Is global climate change/global warming a real phenomenon?
- Thread starter Fucky McFuckerson
- Start date
You realize that's a policy analysis group affiliated with the government? A source on global warming can hardly get more unreliable than that, except maybe for openly right-wing fundies
you haven't posted a shred of evidence
No relevance???? It's a fucking article on global temperature change in PNAS, how come it is irrelevant???
Do everything needed to explain the boneheaded why they're wrong, if only they were willing to actually read it, turn their brains from "stand-by" or "completely off" to "on" mode and understand it
for the simple reason that you are quoting (well, the article you are quoting isoding it) Sarah Palin as an authority., This immediately discredits everything that the person who wrote this has ever written. You would not base your life around the understanding of the world that somebody with Down syndrome has, or what somebody who has been in jail 20 times for scams before tells you, would you? Yet, you're doing exactly the equivalent of that.
There is no real disagreement on any of these. There is disagreement on the fact that the Earth is not flat, that there is no such thing as a personal God, that man is a product of organic evolution, etc. yet that does not mean we take seriously the people who disagree with these, right?
you haven't posted a shred of evidence
No relevance???? It's a fucking article on global temperature change in PNAS, how come it is irrelevant???
Do everything needed to explain the boneheaded why they're wrong, if only they were willing to actually read it, turn their brains from "stand-by" or "completely off" to "on" mode and understand it
for the simple reason that you are quoting (well, the article you are quoting isoding it) Sarah Palin as an authority., This immediately discredits everything that the person who wrote this has ever written. You would not base your life around the understanding of the world that somebody with Down syndrome has, or what somebody who has been in jail 20 times for scams before tells you, would you? Yet, you're doing exactly the equivalent of that.
There is no real disagreement on any of these. There is disagreement on the fact that the Earth is not flat, that there is no such thing as a personal God, that man is a product of organic evolution, etc. yet that does not mean we take seriously the people who disagree with these, right?
I have a 19 inch sony it fits my needs, thanks for the comment. However, the fact is the image is making the thread hella wide, and Im sure I'm not the only person experiencing this problem. Again, down size, because contrary to what you believe, it is hard to reply to it, cite, etc because I have to keep using the bar to scroll over.
Stop being so difficult.
Stop being so difficult.
You can denounce the messenger all you want, but to me, they are simply a source of information. Do you realize several of the links you've posted here, or in the past, are affiliated with the government?
Actually, I posted evidence contrary to what you and several others have openly stated. Do I agree with it or endorse? The real question you should ask is if I actually care.
You have selective reading. You shouldn't even be telling I Pukokeki and myself about creationists, yet you did. THAT is what I was talking about when I said you introduce things of no relevance. Read what I quoted again and you'll see it.
I clicked on the link, clicked on several of the links contained within and it's stillt he same thing. In fact, some of the info is actually reguritated from the link I posted that you laughed at.
Actually, they aren't quoting her as an authority of global warming. They are quoting her as an expert in the political field. In fact, you learn this much by reading the nifty and neat words by her name which state: "Experts In Politics." What you don't get about the link is it is simply a cache for articles, readings, published works, opinions etc from BOTH sides of the arguement. Let me say this again,What you don't get about the link is it is simply a cache for articles, readings, published works, etc from BOTH sides of the arguement. What they did was link to a Newsmax article which she talks about everything from abortion to how she won her position as governer.
So you are incorrect when you say I'm doing the equivalent of what you listed. The same thing can be said for McCain, yet you seem to not mention him. Again, fallacies (in this instance poisoning the well), won't work with me.
Yes there is. I already stated the disagreements. The first pertains to global warming being a real phenomenon and the other refers to global warming being man made or not. The links I posted in the other siccness thread I posted here prove this. The links I posted here in this thread prove this. As one reader already pointed out, "Whether you like it or not, people disagree with global climate change...its a fact."
See above.
Actually, I posted evidence contrary to what you and several others have openly stated. Do I agree with it or endorse? The real question you should ask is if I actually care.
You have selective reading. You shouldn't even be telling I Pukokeki and myself about creationists, yet you did. THAT is what I was talking about when I said you introduce things of no relevance. Read what I quoted again and you'll see it.
I clicked on the link, clicked on several of the links contained within and it's stillt he same thing. In fact, some of the info is actually reguritated from the link I posted that you laughed at.
Actually, they aren't quoting her as an authority of global warming. They are quoting her as an expert in the political field. In fact, you learn this much by reading the nifty and neat words by her name which state: "Experts In Politics." What you don't get about the link is it is simply a cache for articles, readings, published works, opinions etc from BOTH sides of the arguement. Let me say this again,What you don't get about the link is it is simply a cache for articles, readings, published works, etc from BOTH sides of the arguement. What they did was link to a Newsmax article which she talks about everything from abortion to how she won her position as governer.
So you are incorrect when you say I'm doing the equivalent of what you listed. The same thing can be said for McCain, yet you seem to not mention him. Again, fallacies (in this instance poisoning the well), won't work with me.
Yes there is. I already stated the disagreements. The first pertains to global warming being a real phenomenon and the other refers to global warming being man made or not. The links I posted in the other siccness thread I posted here prove this. The links I posted here in this thread prove this. As one reader already pointed out, "Whether you like it or not, people disagree with global climate change...its a fact."
See above.
Inches have nothing to do with how well you see the image, it is the width
My screen is 1600:900 and the graph in the article you posted is, guess what, 1200:600 The image I posted is 1280 pixels wide. This means that if you're using a 1024 wide screen, it would be a problem for you to see both and if you're using anything bigger, such as 1280 or 1600 it should not be a problem
My screen is 1600:900 and the graph in the article you posted is, guess what, 1200:600 The image I posted is 1280 pixels wide. This means that if you're using a 1024 wide screen, it would be a problem for you to see both and if you're using anything bigger, such as 1280 or 1600 it should not be a problem
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle.php
that's very good one:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/position-statements-hide-debate.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/scientists-arent-even-sure.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/aps-denies-the-consensus.php
etc.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle.php
that's very good one:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/position-statements-hide-debate.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/scientists-arent-even-sure.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/aps-denies-the-consensus.php
etc.
1280 x 1024. And if you don't want to be considerate it's cool. It won't be the first time others or myself have experienced this and won't be the last.
There is no proof life exists on other planets. And if they do exist, there is no proof they have the same traits as us (another reader already went through this with you.)
All of this may be found by clicking on one of your previous links and going from there. Again, it does very little to support what you're claiming. You're posting stuff from 2006 where the author is saying "No one does X", but I've been posting stuff from LAST WEEK that is 100% contrary.
There is no proof life exists on other planets. And if they do exist, there is no proof they have the same traits as us (another reader already went through this with you.)
All of this may be found by clicking on one of your previous links and going from there. Again, it does very little to support what you're claiming. You're posting stuff from 2006 where the author is saying "No one does X", but I've been posting stuff from LAST WEEK that is 100% contrary.
One problem I have with debating Global Climate Change/Global Warming is that it neglects the equally important parallel arguments that regardless of whether or not humans are influencing GCC/GW we ARE influencing
1) living an unsustainable lifestyle
2) declining energy resources
3) exposing ourselves to large quantities of toxic, carcinogenic, harmful substances
1) living an unsustainable lifestyle
2) declining energy resources
3) exposing ourselves to large quantities of toxic, carcinogenic, harmful substances
I agree with that 100%.
You have to talk about all of the problems we face together because they are tightly linked and it is a very sad thing that most people who talk about some of them ignore the others.
A lot of environmentalists, BTW, are actually doing more harm than good precisely because of that.
You have to talk about all of the problems we face together because they are tightly linked and it is a very sad thing that most people who talk about some of them ignore the others.
A lot of environmentalists, BTW, are actually doing more harm than good precisely because of that.
^^i agree with that too. like people will ignore stuff such as clear cutting rainforests and dumping horrible shit into water supplies and just be focused on things like cutting carbon emissions in cars. not that its a bad thing to cut emissions from cars but there are other more important problems IMO.
and to answer the thread, i definitely believe the planet is warming up. that is pretty much beyond any doubt. we are coming out of an ice age, and its getting warmer. pretty simple. BUT....what i do not believe is that the computer simulations that these climate "experts" are running have any validity when they project such a complicated system so far out, like 100 years, 50 years, or even 10 years. so IMO all the doom and gloom predictions are not really worth believing. what we need to focus on are the problems that are right in front of us...deforestation, declining fish stocks, clean water for people to drink, air quality for the sake of air quality not climate change, etc.
and to answer the thread, i definitely believe the planet is warming up. that is pretty much beyond any doubt. we are coming out of an ice age, and its getting warmer. pretty simple. BUT....what i do not believe is that the computer simulations that these climate "experts" are running have any validity when they project such a complicated system so far out, like 100 years, 50 years, or even 10 years. so IMO all the doom and gloom predictions are not really worth believing. what we need to focus on are the problems that are right in front of us...deforestation, declining fish stocks, clean water for people to drink, air quality for the sake of air quality not climate change, etc.