Is global climate change/global warming a real phenomenon?
- Thread starter Fucky McFuckerson
- Start date
your logic based on your flawed priorities lack many things that are essential to human "evolution".
you speak of science as if its the objective truth that will save man, not realizing that mans ignorance is his problem. And that the science you speak of is a itself limited by and itself a creation of mans ignorance (your own).
Question your reality and the foundation of which it stands on before you try to climb your way out of it through a ladder that doesnt exist. You may have the capability to memorize books and add numbers, but your ability to preceive things on a universal basis is null. You can blame so n so for holding humanity back, hell you might even come to understand that its the ignorant man that has held us back, only you still fail to see that his ignorance is your own.
you speak of science as if its the objective truth that will save man, not realizing that mans ignorance is his problem. And that the science you speak of is a itself limited by and itself a creation of mans ignorance (your own).
Question your reality and the foundation of which it stands on before you try to climb your way out of it through a ladder that doesnt exist. You may have the capability to memorize books and add numbers, but your ability to preceive things on a universal basis is null. You can blame so n so for holding humanity back, hell you might even come to understand that its the ignorant man that has held us back, only you still fail to see that his ignorance is your own.
1. What exactly are my priorities according to you?
2. How is science the universal truth? Science is not a truth or a lie, it is a body of methods for obtaining objective truths about the world around us. Nothing better has been invented, and we know that because science is the only thing that works. What else do you suggest?
3. I still did not see any detailed analysis of the arguments I have been presenting in this forum in your post
2. How is science the universal truth? Science is not a truth or a lie, it is a body of methods for obtaining objective truths about the world around us. Nothing better has been invented, and we know that because science is the only thing that works. What else do you suggest?
3. I still did not see any detailed analysis of the arguments I have been presenting in this forum in your post
Please, keep the distinction between data, facts and conclusions clear. Facts include the data and the conclusions based on it that are supported by the data and a solid scientific theory that explains the data to such an extent that no sane person would deny they are true. You can not argue against the data, you may argue against the conclusion but only if you base your arguments on the data and the rules of proper reasoning, not on the "It hasn't been proved" mantra.
That the Earth is warming is what the data shows, this can be easily verified by everybody who is capable of performing the "highly sophisticated" mathematical exercise called linear regression. Not to mention those 50 cubic miles of continental ice that the Arctic is losing every year, the melting permafrost, topical species moving north, etc.
That the Earth is warming is what the data shows, this can be easily verified by everybody who is capable of performing the "highly sophisticated" mathematical exercise called linear regression. Not to mention those 50 cubic miles of continental ice that the Arctic is losing every year, the melting permafrost, topical species moving north, etc.
So, without admitting tyo you passing this off as fact, you are trying to hide in this "explanation" of what a fact is? Cut the crap, dude.
Thats fine and dandy, but you are saying, for sure, that it is HUMANS that are responsible for this...you know, the whole REASONING behind global warming/climate change.
Thats fine and dandy, but you are saying, for sure, that it is HUMANS that are responsible for this...you know, the whole REASONING behind global warming/climate change.
Still won't show who they are or aren't or might be working "for," in the sense Jomodo is talking about.
I can search my name on Google and find shit, but it won't tell you what I do OUT of the public eye...and that's what actually matters as far as this subject goes. Nobody is going to say, "I indirectly work for this Oil company," cause then people would jump on them about it for good reason.
And I'm a believer that humans are to blame, partially or all the way. Since NONE of us have irrifutable evidence nobody can say for sure either way until we're all really fucked. Then people can say, "I told you so." And they'll be right....
I'm sure out of the 5-6 billion people on this planet there's enough shit/pollution/bad shit (that's my scientific term for anyone who wants to be a smart ass) that has directly affected the environment and the climate(s) we are seeing today.
I can search my name on Google and find shit, but it won't tell you what I do OUT of the public eye...and that's what actually matters as far as this subject goes. Nobody is going to say, "I indirectly work for this Oil company," cause then people would jump on them about it for good reason.
And I'm a believer that humans are to blame, partially or all the way. Since NONE of us have irrifutable evidence nobody can say for sure either way until we're all really fucked. Then people can say, "I told you so." And they'll be right....
I'm sure out of the 5-6 billion people on this planet there's enough shit/pollution/bad shit (that's my scientific term for anyone who wants to be a smart ass) that has directly affected the environment and the climate(s) we are seeing today.
Actually, it does as many of the people are working for, or have worked for, the IPCC. In regards to "agendas", or having a motive for working "for" anyone, again, this can be found by reading the pdf file, clicking the links within and doing research on the people.
Again, several of the people are still working with the IPCC, several no longer work with them, but many of the dissenters are saying the other side is doing it for gain, contracts, funding, etc.
And since we don't know what they do outside of public scope, are we to assume they are doing something wrong or have an agenda? According to your way of thinking, and jomodo's opinion, that would be the case. But you say thats what matters, and jomodo says he believes it, but do either of you two have any information you can post about anyone in the report that links them to what the two of you are concerned about?
Again, several of the people are still working with the IPCC, several no longer work with them, but many of the dissenters are saying the other side is doing it for gain, contracts, funding, etc.
And since we don't know what they do outside of public scope, are we to assume they are doing something wrong or have an agenda? According to your way of thinking, and jomodo's opinion, that would be the case. But you say thats what matters, and jomodo says he believes it, but do either of you two have any information you can post about anyone in the report that links them to what the two of you are concerned about?
by the
at least they admit that the are green house gases
which the next article denies
quite a nice logic
BTW, I would not trust anybody from MIT as far as global warming is concerned, if if it's my alma mater, actually precisely because of that. MIT is founded on the idea of integrating industry and research and this has lead to some very good science been done there, but it has also had some very negative consequences.
quote from the third article you posted:
That's precisely what it's doing, in addition to plotting some data that nobody know where it came from, because, you know, to the simple minds it is enough to show them some graph and things suddenly begin to look "sciency" and credible (as long as they fit their opinion)
Not to mention rehashing the same old tired arguments that we have grown tired of refuting (you know, creationists and denialists can always spit out a lot more lies and a lot faster than anyone can possibly refute)
So let's talk with some proper references:
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full.pdf
and since I am tired of refuting the same old bullshit arguments and other people feel the same way, there is this:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
Make sure you read all of it
LMFAO
Seriously, do you think a list of experts in everything else other than climate science has any credibility on this issue????
I had a higher opinion of your intellectual abilities, I am sorry to say that. And again, one does not argue with quote, one argues with data. Quotes are for the Middle Ages monks who spent their lives arguing over how many angels can fit on the tip of a needle. Scientists work with data
which the next article denies
quite a nice logic
BTW, I would not trust anybody from MIT as far as global warming is concerned, if if it's my alma mater, actually precisely because of that. MIT is founded on the idea of integrating industry and research and this has lead to some very good science been done there, but it has also had some very negative consequences.
quote from the third article you posted:
That's precisely what it's doing, in addition to plotting some data that nobody know where it came from, because, you know, to the simple minds it is enough to show them some graph and things suddenly begin to look "sciency" and credible (as long as they fit their opinion)
Not to mention rehashing the same old tired arguments that we have grown tired of refuting (you know, creationists and denialists can always spit out a lot more lies and a lot faster than anyone can possibly refute)
So let's talk with some proper references:
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full.pdf
and since I am tired of refuting the same old bullshit arguments and other people feel the same way, there is this:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
Make sure you read all of it
LMFAO
Seriously, do you think a list of experts in everything else other than climate science has any credibility on this issue????
I had a higher opinion of your intellectual abilities, I am sorry to say that. And again, one does not argue with quote, one argues with data. Quotes are for the Middle Ages monks who spent their lives arguing over how many angels can fit on the tip of a needle. Scientists work with data
Yes, and you may find more about them here:
http://eteam.ncpa.org/about/
Here is the second sentence of the article:
You were saying it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, yet I just gave you something to the contrary.
I doubt you read the next article. If you did, you'd see he says man as the cause of global warming is speculation and explains the two different types of warming.
You are not an authority on the subject of global warming or MIT. You have never published a work, have no links to verify any of your claims, etc. Utilizing fallacies won't work here, sorry. However, if we brush your fallacies aside and ask, "Why should we believe ThaG?" what will you come up with? In regards to myself, I don't give a shit if global warming is real or not. In fact, I voted, "I drive a Hummer fuck off", and you won't see me taking a particular side. However, what you will see me doing is posting contrary evidence, or evidence that supports both sides of the argument, and this is something you will NEVER do in ANY thread on this forum.
You can take it up with him not me. The reason why I'm posting the info is due to statements made by yourself and jomodo.
There you go introducing things that have no importance or relevancy to this discussion. BTW, it's interesting to note that some of those instititutions cited in your pdf also were cited in the MIT link as funders of the project.
Does nothing but argue a point no one here is arguing.
Why are you laughing? If you had any sense you would know that the link contains the opinion of people who stand on both sides of the argument. However, what is even more important is the fact that links are provided to what they are saying. In other words, you click on them and are directed to their writings, etc.
Such an example is Syun-Ichi Akasofu, He's the Geophysics professor who disagree's with gw. Click on his name or look at source and you'll be taken to an article or two where he was interviewed or gave statements.
http://dwb.adn.com/life/story/8756517p-8658008c.html
That would depend on what field they are in. I proved that in the siccness thread I posted on one of the other pages in this thread. But the fact that Palin disagrees means nothing. The fact that Barrack agrees means nothing. In our court of law, they would be classified as "experts" in their field. Does this mean they are experts in global warming? No. However, even the so-called experts of global warming can't seem to agree, so what are we left to do?
Your opinion of me or my intellect does not dictate anything in my life. One does not argue with quotes yet you see scientist quoting each other and using the next guys material to prove science or whatever point they have.
Face it, there are two disagreements over global warming. The first pertains to global warming being a real phenomenon and the other refers to global warming being man made or not. Until you accept this fact, you'll go around in circles, contradict yourself, bring up instances and people that don't matter (creationalists) and remain so dogmatic that your lack of social life/skills will bleed through the internets.
http://eteam.ncpa.org/about/
Here is the second sentence of the article:
You were saying it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, yet I just gave you something to the contrary.
I doubt you read the next article. If you did, you'd see he says man as the cause of global warming is speculation and explains the two different types of warming.
You are not an authority on the subject of global warming or MIT. You have never published a work, have no links to verify any of your claims, etc. Utilizing fallacies won't work here, sorry. However, if we brush your fallacies aside and ask, "Why should we believe ThaG?" what will you come up with? In regards to myself, I don't give a shit if global warming is real or not. In fact, I voted, "I drive a Hummer fuck off", and you won't see me taking a particular side. However, what you will see me doing is posting contrary evidence, or evidence that supports both sides of the argument, and this is something you will NEVER do in ANY thread on this forum.
You can take it up with him not me. The reason why I'm posting the info is due to statements made by yourself and jomodo.
There you go introducing things that have no importance or relevancy to this discussion. BTW, it's interesting to note that some of those instititutions cited in your pdf also were cited in the MIT link as funders of the project.
Does nothing but argue a point no one here is arguing.
Why are you laughing? If you had any sense you would know that the link contains the opinion of people who stand on both sides of the argument. However, what is even more important is the fact that links are provided to what they are saying. In other words, you click on them and are directed to their writings, etc.
Such an example is Syun-Ichi Akasofu, He's the Geophysics professor who disagree's with gw. Click on his name or look at source and you'll be taken to an article or two where he was interviewed or gave statements.
http://dwb.adn.com/life/story/8756517p-8658008c.html
That would depend on what field they are in. I proved that in the siccness thread I posted on one of the other pages in this thread. But the fact that Palin disagrees means nothing. The fact that Barrack agrees means nothing. In our court of law, they would be classified as "experts" in their field. Does this mean they are experts in global warming? No. However, even the so-called experts of global warming can't seem to agree, so what are we left to do?
Your opinion of me or my intellect does not dictate anything in my life. One does not argue with quotes yet you see scientist quoting each other and using the next guys material to prove science or whatever point they have.
Face it, there are two disagreements over global warming. The first pertains to global warming being a real phenomenon and the other refers to global warming being man made or not. Until you accept this fact, you'll go around in circles, contradict yourself, bring up instances and people that don't matter (creationalists) and remain so dogmatic that your lack of social life/skills will bleed through the internets.