LetsAllMakeBelieve said:
Kasz216 said:
LetsAllMakeBelieve said:
Kasz216 said:
LetsAllMakeBelieve said:
Final-Fan said:
LetsAllMakeBelieve said:
@ Final - Fan - i dont see how that changes the comments context? he is still saying that people with the facts will take his side, which is not fair or true.
@ whatever - nice link, ty. |
Still wrong; I believe he's saying that he is interested in finding the truth and he is only going to debate people who also are interested in finding the truth, not people who are utterly convinced they already have it, beyond all chance of rebuttal. |
So im not alowed to stick to my opinion, but he can stick to his? also if thats what Sqrl wanted to say why did he not just say it, rather than making an inflaitory remark? If he wants truth, then surely he would welcome a different opinion, instead he refuses to debate me on the basis that he dosent like my opinion? |
Nah. The point is... in a debate it should be point/counterpoint. When data is brought into an arguement... said data needs to be debunked before the arguement can go foward. If you can't debunk the data, you should logically concide your point... if you can't because of bias, you should at least bow out of the arguement. He has offered data and graphs. (note the last page has the same graph but with an axis, so that problem is solved.) He's debunked all of PS360's data. So right now... it is a matter of debunking his data. If you can't, it's not like anybody is forcing you to change your mind... but your being intelectually dishonest if you can't admit one of two things. 1) I I think I'm wrong. or 2) I don't know enough about this subject to debate it competantly. Either way, it's a case of debunk, or concede defeat as far as debating goes. Like me. I don't know enough about global warming to decide either way. Though I do believe I know enough about proposed carbon credit taxes to know they are a bad idea that won't do anything for global warming and instead will just redistribute wealth from 1st world countries to 3rd world countries since every plan i've seen allows said carbon credits to be transferable. Of course said nations are likely to cut back on their disaster aid and other such things to make up for it... basically hurting the flexability of international aid, and keeping everything else pretty even. |
i did debunk his points, i pointed out that his graphs could easily be manipulated to support either argument, i pointed out that ann article from a newspaper is likely biased or flawed. Like him i have done plenty of research, but i came to the opposite conclusion to him, why do people refuse to accept this, or do you want me to post graphs that have been manipulated and articles that are biased, the truth is that neiter of us can give hard evidence as there is none, just a volume of research, which IMO suggest that AGW is real, unless someone can give me clear consice proof that AGW isnt happening............... |
1) How.
2) How is his newspaper article going to be biased... when the actual guy says so. If someone asks me whether I like mustard or ketchup better.... and I say mustard.... and my Wikipedia article says ketchup.... and my friend tries to change it to mustard.... because he knows I like mustard better... AND he called me up to confirm that. How is that biased? That can't be biased. That's like if I wrote an article saying that most grass is green... and people called me biased. As for why though... the volume of evidence isn't based on anything... since we have no clue how much natural Co2 is released in that atmosphere. All we do know is that even what is recorded.... it's VASTLY greater then the amount of artifical CO2 we produce. We just don't know how vastly greater it is. |
Graphs showing one time period or type of mustard can say mustard is more popular, whilst others can say ketchup. Newspapers are run by companys who want to make money, they also have affiliations and sponsors and are based somewhere, these factors will mean they favour mustard or ketchup True we dont know that, but the number of scientists and organizations who say AGW is happening far out number thoose who say it isnt, i know that proves nothing, but thats my point, neither side can win, my objection here is Sqrl's attempts to get me on his side. |
Ah, but there is where you miss his point i believe.... because i believe this IS his point.
We know a few things about climate change.
1) Natural sources of CO2 are greater then man made sources
2) There used to be a lot more CO2 in the air... even at times that were colder then now.
3) Since we started burning CO2 the level of CO2 in the air has doubled.
4) This rise though smaller started BEFORE we started burning CO2.
We know these four points for a fact. That's about all we know.
This leads us to basically two possible conclusions.
1) Global Warming is a natural occurence... but we are speeding it up.
2) Global Warming is a natural occurence.... CO2 has nothing to do with it however, as there is no proof of causation, only correlation.
While most people claim that Global Warming is man made... and if we stop producing CO2 we'll be all saved. In reality we're likely screwed either way. Not only that though... they claim that artifical CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer then regular CO2 because... well there is no explination other then it fits the current global warming models.
Which is something a lot of scientists do actually. Sometimes it works out like Dark Energy. Sometimes it doesn't work out.... like Aether.
What we actually know about global warming either supports his arguement or semi-supports his arguement. So it's not a case of right or wrong... so much as a case of wrong and semiwrong.
From what I know as actual solid facts anyway.
2 seems more likely until someone can give me a reason why greenhouse gases aren't effecting the planet the same way they effected it way back when.
How is that not the more credible of the two theories?
