By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Anybody who believed global warming was man made are having questions now?

megaman79 on 19 February 2010
sguy78 said:
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:
megaman79 said:

 

Oh and OP - No realistic believer in the science is going to go near this thread. You are simply baiting idiots.  Noone wants to get abused by the triple tag team of CS trouble.

What science? Have you been living under a rock for the past two months? This isn't science. These people have been purposefully been deleting any information that disproves their theories. How can you blindly follow this bull? Hey, if you believe that, how about you give me your bank account number, your date of birth, and allow me to empty your bank account? I promise you'll have a million dollars within a week.

Key word is highlighted. So you now admit you started this thread in order to "convert" believers, right?

This thread should be stopped, but it wont be, and the mods that participate in this thread should be banned for letting it continue, but they won't be.

 

 

 

 

Typical Liberal response. Your arguments are flawed, and you are losing on logical grounds, so we need to be shut up because we don't agree with you, right?

Hey man, i didn't stereotype you with a label. But atleast now i know why your facts are wrong, right RIGHT?.

The problem with this thread, and you should know this by now sguy78, is that its always the same 4 or 5 people who post their views. They are ALWAYS the sceptics and they always end up finishing the conversation with the same circular arguments.

You haven't even complained that the thread is filled with people who agree with you? Well whats the point of the thread then?



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

Around the Network
megaman79 on 19 February 2010
Kasz216 said:

I'd expect better from you highway star.

Nice bit of condescension there.

 



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

insomniac17 on 19 February 2010
megaman79 said:

Hey man, i didn't stereotype you with a label. But atleast now i know why your facts are wrong, right RIGHT?.

The problem with this thread, and you should know this by now sguy78, is that its always the same 4 or 5 people who post their views. They are ALWAYS the sceptics and they always end up finishing the conversation with the same circular arguments.

You haven't even complained that the thread is filled with people who agree with you? Well whats the point of the thread then?

You can hardly call their arguments circular. Prove that they are wrong. Give us evidence that shows that you are right. Then we'll believe you. Until that point, you can say that they're "circular" all you want, but it won't do anything. Debate people in this thread. Show us why you are right. I personally won't debate because I admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to make a convincing argument, but if you think that they aren't going anywhere with their arguments, explain why. Give facts to back you up. If you make a good argument, I'll believe you. But I agree with the skeptics, because in every single thread about global warming that I have read, they provide vast amounts of evidence to back up their arguments whereas most others have little or none.



Latest News/Discussion for Star Wars: Rebels and Star Wars: The Clone Wars!


Kasz216 on 19 February 2010
megaman79 said:
Kasz216 said:

I'd expect better from you highway star.

Nice bit of condescension there.

 


Not at all... I respect him as sombody who loves science and views it the rigth way. That is... without bias.

sguy78 on 19 February 2010
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:
megaman79 said:

 

Oh and OP - No realistic believer in the science is going to go near this thread. You are simply baiting idiots.  Noone wants to get abused by the triple tag team of CS trouble.

What science? Have you been living under a rock for the past two months? This isn't science. These people have been purposefully been deleting any information that disproves their theories. How can you blindly follow this bull? Hey, if you believe that, how about you give me your bank account number, your date of birth, and allow me to empty your bank account? I promise you'll have a million dollars within a week.

Key word is highlighted. So you now admit you started this thread in order to "convert" believers, right?

This thread should be stopped, but it wont be, and the mods that participate in this thread should be banned for letting it continue, but they won't be.

 

 

 

 

Typical Liberal response. Your arguments are flawed, and you are losing on logical grounds, so we need to be shut up because we don't agree with you, right?

But atleast now i know why your facts are wrong, right RIGHT?.

 Tell me how my facts are wrong. Your arguments have been based on "science" that is proving to be made up based on political grounds.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 19 February 2010
CrazyHorse said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
sguy78 said:

The main scientist behind the "undeniable fact" that there has been unprecedented warming of the Earth over the last 15 years has admitted that his numbers were flawed, and there has been no discernable global warming over said 15 years.

If you can find me a scientist working with something so hard to measure as climate change who will honestly say that his results aren't flawed in some way, then please bring him to me. He will be an oddity. The lack of transparency in results comes from further down the line (media, journals, politics, etc...).

Anyway, yes I do accept that man made climate change is happening and it is a man made phenomenon. However, I do not believe all the doomsday scenarios I read about.

At best measuring greenhouse gases is an extremely hard task to do. There are so many greenhouse gases, and we don't even know the emission volumes for the vast majority of them. At best we can guess, and this leads to quite a wide band of results. But when papers and politicians get hold of these results they are unlikely to use the small results because they don't win votes and sell newspapers. So they constantly press on the idea that global warming will destroy mankind, and will use the high ranging results to press that point. A headline like "We will all be dead in 10 years!" sounds better than "Holland may see floods by 2100".

I don't think mankind has as much to worry about as they think with climate change.

However, I do see many of the positive benefits of this climate change panic. Let's face it, environmentalism is through the roof and that is having a lot of social and economical benefits. 

I'd expect better from you highway star... for the last 15 years the temepture rise has been statistically insignifcant.

What is the conclusion you are supposed to make when something is statistical insignifcant?

It's that it's not happening.

 

I mean think about it...  EVERYONE who knows something about the climate will tell you that an unnatural global warming effect is supposed to multiply.

As you put more CO2 in the air, the warming gets worse, which makes more greenhouse gasses get put back in the air.

 

If it's suddenly insignificant there are HUGE holes in the modern climate theory.

The problem there is that 15 years is not climate, it's weather. It is highly unlikely that any climatic changes will occur over just a small period of time (it's not going to be 'The Day After Tomorrow'). Unfortunately when the media report on scientific predictions they tend to only focus on the two extreme models (i.e. nothing will happen or it will all happen tomorrow!) when in fact these are generally just worst/best case scenarios.


No 1 year is weather. 15 years is more then enough to be considered climate.

Kasz216 on 19 February 2010

Afterall 15 years is practically 15% (13 and change) of the sample since 1990.



CrazyHorse on 19 February 2010
Kasz216 said:


No 1 year is weather. 15 years is more then enough to be considered climate.

I would disgree in the sense of this debate. 15 years in no where enough time to consider something to be truely indicative of climate change. There are far too many factors which will skew data over this sort of time period and so will not provide a true picture of how our climate is responding. Granted we may be able to start to spot trends but due to the the fact that weather systems vary each year 15 years worth of data isn't a great indication of climate. It takes centuries (and usually much longer) for the Earth to respond to changes to its system and so I'm not sure we can really classify 15 years as climate.



highwaystar101 on 19 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
sguy78 said:

The main scientist behind the "undeniable fact" that there has been unprecedented warming of the Earth over the last 15 years has admitted that his numbers were flawed, and there has been no discernable global warming over said 15 years.

If you can find me a scientist working with something so hard to measure as climate change who will honestly say that his results aren't flawed in some way, then please bring him to me. He will be an oddity. The lack of transparency in results comes from further down the line (media, journals, politics, etc...).

Anyway, yes I do accept that man made climate change is happening and it is a man made phenomenon. However, I do not believe all the doomsday scenarios I read about.

At best measuring greenhouse gases is an extremely hard task to do. There are so many greenhouse gases, and we don't even know the emission volumes for the vast majority of them. At best we can guess, and this leads to quite a wide band of results. But when papers and politicians get hold of these results they are unlikely to use the small results because they don't win votes and sell newspapers. So they constantly press on the idea that global warming will destroy mankind, and will use the high ranging results to press that point. A headline like "We will all be dead in 10 years!" sounds better than "Holland may see floods by 2100".

I don't think mankind has as much to worry about as they think with climate change.

However, I do see many of the positive benefits of this climate change panic. Let's face it, environmentalism is through the roof and that is having a lot of social and economical benefits. 

I'd expect better from you highway star... for the last 15 years the temepture rise has been statistically insignifcant.

What is the conclusion you are supposed to make when something is statistical insignifcant?

It's that it's not happening.

 

I mean think about it...  EVERYONE who knows something about the climate will tell you that an unnatural global warming effect is supposed to multiply.

As you put more CO2 in the air, the warming gets worse, which makes more greenhouse gasses get put back in the air.

 

If it's suddenly insignificant there are HUGE holes in the modern climate theory.

 

You expected better from me? Judging by the usual low quality posts I write, that can't be good.

...

Anyway,

Why do people confuse what I say with a typical hippie liberal response when it comes to climate change? I thinks it's a "guns blazing" response that many people do; sorry Kasz, I mean no offense.

I understand that for the past 15 years there has been no statistically significant change in temperatures, I also understand that the temperatures will rise exponentially as the climate goes out of control. More heat leads to continually worsening climate change, kind of like with Venus. However, I still think that man made climate change exists, it's just that effects aren't that prominent yet, nor will they ever really be.

As I implied earlier I am more of a person who thinks Holland may see more floods than usual in 2100.

As for the theory, I'm willing to admit there are many holes in the theory that still wait to see if they falsify global warming or require it to be adapted to new evidence. I think that the theory will require a lot of adapting in the future. Especially with the lack of transparency we currently have.

...

I admit that I'm not as well versed as some people with climate change. This is just an opinion at best.



megaman79 on 19 February 2010
insomniac17 said:
megaman79 said:

Hey man, i didn't stereotype you with a label. But atleast now i know why your facts are wrong, right RIGHT?.

The problem with this thread, and you should know this by now sguy78, is that its always the same 4 or 5 people who post their views. They are ALWAYS the sceptics and they always end up finishing the conversation with the same circular arguments.

You haven't even complained that the thread is filled with people who agree with you? Well whats the point of the thread then?

You can hardly call their arguments circular. Prove that they are wrong. Give us evidence that shows that you are right. Then we'll believe you. Until that point, you can say that they're "circular" all you want, but it won't do anything. Debate people in this thread. Show us why you are right. I personally won't debate because I admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to make a convincing argument, but if you think that they aren't going anywhere with their arguments, explain why. Give facts to back you up. If you make a good argument, I'll believe you. But I agree with the skeptics, because in every single thread about global warming that I have read, they provide vast amounts of evidence to back up their arguments whereas most others have little or none.

Try and figure it out for yourself. Infact, try and follow the many links to their evidence, and then you can make your own conclusions.

I have actually bothered to do this, and whenever i try to disprove the legitimacy (or atleast allude to the potential bias) of this evidence i have gotten the same excuses from the same group of posters. You can't trust that science, but you can trust my science.

Well there is a s***load more science to refute on the side of CC evidence. As far as i can tell nobody has gotten anywhere proving all this wrong.

 



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.