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?

insomniac17 on 19 February 2010
megaman79 said:

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.

 

I have. That is how I have come to my conclusions. Telling me to figure it out myself is not going to make me believe your point of view.

Can you show me where? I haven't seen you provide evidence about this.



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


Around the Network
sguy78 on 19 February 2010
megaman79 said:
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.

 

Your "science" is being proven to be false. Wake up. I'm not going to change my way of life, or be forced to do so based on what-ifs. Prove it, or it doesn't exist.



megaman79 on 19 February 2010
sguy78 said:

 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.

If thats the case why do many conservative prime ministers and presidents support climate change science? In my view, it is only political because the republicans refuse to support ANY view of the democrats, and Obama.

Even when he has sold out far left values on Nuclear, to give more middle ground, they still don't support him. Well thats according to conservative media, who obviously reflect ALL right views on ALL issues.



“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.

highwaystar101 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?

Leave Britney Liberals alone *waves hands furiously* LEAVE THEM ALONE!

Anyway, I want to address your comment a couple up. People deleting data on climate change is disgusting, and yet it has been done for years. They have held back the the truth in many cases. That said, from what I can tell the recent news hasn't been about information kept back that would falsify the climate change theory; rather it is rejecting information to purposely skew results so they appear much worse, which is extremely bad, but does not falsify the theory.

To be honest, the lack of transparency leaves many questions. I think the results that have been withheld should be examined as it is damaging to the scientific process. These results could hold some significance and show the way with climate change, they could show the truth of the situation. But I disagree that the withheld results falsify the theory like you implied.

Then again, as I have not seen said results I can in no way be certain, and neither can anyone else.



sguy78 on 19 February 2010
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:

 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.

If thats the case why do many conservative prime ministers and presidents support climate change science? In my view, it is only political because the republicans refuse to support ANY view of the democrats, and Obama.

Even when he has sold out far left values on Nuclear, to give more middle ground, they still don't support him. Well thats according to conservative media, who obviously reflect ALL right views on ALL issues.

If you knew anything about the American Media, you would know that the vast majority of them are left wing propagandists, and follow the left blindly to whatever means. I'm no expert on Eurpoean politics, but from what I can gather, for the most part, it is far more left leaning than in my country. I highly doubt those right leaning politicians woud be considered right leaning in the U.S. If you knew anything about all the crap Obama was forcing down our throats, and knew anything about our Constitution, you shouldn't question why Republicans are trying to stop his radical policies at every turn.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 19 February 2010
CrazyHorse said:
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.


If such is the case then we can never truley judge ANY climate change until it would likely be too late.

Kasz216 on 19 February 2010
highwaystar101 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.

 

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.


Hey 90% of the time your science posts are top notch.

Kasz216 on 19 February 2010
highwaystar101 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?

Leave Britney Liberals alone *waves hands furiously* LEAVE THEM ALONE!

Anyway, I want to address your comment a couple up. People deleting data on climate change is disgusting, and yet it has been done for years. They have held back the the truth in many cases. That said, from what I can tell the recent news hasn't been about information kept back that would falsify the climate change theory; rather it is rejecting information to purposely skew results so they appear much worse, which is extremely bad, but does not falsify the theory.

To be honest, the lack of transparency leaves many questions. I think the results that have been withheld should be examined as it is damaging to the scientific process. These results could hold some significance and show the way with climate change, they could show the truth of the situation. But I disagree that the withheld results falsify the theory like you implied.

Then again, as I have not seen said results I can in no way be certain, and neither can anyone else.


Quite honestly, it should be law that you can't publish scientific data unless you make all of your research, methods, EVERYTHING available via a database either provided by you or the government. The only reason this isn't the case currently i'd guess is so corporations can lure sceintists who also care about publishing rather then just pure money making.

sguy78 on 19 February 2010
highwaystar101 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?

Leave Britney Liberals alone *waves hands furiously* LEAVE THEM ALONE!

Anyway, I want to address your comment a couple up. People deleting data on climate change is disgusting, and yet it has been done for years. They have held back the the truth in many cases. That said, from what I can tell the recent news hasn't been about information kept back that would falsify the climate change theory; rather it is rejecting information to purposely skew results so they appear much worse, which is extremely bad, but does not falsify the theory.

To be honest, the lack of transparency leaves many questions. I think the results that have been withheld should be examined as it is damaging to the scientific process. These results could hold some significance and show the way with climate change, they could show the truth of the situation. But I disagree that the withheld results falsify the theory like you implied.

Then again, as I have not seen said results I can in no way be certain, and neither can anyone else.

So I would gather that you don't think that industrialized nations should enter into binding carbon trading treaties, as was the goal at Copenhagen? Look, if something can be proven, I don't have a problem with it. Kodak was dumping a ton of chemicals into Lake Ontario via the Gennesee River for years up until my early childhood, and there was provable evidence this was harming the lake. I am glad they were forced to clean up their act. However, I don't want my electric bill to go up, or jobs to be lost in my country because China and India aren't trading carbon emissions like everyone else, and are selling product for half as much as the rest of us. Not on something that hasn't been proven, and as of late has actually for no small part been proven to be fraudulent.



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

 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.

If thats the case why do many conservative prime ministers and presidents support climate change science? In my view, it is only political because the republicans refuse to support ANY view of the democrats, and Obama.

Even when he has sold out far left values on Nuclear, to give more middle ground, they still don't support him. Well thats according to conservative media, who obviously reflect ALL right views on ALL issues.

If you knew anything about the American Media, you would know that the vast majority of them are left wing propagandists, and follow the left blindly to whatever means. I'm no expert on Eurpoean politics, but from what I can gather, for the most part, it is far more left leaning than in my country. I highly doubt those right leaning politicians woud be considered right leaning in the U.S. If you knew anything about all the crap Obama was forcing down our throats, and knew anything about our Constitution, you shouldn't question why Republicans are trying to stop his radical policies at every turn.

Oh you mean continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, continuing interegation practices, continuing unconstitutional wiretaps and things like that.

Yea, sounds like continuing 90% of the things the republicans did makes him an extreme liberal in your view.



“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.