billvon 3,107
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
billvon 3,107
>I quit reading here.
Well, there's your problem, right there! No wonder you think I'm not answering your questions.
BTW if you have that reaction whenever you read something you disagree with, I can better understand why you don't think man has anything to do with climate change.
Well, there's your problem, right there! No wonder you think I'm not answering your questions.
BTW if you have that reaction whenever you read something you disagree with, I can better understand why you don't think man has anything to do with climate change.
rushmc 23
Quote>I quit reading here.
Well, there's your problem, right there! No wonder you think I'm not answering your questions.
BTW if you have that reaction whenever you read something you disagree with, I can better understand why you don't think man has anything to do with climate change.
If the post starts with a lie why should I continue??
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rehmwa 2
Quote>I quit reading here.
Well, there's your problem, right there! No wonder you think I'm not answering your questions.
BTW if you have that reaction whenever you read something you disagree with, I can better understand why you don't think man has anything to do with climate change.
go get 'em - one from the other side
the score is tied
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2699263#2699263
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 3,107
>If the post starts with a lie why should I continue??
You should not read anything you dislike! Knowing that about you makes it easier to understand where you're coming from. It's not that you read the science and disagree with it, apparently. Whenever an article starts to discuss the facts surrounding anthropogenic warming, you stop reading, to avoid reading "lies."
You should not read anything you dislike! Knowing that about you makes it easier to understand where you're coming from. It's not that you read the science and disagree with it, apparently. Whenever an article starts to discuss the facts surrounding anthropogenic warming, you stop reading, to avoid reading "lies."
rushmc 23
Quote>If the post starts with a lie why should I continue??
You should not read anything you dislike! Knowing that about you makes it easier to understand where you're coming from. It's not that you read the science and disagree with it, apparently. Whenever an article starts to discuss the facts surrounding anthropogenic warming, you stop reading, to avoid reading "lies."
Twist and twist . What you post is not what I said or meant.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,107
>What you post is not what I said or meant.
It is what you typed. You will not continue reading if the material starts with a lie. You consider the statement "science has proven man is causing the planet to warm" a lie, and most scientific research on the topic has a similar conclusion.
It is what you typed. You will not continue reading if the material starts with a lie. You consider the statement "science has proven man is causing the planet to warm" a lie, and most scientific research on the topic has a similar conclusion.
rehmwa 2
QuoteWhenever an article starts to discuss the facts surrounding anthropogenic warming, you stop reading, to avoid reading "lies."
anthropo - human
genic - pertaining to, resembling, or arising from a gene or genes
therefore, humans arising from genes
therefore - anthropo = reproduction
therefore - anthropogenic warming = hot sex
maybe he's just a bit shy about 'private' stuff or those "warming gels" sold by fine relationship stores everywhere. Which, strangely enough, are many times attempted to be formulated as non-petroleum based.
Thus warming gels = non-petroleum
therefore, "anthropomorphic warming" equals "non-petroleum based philosophy."
Which is a good thing for those concerned with global warming.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
rushmc 23
You said
"Science has proven that man is causing the planet to warm;'
That statement is a lie.
"Science has proven that man is causing the planet to warm;'
That statement is a lie.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,107
>>Science has proven that man is causing the planet to warm
>That statement is a lie.
Nope. We now have proof that man is causing the planet to warm, from a number of methods, CO2 being the chief one. (Heck, even deniers admit that there are "heat islands" near cities!) The debate now is how much we're doing, what other stuff is going on, how to mitigate our impact, and what the effects will be in the future.
>That statement is a lie.
Nope. We now have proof that man is causing the planet to warm, from a number of methods, CO2 being the chief one. (Heck, even deniers admit that there are "heat islands" near cities!) The debate now is how much we're doing, what other stuff is going on, how to mitigate our impact, and what the effects will be in the future.
Quote>What you post is not what I said or meant.
It is what you typed. You will not continue reading if the material starts with a lie. You consider the statement "science has proven man is causing the planet to warm" a lie, and most scientific research on the topic has a similar conclusion.
I don't know that much about how the scientific community reaches a consensus, but it seems like whenever something comes to be considered a universal truth, they proclaim a "theory" or a "law" stating that truth.
Are there any such laws/theories about man's impact on global warming? Or are there still too many unknowns for leading scientific organizations to make such an absolute statement?
rushmc 23
Quote>>Science has proven that man is causing the planet to warm
>That statement is a lie.
Nope. We now have proof that man is causing the planet to warm, from a number of methods, CO2 being the chief one. (Heck, even deniers admit that there are "heat islands" near cities!) The debate now is how much we're doing, what other stuff is going on, how to mitigate our impact, and what the effects will be in the future.
Nope, what you have are theories based on computer models (that are flawed) and claims that temp and CO2 graphs prove something.
Dam big difference!
You want/need the debate to switch to "how much" because the rest can't stand up for much longer.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,107
>I don't know that much about how the scientific community reaches a
>consensus, but it seems like whenever something comes to be considered
>a universal truth, they proclaim a "theory" or a "law" stating that truth.
I think that happens when the underlying axiom is simple and fundamental, like the 'law' of gravity (which we still don't fully understand) or the Pythagorean Theorem. When it's a complex system being discussed, I don't think the terms "law" or "theorem" are used very often. We now know that smoking is bad for you, but there's no Smoking Theorem or Law of Smoking, just data, experiments and conclusions. There are, of course, many laws and theorems that underlie that conclusion, like Boyle's Law and the oncogene theory.
>Are there any such laws/theories about man's impact on global warming?
At the top level? I've never heard of one. There are, of course, a large number of theories/law supporting the discussion (laws of the chemistry of combustion and atmospheric physics, Maxwell's Laws etc)
>consensus, but it seems like whenever something comes to be considered
>a universal truth, they proclaim a "theory" or a "law" stating that truth.
I think that happens when the underlying axiom is simple and fundamental, like the 'law' of gravity (which we still don't fully understand) or the Pythagorean Theorem. When it's a complex system being discussed, I don't think the terms "law" or "theorem" are used very often. We now know that smoking is bad for you, but there's no Smoking Theorem or Law of Smoking, just data, experiments and conclusions. There are, of course, many laws and theorems that underlie that conclusion, like Boyle's Law and the oncogene theory.
>Are there any such laws/theories about man's impact on global warming?
At the top level? I've never heard of one. There are, of course, a large number of theories/law supporting the discussion (laws of the chemistry of combustion and atmospheric physics, Maxwell's Laws etc)
billvon 3,107
>Nope, what you have are theories based on computer models (that
>are flawed) and claims that temp and CO2 graphs prove something.
And now we have real data showing increases in CO2 and increases in temperature as predicted. That's why the deniers are going to be taken less and less seriously as time goes on. As the predictions that they claim are false come to pass, their credibility will steadily decrease.
>are flawed) and claims that temp and CO2 graphs prove something.
And now we have real data showing increases in CO2 and increases in temperature as predicted. That's why the deniers are going to be taken less and less seriously as time goes on. As the predictions that they claim are false come to pass, their credibility will steadily decrease.
rushmc 23
Quote>Nope, what you have are theories based on computer models (that
>are flawed) and claims that temp and CO2 graphs prove something.
And now we have real data showing increases in CO2 and increases in temperature as predicted. That's why the deniers are going to be taken less and less seriously as time goes on. As the predictions that they claim are false come to pass, their credibility will steadily decrease.
We will see whos credibility slides.
An no, you do not have real data.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,107
>An no, you do not have real data.
You know, the people reading these threads (if any are) can look at the data you've posted and look at the data I've posted and make up their own minds. I'm perfectly happy with that.
You know, the people reading these threads (if any are) can look at the data you've posted and look at the data I've posted and make up their own minds. I'm perfectly happy with that.
rushmc 23
Quote>An no, you do not have real data.
You know, the people reading these threads (if any are) can look at the data you've posted and look at the data I've posted and make up their own minds. I'm perfectly happy with that.
As am I, exspecialy if they look deeply into it.
This is a political issue, not a scientific one. And the side playing the game is the pro GW alarmists
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteQuote>An no, you do not have real data.
You know, the people reading these threads (if any are) can look at the data you've posted and look at the data I've posted and make up their own minds. I'm perfectly happy with that.
As am I, exspecialy if they look deeply into it.
This is a political issue, not a scientific one. And the side playing the game is the pro GW alarmists
Sometjmes I think you are serious, but mostly I just wonder about you and what kind of reality you live in.
billvon 3,107
>This is a political issue, not a scientific one.
That's why we see this differently. The climate really won't stop changing if we all vote to not believe in it, and it won't get worse due to Michael Moore making another bad documentary.
That's why we see this differently. The climate really won't stop changing if we all vote to not believe in it, and it won't get worse due to Michael Moore making another bad documentary.
rushmc 23
Quote>This is a political issue, not a scientific one.
That's why we see this differently. The climate really won't stop changing if we all vote to not believe in it, and it won't get worse due to Michael Moore making another bad documentary.
billvon, we can't affect the change. I have over and over again agreed change is happening. My position is that it is NOT man caused. If the change is not caused by man then man can not stop the change. Very simple.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
I don't think we know enough about Martian climate to know what's happening there yet. On the one hand, the ice caps shrinking could be due to higher insolation. On the other hand, there are a lot of mechanisms on Mars that cause polar shrinkage/expansion (like dust storms.) A long clear period would cause some ice (dry ice actually) to melt, and this can then cause the same sort of CO2-mediated greenhouse effect that we see here. Which is happening? I don't think we know. We barely have a handle on what happens _here_ with weather.
>I'm still on the fence as to the level of GW that man is causing.
I think most people are to some degree. No one knows exactly how much, hut I think it's clear that we're having at least a significant effect. Much of the work going on now is attempting to nail down that number. I think we'll get closer, but will never know with 100% certainty how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural variation
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites