EU should give more Money?

Started by dadudemon4 pages

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_scientific_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_scientific_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

Al Gore’s melting Arctic claim unites scientist and sceptic alike Philippe Naughton in Copenhagen

Al Gore stood by his claim yesterday that the North Pole could be ice-free within five years, attracting a storm of criticism from scientists and sceptics alike.

In an address to the Copenhagen summit, the former Vice-President of the United States quoted an international report published this year, which suggested that the North Pole could have lost virtually all of its ice by 2015.

His comments followed the “climate spin” row, which broke out after The Times revealed that in a speech on Monday Mr Gore appeared to have exaggerated scientific predictions to make them sound more alarming.

Wieslaw Maslowski, a climatologist at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, on whose work Mr Gore based his claim that there is a 75 per cent chance that the North Pole will be completely ice-free within five to seven years, said that this was a misrepresentation of the information he had provided to Mr Gore’s office.

Yesterday, however, Mr Gore maintained that one of the most visible signs of climate change was at the poles. “In the far north we know that the Arctic sea ice decline has also accelerated far, far beyond the expectation of the climate models,” he said.

“The April 2009 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, the result of a four-year study by the Arctic Council states, and I quote, ‘There is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean for a short period in summer perhaps as early as 2015’.”

Scientists rejected the claim, saying that it was at the extreme end of what credible science was predicting. “Over the last two years we’ve learnt that it’s very difficult to melt the oldest ice at the North Pole,” said Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “It would be almost impossible for this to happen within five years.”

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by Man, said: “Why would you take anything that Al Gore said seriously? He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat in the sea ice, and got zero.”

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."

YouTube video

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.