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?

sguy78 on 21 February 2010
mrstickball said:
@highwaystar -

I agree with your post. sguy and megaman add virtually nothing to the discussion. Sqrl and elprincpe brought in actual data to validate their arguments while sguy and megaman simply throw their hands up in the air with ad hominem attacks and other unreasonable forms of debate.

I'm not attacking others here, quite the opposite. I'm just pointing out when someone says something is a fact, when it is not the case to be FALSE. Maybe you should go back and look at the articles I did post in this discussion before making a knee-jerk statement yourself.



Around the Network
sguy78 on 21 February 2010
highwaystar101 said:
sguy78 said:
mrstickball said:
elprincipe + sqrl = win

In other words, Common Sense wins over Doomsday Hysteria Propaganda?

Another smart response, ey?

I'm not usually mean to people, but here goes.

You know, you are right to be thanking Elprincipe and sqrl, as well as a few others, because without them this thread would have just been you spouting abuse at people. Yes common sense wins over doomsday hysteria, but you have shown very little common sense in this thread.

Most of the anti-global warming group here have been attempting, and rather well may I add, to falsify the global warming theory. In fact some of these posts have had me question whether I should accept global warming as a theory or merely a hypothesis that is yet to be proven or unproven.

However, you have made no attempt at a rational debate. Every single one of your posts has been quick to call another person stupid, mock them as a liberal or criticise them without due. Often ignoring many of their points.

You even accused me, someone who considers themselves somewhat neutral on the whole climate change debate, for something I did not support.

Why? Because you were quick to stereotype me as a tree hugging liberal who thinks carbon credits are a good idea; despite me saying how much I detest them a few posts earlier and protesting that climate change is essentially an overblown fad. You proceeded to accuse me of something I didn't support and you were willing to attempt to make a fool out of me because of it, when it wasn't due.

You have acted disgustingly to several members on this thread in a similar fashion. You have showed no grace whatsoever.

I know I'll probably get banned for this post, but I think it had to be said.

Maybe you should stop making false statements yourself. Where in one of my posts have I called someone stupid? At what point did I call you a "Tree Hugging Liberal?" I haven't shown grace? What fantasy land do you live in?



sguy78 on 21 February 2010
highwaystar101 said:
sguy78 said:
highwaystar101 said:

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.

I think that countries should not enter into carbon trading treaties, I have already stated that. I think an honest pollution tax is needed, non specific to climate change, but there is no chance of getting that.

So, this was the vicious attack? Do you happen to live in a bubble room or something? Maybe, actually take a look at my postings before you give unwarranted attacks pal.



elprincipe on 21 February 2010
highwaystar101 said:

Most of the anti-global warming group here have been attempting, and rather well may I add, to falsify the global warming theory. In fact some of these posts have had me question whether I should accept global warming as a theory or merely a hypothesis that is yet to be proven or unproven.

I just want to clarify that I'm closer to your position, highwaystar, than an "anti-global-warming" position.  The information I posted was in direct response to the selective usage of supposedly scary information to support the theory of global warming.  As usual, such scary propaganda is, frankly, used to shut down debate and get people agitated for action, any action, on the issue instead of taking a wait-and-see approach.  It's also accompanied, inevitably, by exaggeration and hyperbole, things which I abhor especially in a debate about science.

Having studied this issue, but not being an expert, I would say that I'm unconvinced as to if global warming is more than a minor blip in terms of temperature changes or if it could be something that seriously threatens ecosystems on our planet.  I have seen plenty of good arguments and data supporting both positions, and I've seen exaggeration on both sides ("Sea levels could rise 20 feet!" or "Global cooling is now the rule!" for example).  I would encourage people to look at the data and arguments on both sides and decide for themselves, and not take the word of a newspaper article, former vice president with no scientific background and stunning scientific ignorance, or anyone who sets out to 'disprove" the theory of global warming regardless of what facts may be revealed (usually by ignoring them, or cherry picking data). 

Basically, be skeptical of both sides and open to new information.  Climate science is a very young science, and we are discovering more and more we don't know every day about the highly complex relationship between the Sun, the Earth, oceans, clouds, and a whole lot of other factors.  The IPCC uses 40 computer models to predict future climate; every one of these models has been proved wrong by observations.  Next time someone tells you it'll be 8 degrees warmer in 2050 and Greenland will completely melt, take that with a grain of salt.  But don't close your mind to new studies and information that may well indicate that humans are having a significant effect on the Earth's climate.



In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!) 

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)

Sqrl on 21 February 2010
CrazyHorse said:
Sqrl said:

That you see this as a competition says more to undermine your arguments than sguy78 was able to do throughout the entire thread.

edit: PS - And for the record so there is no missunderstanding here sguy78, I'm not a fan of the way you approached this debate either. 

@thread topic more generally,

Stealing this from WUWT QOTW:

From a recent interview given by the Chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri, comes this extremely ironic quote:

Q: Has all that has happened this winter dented the credibility of IPCC?

Rajendra K. Pachauri: I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?

"Why indeed? …"

 

That's quite an odd statement from him really, not a well thought out second setance at all.

I'm more worried about the wider impact of this whole issue as opposed to the damage to the IPCC's credability. I'm very skeptical about man made climate change but the debate is far from over and this whole episode is just going to make the general public less open to all the good climate science currently being undertaken.

Then there is the fallout to science as a whole with distrust of scientists amongst the general public increasing due to the actions of a few people. It already has the President of the US National Academy of Sciences worried. While this is quite concerning perhaps it does highlight the need for a change in the way science is communicated to the public.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8525879.stm

Sorry I missed this post previously.

My thought here is simply that in order to move forward on climate science you have to gut the bad science that exists at present and move forward from there, and we absolutely should move forward.  Chief amongst that bad science, and I hope I've made a convincing case in this thread, is the IPCC.  When you consider that the IPCC was (of their own admission and stated goals) aggregating and summarising existing research this should not be seen as a major loss but in fact the removal of a layer of biased interpretation and a move closer to the full and detailed information itself.

Where it concerns the effect on "good" climate science and science in the more general sense, I take the position that sometimes you have to take your lumps.  I personally have a substantial amount of faith in the ability of science to be a force for good in the world, but I also recognize that its power is far from unidirectional in that regard.  To the extent that people were mislead, and that extent is still unclear, there has to be a consequence and one of those consequence will, and aught to be, a period where the lost trust must be earned back.

With that said i think the issues go beyond communication with the public to the heart of the peer-review process itself.  I've got quite a few opinions on what peer-review should look like but I digress.
To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
sguy78 on 21 February 2010
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:

I don't see what yout issue is with the way I approached this discussion. If something is false, it is exactly that. I am entirely disgusted with this extreme left philosophy of forcing the rest of into playing into their political agenda, and killing my way of life. I don't walk into this insulting people. I just am tired of being told something is a fact, when it has not been proven.

False according to you.

Extreme "left" philosophy, according to you.

Nobody brought up left or right ideology before you did. You watch too much TV.

Noone tells you its a fact, atleast on vgchartz, right? So don't worry about it.

According to me? No. According to the very research these scientists are using. You do know the scientific process, right? You do know that a theory has to be proven.



highwaystar101 on 21 February 2010
sguy78 said:

Maybe you should stop making false statements yourself. Where in one of my posts have I called someone stupid? At what point did I call you a "Tree Hugging Liberal?" I haven't shown grace? What fantasy land do you live in?

As for calling people stupid. You said to Leo-J, after a decent post explaining his position, "That's it keep drinking the kool aid", how is that no calling someone stupid? You insulted his intelligence, when you could have at least attempted to give a constructive rebuttal. You've done it several times.

Especially insulting people because they are liberal. For example "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?"

It's attacking people because of their political ideology, I'm afraid that you and megaman had essentially got into a battle of fistcuffs with insults being made on political views. Yes megaman is just as at fault, but some of the stuff you said was downright rude too. I wouldn't consider myself particularly liberal, but much of this just seemed offensive.



sguy78 on 21 February 2010
highwaystar101 said:
sguy78 said:

Maybe you should stop making false statements yourself. Where in one of my posts have I called someone stupid? At what point did I call you a "Tree Hugging Liberal?" I haven't shown grace? What fantasy land do you live in?

As for calling people stupid. You said to Leo-J, after a decent post explaining his position, "That's it keep drinking the kool aid", how is that no calling someone stupid? You insulted his intelligence, when you could have at least attempted to give a constructive rebuttal. You've done it several times.

Especially insulting people because they are liberal. For example "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?"

It's attacking people because of their political ideology, I'm afraid that you and megaman had essentially got into a battle of fistcuffs with insults being made on political views. Yes megaman is just as at fault, but some of the stuff you said was downright rude too. I wouldn't consider myself particularly liberal, but much of this just seemed offensive.

How about you take a look at your own false statements, and comment. Where did I attack you? Tell me. Also, how was that a thoughtful response. It was more of the same tired old "We're destroying the planet, and we'll be gone in 20 years if we do nothing". The second statement was in response to megaman wanting the discussion to be cut off and moderators to be banned becuase they didn't agree with him. I don't see the problem with my response.



megaman79 on 21 February 2010
highwaystar101 said:
sguy78 said:

Maybe you should stop making false statements yourself. Where in one of my posts have I called someone stupid? At what point did I call you a "Tree Hugging Liberal?" I haven't shown grace? What fantasy land do you live in?

As for calling people stupid. You said to Leo-J, after a decent post explaining his position, "That's it keep drinking the kool aid", how is that no calling someone stupid? You insulted his intelligence, when you could have at least attempted to give a constructive rebuttal. You've done it several times.

Especially insulting people because they are liberal. For example "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?"

It's attacking people because of their political ideology, I'm afraid that you and megaman had essentially got into a battle of fistcuffs with insults being made on political views. Yes megaman is just as at fault, but some of the stuff you said was downright rude too. I wouldn't consider myself particularly liberal, but much of this just seemed offensive.

I actually never attacked him for his political ideology. I attacked him because of how he used this thread specifically to pick a fight.

By all means have a look at this one too. http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=101758&page=2&str=1577795198#12

Yes, my choice of words arn't particularly helpful. This is the internet after all, not Harvard law.

 



“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.

sguy78 on 21 February 2010
megaman79 said:
highwaystar101 said:
sguy78 said:

Maybe you should stop making false statements yourself. Where in one of my posts have I called someone stupid? At what point did I call you a "Tree Hugging Liberal?" I haven't shown grace? What fantasy land do you live in?

As for calling people stupid. You said to Leo-J, after a decent post explaining his position, "That's it keep drinking the kool aid", how is that no calling someone stupid? You insulted his intelligence, when you could have at least attempted to give a constructive rebuttal. You've done it several times.

Especially insulting people because they are liberal. For example "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?"

It's attacking people because of their political ideology, I'm afraid that you and megaman had essentially got into a battle of fistcuffs with insults being made on political views. Yes megaman is just as at fault, but some of the stuff you said was downright rude too. I wouldn't consider myself particularly liberal, but much of this just seemed offensive.

I actually never attacked him for his political ideology. I attacked him because of how he used this thread specifically to pick a fight.

By all means have a look at this one too. http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=101758&page=2&str=1577795198#12

Yes, my choice of words arn't particularly helpful. This is the internet after all, not Harvard law.

 

So now you can read minds too? I think you really need to grow up, and get some facts pal. Don't be so angry, I mean the world is going to end in like 2 years anyway according to you, right? lol. Even better, you don't like the thread, just leave.