the other, where each side ignores relevant data, and where each side manipulates (interprets) the data in their favor.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know if that's the tone that countries receiving aid should take.

It sounds as though they're claiming that there's no real aid going to them, that it's just stuff they were told they would get beforehand.

Also, here's a nicely cited article from the opposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti
fic_assessment_of_global_warming


Sure, it's wiki, but you can follow the citations.



Also, my previous question: Also, you have yet to provide a counter for the Earth being in a stage that had 18 times the CO2, yet had temperatures around the same as they are now. Are you placing the blame on Carbon emissions?

If you aren't, then what part of humanity's fault are you placing on this issue?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, here's a nicely cited article from the opposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti
fic_assessment_of_global_warming

Wiki says there's no such page nuts

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did follow the links .

I also knew of and go to that website in my free time because it's got interesting shit on it.

I have a hard time tolerating an obviously biased source for information, though. Did you go to the website that is the exact opposite position of the skeptical science website? You know, it has very detailed arguments with cited and peer-reviewed sources, etc. It also has everything relevant and already addresses what we are talking about.

Do you see how this works? It's not funny. It's a two-way street. And it gets pissy.


I picture myself as objective in the "global warming" debate, seeing both sides, and looking at where each side shit-slings at the other, where each side ignores relevant data, and where each side manipulates (interprets) the data in their favor.

can you point me to a similar web site that addresses the individual arguments of man made global warming and addresses them as clearly?

oh-stoic-man-of-objectivity

Originally posted by inimalist
can you point me to a similar web site that addresses the individual arguments of man made global warming and addresses them as clearly?

oh-stoic-man-of-objectivity

I don't like your tone. This is no longer a civil discussion.

I will not indulge this conversation any further unless you're willing to lose the attitude and have a civil discussion.

inimalist - 1
dadudemon - 0

Originally posted by dadudemon
The fact that the Earth is cold is not irrelevant.

Yes it is. Follow me on a though experiment.

We are in a hot room. You turn the thermostat down low until it is cold.

A bit later I turn the thermostat up. Is the fact that the room is still colder than it was before relevant to a debate over whether or not I turned it up?

Originally posted by inimalist
inimalist - 1
dadudemon - 0

Actually it's more like:

inimalist: 5
dadudemon: 3



I remember pretty much every topic you and I have argued about.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually it's more like:

inimalist: 5
dadudemon: 3



I remember pretty much every topic you and I have argued about.

thats kinda creepy... next you will be saying there is a life size poster of me glued to your ceiling above your bed...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes it is. Follow me on a though experiment.

We are in a hot room. You turn the thermostat down low until it is cold.

A bit later I turn the thermostat up. Is the fact that the room is still colder than it was before relevant to a debate over whether or not I turned it up?

Your experiment would have to actually follow logically with the Earth in order to be relevant.



Also, yes, to answer your question. if you pretend that that thermostat is CO2, yes. You would first have to prove that the thermostat influenced temperature change outside of the lab, then prove that the thermostat actually influenced temperature change in that particular environment, and then resolve why the thermostat, when set 18 times higher for a much longer period than the current one, did not change the temperature at all compared with the current temperature.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats kinda creepy... next you will be saying there is a life size poster of me glued to your ceiling above your bed...



That's what Bardock said when I reminded him with an indirect joke that he had told me Sancty's dog had effed with his shoes...about a year after he told me in IM.


Edit - Also, I still owe you a youtube rebuttal on the human body and sports. I said I would post the rebuttal on youtube, and I will. Yes, this was well over a year ago. I think we are approaching 2 years, now.

Doube edit - That means I aim to make it:
inimalist: 4
dadudemon: 4


This "ability" helps on tests, I assure you.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm



the respective links have more full answers. Lets stop the meme game and have a real science discussion on this, svp

It got interesting till he got to this point.


On Al Gore:

"While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science."

So much for that...I find odd the fella claims to be non political and throws in the Al...hmph!

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
On Al Gore:

"While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science."

So much for that...I find odd the fella claims to be non political and throws in the Al...hmph!

I'm not sure how you could discuss climate change without mentioning Al Gore given that An Inconvenient Truth is one of the best known presentations about the subject.

There entire argument is based on the opinions of experts who only research and see their small part of the whole. NASA may be good at generating and interpreting satellite images of the poles or desert expansion but won't be fully knowlegable on the detailed effects on certain enviroments. Marine biologists will see the effect on ocean wildlife but not on the atmospheric changes. The list goes on. The main thing to remember is that the earth has huge corrective mechanisms for things such as global warming anyway. If the polar ice caps melt due to rising temperatures because of CO2 then there will be huge blooms of photosynthetic micro organisms which will subsequently redress the CO2 in the atmosphere and produce more oxygen. (accidental iron seeding of the southern oceans caused massive blooms just a couple of years ago)

Think of the earth as a giant version of the pond weed experiment you did in early high school whereby the 3 main ingredients of the photosythesis reaction were shown in a test tube.

Increase CO2 concentrations and you speed up the conversion of CO2 to O2 by photosynthesis.

Increase the temperature and you do the same.

Increase the number of photosynthetic organisms and you do the same.

The main issue is that we've been destroying the main mechanisms of photosynthesis for decades...namely the rainforests.

Now it turns out we can use 1 method as a double hit against climate change...Algae...Not only can it be used to convert large amounts of CO2 to O2 but it can also be used to create biofuel as a replacement for fossil fuels.

There's also some interesting additional aspects to the climate change argument. Why is it that the Mars "ice" caps are deteriorating at a similar rate to Earth's despite not having any human influence. Is it to do with the Mars equivalent of the Milankovitch cycles?

Personally I don't give a ****. My city is built on two big hills and so my house is hundreds of feet above sea level. We could use with better weather as well.

As comedian Frankie Boyle said "We Scots will sit on our mountain sides and watch the English drown whilst saying 'Archie, would ya like a bit o ma pineapple?'...'Na no thanks...Ah've got a coconut'.

France will become a desert...England will flood and Scotland will have tropical weather....Superb.

Actually the reality is the Britain will freeze if the Arctic cap melts as the influx of fresh water will cause the Gulf Stream to shut down and so the warm currents that flow to the UK via the north atlantic drift will stop and so we'll end up as cold as all the other countries on the same latitude (namely parts of Northern Canada, Siberia, Moscow etc)

****.

Haha, better buy a bigger snow-shovel.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure how you could discuss climate change without mentioning Al Gore given that An Inconvenient Truth is one of the best known presentations about the subject.

No is not! It's a friggin political horseshit from Gore.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6958290.ece

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
No is not! It's a friggin political horseshit from Gore.

Are you seriously claiming that the subject of An Inconvenient Truth is not climate change? Or that most people haven't heard of it?

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
It got interesting till he got to this point.


On Al Gore:

"While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science."

So much for that...I find odd the fella claims to be non political and throws in the Al...hmph!

indeed, if one looks hard enough they can find a reason to dismiss any argument.

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, if one looks hard enough they can find a reason to dismiss any argument.

Bingo. And in that, you've captured what I was really getting at, earlier.

I could browse that shit site that rages on and on about this anti-human caused global warming, even go to another cite that focuses much more on the science of it (but, I got tired of the shit slinging attempts every five sentences), and then find you lots and lots of academic sources (other than the 2 I gave you about the sun being the primary cause of global warming, in another thread), but is it REALLY necessary? What will it accomplish?



Fact: Most of the current (last 100 years) temperature increase occurred before 1940.

If you don't believe that there is just so much bullshit being placed on global warming, and the "man-made" portion of it, here's the damn list:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Also, the temperature changes and parameters is "rather modest, and certainly adaptable to."

aiRXHUnjaEI

I'd like to see some of the work he and his colleagues come up. No doubt, it would have to be peer-reviewed and found sound or else he would be out of a job.


I would say that co2science is a more objective source of information than either skepticalscience or globalwarminghoax...as far as global warming caused by humans is concerned. I just stumbled across it, looking for peer-reviewed material about global warming. It's got a lot of "no-nonsense" articles.

Originally posted by inimalist
....Loads of one sided none scientific arguments...

the respective links have more full answers. Lets stop the meme game and have a real science discussion on this, svp

http://www.crichton-official.com/NPC-NewVersion_files/image007.jpg

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

Originally posted by dadudemon
Bingo. And in that, you've captured what I was really getting at, earlier.

I could browse that shit site that rages on and on about this anti-human caused global warming, even go to another cite that focuses much more on the science of it (but, I got tired of the shit slinging attempts every five sentences), and then find you lots and lots of academic sources (other than the 2 I gave you about the sun being the primary cause of global warming, in another thread), but is it REALLY necessary? What will it accomplish?



Fact: Most of the current (last 100 years) temperature increase occurred before 1940.

If you don't believe that there is just so much bullshit being placed on global warming, and the "man-made" portion of it, here's the damn list:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Also, the temperature changes and parameters is "rather modest, and certainly adaptable to."

aiRXHUnjaEI

I'd like to see some of the work he and his colleagues come up. No doubt, it would have to be peer-reviewed and found sound or else he would be out of a job.


I would say that co2science is a more objective source of information than either skepticalscience or globalwarminghoax...as far as global warming caused by humans is concerned. I just stumbled across it, looking for peer-reviewed material about global warming. It's got a lot of "no-nonsense" articles.

look, here is my take on it

about objectivity: I don't even care about this argument. It is impossible for anything to ever be objective, and what you define as objective is based upon the beliefs you hold prior to encountering the information, not after. For instance, it is because you think there is a valid scientific controversy that you think sources that incorporate such a controversy are more objective, not the other way around.

If you look at something like the "anti-darwin" crowd, it is their specific "wedge" strategy to make people believe not that creationism is correct, but rather that there is a valid controversy between the two ideas. It is the exact same here: The consensus among scientists who work in fields relevant to climate is astounding, and the lists of so-called-experts who question anthropogenic global warming, when not full of entirely invented individuals, is normally full of lobbyists, meteorologists and other people who really don't have the credibility to speak on the matter with any authority.

Further, when you look at the science itself, for the past 20-30 years there are incontrovertible documents showing that political and corporate interests involved in stifling research that showed man's impact on the world. Scientifically, it was known in the late 80s that man was impacting the arctic and antarctic regions in a very negative manner, but this has been attacked by those with vested political and financial interests, and a "controversy" has been created in the media and in the minds of the non-scientific public.

With a couple of exceptions, the "skeptic" crowd does not have a model of global climate. Largely, the arguments against anthropogenic warming come as anomalies or items that don't instantly make sense under the warming paradigm. So, if we look at this from a philosophy of science standpoint, we see how weak they actually are.

For instance: Scientific theories are conceptualized as containing a "core" idea from which research is generated, then layers of facts and findings that support the theory. These facts can be altered significantly without the core needing to change. So, if we use the "no warming seen from satelites" fact, we see that it does call into question some of the predictions from the core "man is making the world hotter" theory, but it really doesn't assail it in a significant way.

Why is this? Well, first, the data is not a competing theory, but would be a fact surrounding the theory "it isn't warming". If we compare the "its warming because of man" and "its not warming" theories, it becomes obvious that the satellite data is likely anomalous and needs to be explained in the context of "man made warming" rather than needing to redefine the entirety of evidence that shows a warming trend. This is largely based on Occam's Razor, but there is another issue too. You posted data that showed a link between climate and CO2, and you have never argued that CO2 did not drive climate. So, if we accept that the world isn't warming, WTF? CO2 is higher, therefore it should be warming. Redefining all the theories relating to CO2 and climate is MUCH less desirable than reinterpreting the satellite data as representing a measurement error, which a good argument can be made for anyways. In the tradition of Kuhn, it could be said that the current zeitgeist is not challenged enough by opposing fact to require a revolution.

So, aside from these "anomalies", there are some actual models that are competing with man made warming in the public sphere (as none represent any real consensus in the scientific community). The first is that it is the sun, which has been shown to be false. The second is that the world isn't warming, which is inconsistent with the vast majority of the data, and finally, that man couldn't be producing enough CO2 to effect the planet, which is, again, false.

It's weird how people think Global Warming is a scam to get your money, when all the rich people who generally are only out to get your money, are against global warming.

Originally posted by lord xyz
It's weird how people think Global Warming is a scam to get your money, when all the rich people who generally are only out to get your money, are against global warming.

I've giggled about that myself

If Earth is ''heating up'' or ''cooling down'' it is not because we're causing it (with barely 200 years of industry, versus Earth's 5.4 billion years of existence through absolute extreme atmospheric and natural changes), it is Earth merely getting rid of us - the self centred, self important egocentric arrogant pests, that humans are.

Look at us, we're going to change Earth somehow, cos we're that powerful, that amazing and that knowledgeable on anything and everything about this planet.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If Earth is ''heating up'' or ''cooling down'' it is not because we're causing it (with barely 200 years of industry, versus Earth's 5.4 billion years of existence through absolute extreme atmospheric and natural changes), it is Earth merely getting rid of us - the self centred, self important egocentric arrogant pests, that humans are.

Look at us, we're going to change Earth somehow, cos we're that powerful, that amazing and that knowledgeable on anything and everything about this planet.

We've already produced dozens of brand new ecosystems (even before industry). Intentionally created new species of plants and animals (also before industry). Increased the acidity of the worlds oceans. Created an island of trash larger than most US states. Accidentally caused the total destruction of several species. Intentionally caused the total destruction of several species. And so on.

There's no way to dispute the idea that humans have long since altered the Earth in many different ways though you could argue that it won't necessarily kill us.

EU should help bail out Dubai from its debt.

Dubai eventaully plunging to bankruptcy is NOT a good sign for the superpowers.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
EU should help bail out Dubai from its debt.

Dubai eventaully plunging to bankruptcy is NOT a good sign for the superpowers.

Dubai was bailed out by one of it's neighbors.

Doesn't matter. We'll nuke ourselves into oblivion before we slowly heat up the world anyways.

Also, zombies.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We've already produced dozens of brand new ecosystems (even before industry). Intentionally created new species of plants and animals (also before industry). Increased the acidity of the worlds oceans. Created an island of trash larger than most US states. Accidentally caused the total destruction of several species. Intentionally caused the total destruction of several species. And so on.

There's no way to dispute the idea that humans have long since altered the Earth in many different ways though you could argue that it won't necessarily kill us.

I am not saying we have no impact, I am saying that impact we have, is greatly, an I mean greatly overexaggerated.

Earth has gone through 4 ice ages, catastrophic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, plate tectonics, meteoric extinction of species and so on and so on.

To think that we will actually destroy it, after we evolved from single cell organisms and now are so arrogant to think we have such amazing power to kill off this planet is just ridiculous.

Au contraire, if anything or anyone is going to be destroyed or killed, it us humans. And at Earth's wish. And not because we have managed to ''destroy earth and therefore all human kind with it''.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
To think that we will actually destroy it, after we evolved from single cell organisms and now are so arrogant to think we have such amazing power to kill off this planet is just ridiculous.

single celled organisms, cyanobacteria, are thought to be responsible for one of the greatest changes in Earth's climate: The abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere.

Organisms of all shapes and sizes effect the planet, and the data is there to show we are driving climate change today.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am not saying we have no impact, I am saying that impact we have, is greatly, an I mean greatly overexaggerated.

Earth has gone through 4 ice ages, catastrophic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, plate tectonics, meteoric extinction of species and so on and so on.

To think that we will actually destroy it, after we evolved from single cell organisms and now are so arrogant to think we have such amazing power to kill off this planet is just ridiculous.

Au contraire, if anything or anyone is going to be destroyed or killed, it us humans. And at Earth's wish. And not because we have managed to ''destroy earth and therefore all human kind with it''.

Yeah. I agree. I read somewhere that humans contributed like .6% to global warming.



inimalist, I started typing a response to your post. It's on my laptop. Your post was almost a tl:dr for me, but I only have one more final and then I'm free for a month.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah. I agree. I read somewhere that humans contributed like .6% to global warming.

I know you don't trust the source, but:



Originally posted by dadudemon
inimalist, I started typing a response to your post. It's on my laptop. Your post was almost a tl:dr for me, but I only have one more final and then I'm free for a month.

cool, have at it

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am not saying we have no impact, I am saying that impact we have, is greatly, an I mean greatly overexaggerated.

Earth has gone through 4 ice ages, catastrophic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, plate tectonics, meteoric extinction of species and so on and so on.


Just think everime someone says "Help save earth" they actually mean to add "for us humans".

To think that we will actually destroy it, after we evolved from single cell organisms and now are so arrogant to think we have such amazing power to kill off this planet is just ridiculous.

Au contraire, if anything or anyone is going to be destroyed or killed, it us humans. And at Earth's wish. And not because we have managed to ''destroy earth and therefore all human kind with it''. I think that is a misunderstanding of what people mean when they say that. They mean we will destroy ourselves by changing the climate. Not that we destroy earth, earth should be fine for the about the next 5 billion years.

Were more likely to destroy ourselves by continuing in dealing in non existent money, once that bubble really bursts the merde will really hit the fan.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

So much for Copenhagen...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091223/ap_on_sc/climate_2



Save the whales libs....the japs will keep on killing them.

I was writing a homework assignment on corn ethanol and I remembered a post of inamlist's that I had not responded to (there are 3 others, besides this one, that I have not responded to, excluding the youtube video reply I promised about athletes).

Enjoy:

Originally posted by Oliver North
look, here is my take on it

about objectivity: I don't even care about this argument. It is impossible for anything to ever be objective, and what you define as objective is based upon the beliefs you hold prior to encountering the information, not after. For instance, it is because you think there is a valid scientific controversy that you think sources that incorporate such a controversy are more objective, not the other way around.

I disagree, here. Science is definitely about questioning the world around you. Could could even say, tautologically, that science is about knowimg the things you know: correcting prior "knowledge" to more correct knowledge.

A skeptical perspective cannot simply be dismissed because it is skeptical.

Originally posted by Oliver North
The consensus among scientists who work in fields relevant to climate is astounding, and the lists of so-called-experts who question anthropogenic global warming, when not full of entirely invented individuals, is normally full of lobbyists, meteorologists and other people who really don't have the credibility to speak on the matter with any authority.

Well, you are committing a logical fallacy, here: argumentum ad populum. And not all of your active and relevant climate scientists agree with that 90+ (isn't it like 96%?). That does not mean that the skeptics are automatically more correct but it also does not mean that consensus is correct.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Further, when you look at the science itself, for the past 20-30 years there are incontrovertible documents showing that political and corporate interests involved in stifling research that showed man's impact on the world.

This, alone, does not make the "science" of what you're supporting correct, however. Just because some corporations can stand to lose quite a bit of money over having to adjust business practices to make the world at least appear more friendly to "climate peeps", does not mean that the science itself is right: they are just operating in their own self-interest regardless of what the actually objective truth is.


Originally posted by Oliver North
Scientifically, it was known in the late 80s that man was impacting the arctic and antarctic regions in a very negative manner, but this has been attacked by those with vested political and financial interests, and a "controversy" has been created in the media and in the minds of the non-scientific public.

That's not really true. It was assumed with some science to back it but not all science agrees with it. And "very negative" is an exaggeration, even if anthropogenic global warming is the prime cause of the current climate change.

Originally posted by Oliver North
With a couple of exceptions, the "skeptic" crowd does not have a model of global climate.

I'm quite sure there are more than just a "couple".

Originally posted by Oliver North
Largely, the arguments against anthropogenic warming come as anomalies or items that don't instantly make sense under the warming paradigm.

You mean like the sun being the primary cause of the warming? As those citations I listed a while back, it is the main reason. That is hardly a dismissable argument: it is the actually reason.

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, if we look at this from a philosophy of science standpoint, we see how weak they actually are.

Scientific consensus does not science make.

Scientific consensus (I guess even the Delphi Method) is not actual science.

Originally posted by Oliver North
For instance: Scientific theories are conceptualized as containing a "core" idea from which research is generated, then layers of facts and findings that support the theory. These facts can be altered significantly without the core needing to change.

But you're leaving out something important: the core can change significantly without the facts changing at all. This is sometimes done in meta-analyses. The facts can be altered very slightly and the core also changes significantly. The facts can be altered significantly and the core has to be changed significantly.

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, if we use the "no warming seen from satelites" fact, we see that it does call into question some of the predictions from the core "man is making the world hotter" theory, but it really doesn't assail it in a significant way.

I believe you said that that particular point was long since debunked as having problems. I offered a rebuttal as the dismissal of the evidence being arbitrary and with contradiction.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Why is this? Well, first, the data is not a competing theory, but would be a fact surrounding the theory "it isn't warming". If we compare the "its warming because of man" and "its not warming" theories, it becomes obvious that the satellite data is likely anomalous and needs to be explained in the context of "man made warming" rather than needing to redefine the entirety of evidence that shows a warming trend.

And that's arbitrary and baseless. Contrary to popular belief, Occam's razor is almost always wrong. Very rarely is Occam's razor correct as we know more about science. The theories and explanations become more and more complex, not simpler. Additionally, there have probably multiple paradigms in climatology over the last 4 decades. The satellite data also could be correct and not anomalous. Additionally, the data collect that supports one position could also be slanted or interpreted with that bias. Additionally, the other science, that is just as legitimate and scientific as the other science you like, could also be correct. You chose not to weigh it equal because it is not agree with your presupposition: the very thing of which you have accused me. Contrary to popular belief, there isn't this massive government and corporate funding for "anti-anthropogenic climate change": that's a myth perpetuated by "greenies". It is popular to associate science with global warming and climate change, not the other way around. If you try to get funding for an anti-antropogenic climate change study, you're definitely far more likely to be laughed at than actually get funding. Is that because of the scientific consensus? Probably. Does not mean the consensus is correct, though. Science should welcome skepticism with open arms and many areas do.

Originally posted by Oliver North
This is largely based on Occam's Razor, but there is another issue too. You posted data that showed a link between climate and CO2, and you have never argued that CO2 did not drive climate.

I have definitely never argued that CO2 did not drive climate...wait, what? Why not just say I have argued that CO2 drove climate? Because I'm not saying that. I think CO2 can drive climate but the "12 times more CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years yet 3 times colder" argument is a pretty healthy stab right into the heart of the "CO2 directly causes all the global warming" arguments.

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, if we accept that the world isn't warming, WTF?

As you know from my past posts, I conclude that man has little to no impact on global warming. However, climate change is real. One would have to be an idiot to deny climate change.


Originally posted by Oliver North
CO2 is higher, therefore it should be warming.

If you consider those other time periods I mentioned, no, that is not a logical conclusion. That would be the wrong conclusion, actually.



Originally posted by Oliver North
Redefining all the theories relating to CO2 and climate is MUCH less desirable than reinterpreting the satellite data as representing a measurement error,

No, no, I agree, here.


Originally posted by Oliver North
In the tradition of Kuhn, it could be said that the current zeitgeist is not challenged enough by opposing fact to require a revolution.

I disagree, here. It is being challenged more than enough. It should only take one credible study that is strong enough to destroy the foundations of the argument. That is all it should take in an open-minded scientific community: a community truly in the search for knowledge instead egos, flexing, and posturing. Showing that the atmosphere had 18 times the amount of CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years with temperatures very similar to what they are, now, should have changed the "core" but it magically doesn't. I seriously cannot comprehend why the CO2 argument is still made with such strength. Sure, man may still be responsible in some way but can we please stop blaming CO2 as much?

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, aside from these "anomalies", there are some actual models that are competing with man made warming in the public sphere (as none represent any real consensus in the scientific community).

K.


Originally posted by Oliver North
The first is that it is the sun, which has been shown to be false.

You mean true. The sun as been shown to be the primary reason for global warming.

But, I will concede a point on this: you said that even if man is responsible for 1%, that is such a huge difference than the natural progression of climate change that it could drastically change things. I agree with this. I do believe I cited an arbitrary number of .6%.


Originally posted by Oliver North
The second is that the world isn't warming, which is inconsistent with the vast majority of the data,

Not necessarily a reason to dismiss that argument, though.


Originally posted by Oliver North
and finally, that man couldn't be producing enough CO2 to effect the planet, which is, again, false.

If that is false then reconcile the fact that:

"In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."

"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."

Emphasis added.


These periods last hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Clearly, CO2 is not the only factor in global warming. One could even argue that it is the opposite. We should burn more fossil fuels and make as much CO2 as possible to slow down global warming, right?


But it is not that simple.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was writing a homework assignment on corn ethanol http://www.cheshirecatstudios.com/forum/resources/horrified-smiley-face/5093