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

Forums - Gaming - Greenpace attacks consoles!

PS360ForTheWin on 20 May 2008
Sqrl said:
PS360ForTheWin said:
Sqrl said:

See thats the point, I've done the research, I've read everything ranging from people who completely support it to people who completely disagree with it and the conclusion I keep finding is that there isn't enough evidence for AGW but in fact that the evidence shows just the opposite. I've read the wikipedia page on GW a number of times, as well as pretty much all of the off-shoot links to related topics as well as places like RealClimate.com, and too many more to recount. So if you know of evidence then please site it. I've done the reading and I'm ready to debate the topic regardless of who it is on the other end, because not only am I confident in my position, I'm simply not afraid to be proven wrong...the truth is the goal afterall.

As for the TV and politicians...that comment is laughable, those people are not scientistis, they are actually the PERFECT example of the types of people you would expect to hold science as a hostage for their own causes...they do it with everything else so why not science?

 


thank you for taking my comments out of context, by tv/internet reports i mean that feature scientists and there reports, i would have thought that was obvious. So wikipedia and all its links are insufficient and you call me stubborn.


No your comment was perfectly in context. If you intended to point out those scientists then you could have done so directly. For instance:

Scientists like Climatologies Kerry Emanuel of MIT who previously had previously said GW would be the cause of horrible natural disasters based on his climate models and recently rescinded that position?

But you chose to site groups that are by their nature bound to political agendas and ideas and whom are rife with reasons to only site those who agree with them. You brought that unneccessary layer into the discussion, what was the point if not to site them?

Wikipedia, is a great source of information and you can make it sound like I disagree with everything there if you like but the simple fact is that much of what is there is correct and only a handful of it are things I've found reason to disagree with.

Are you planning to site specifics as I have done? Truly this debate is one-sided at the moment, you've asked me and others in several posts to take the words of the unspecified scientists and unspecified polticians, etc.. and I've responded with specifics. If you have nothing to site then state so and move on.

 


 Wikipedia is specific, and if you agree with the article, then why do you say global warming is a myth, you have just contradicted yourself.



Around the Network
PS360ForTheWin on 20 May 2008

Specifics, okay, heres a quote from Scientists, happy now -

We are not saying that the Earth's temperature is just going to rise. In general, as energy is added to a system, the fluctuations in the system increase. So, we expect more storms, more droughts, more wildfires, more floods, more fluctuations of all kinds. What we are saying is that weather conditions will become more volatile due to the impact of humans.

-- S. Mukherjee & D. Brouse (2004)



Sqrl on 20 May 2008
PS360ForTheWin said:
2 can play at the posting game, also 32,000 is not alot when you think of how many scientists there are in the world, and also how is that evidence against it?

links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Predictions.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

Oh good, you can post links.

1) I've already rebutted this image in this very thread, please see here.

2) Nobody debates the increase in C02, the actual impact of the C02 is what is in question. And in fact there is a great deal of evidence that C02 actually is itself driven by increasing temperature rather than the other way around. Additionally this graph suffers from a lack of scope similar to the problems I discussed about #1. As for the information regarding temperature driving C02 and not the other way this is nothing new and has been taught in climatology classrooms since the 60s, its actually an accepted proven process that the ocean absorbs C02 when temperatures are low and emits it when they are high.

3) Just like Mr Emanuel of MIT has recently rescinded his arguments about the effects of global warming on natural disasters which was based on his climate model so too is this graph based on climate models which ask us to suspend reality and ignore our complete inability to predict next week's weather much less almost 100 years into the future as this graph shows several models have done. In fact such models have a success rate somewhere south of 1% because there are in fact so many of them that one of them will eventually get it right..unfortunately most are getting it wrong right now due to the recent cooling caused by "natural variations" which of course isn't allowed to account for the rise in temperature but rather only the fall.

4) Again I point out nobody questions that the earth warmed during the last 40 to 50 years, the question is whether it was induced by mankind or not. This graph doesn't really challenge anything I've said.



To Each Man, Responsibility
HappySqurriel on 20 May 2008
PS360ForTheWin said:
2 can play at the posting game, also 32,000 is not alot when you think of how many scientists there are in the world, and also how is that evidence against it?

links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Predictions.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

Wikipedia ... fair resource:

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=440268

As I'm writing this column for the Financial Post, I am simultaneously editing a page on Wikipedia. I am confident that just about everything I write for my column will be available for you to read. I am equally confident that you will be able to read just about nothing that I write for the page on Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia page is entitled Naomi Oreskes, after a professor of history and science studies at the University of California San Diego, but the page offers only sketchy details about Oreskes. The page is mostly devoted to a notorious 2004 paper that she wrote, and that Science journal published, called "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change." This paper analyzed articles in peer-reviewed journals to see if any disagreed with the alarming positions on global warming taken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position," Oreskes concluded.

Oreskes's paper -- which claimed to comprehensively examine all articles in a scientific database with the keywords "climate change" -- is nonsense. As FP readers know, for the last 18 months I have been profiling scientists who disagree with the UN panel's position. My Deniers series, which now runs to some 40 columns, describes many of the world's most prominent scientists. They include authors or reviewers for the UN panel (before they quit in disgust). They even include the scientist known as the father of scientific climatology, who is recognized as being the most cited climatologist in the world. Yet somehow Oreskes missed every last one of these exceptions to the presumed consensus, and somehow so did the peer reviewers that Science chose to evaluate Oreskes's work.

When Oreskes's paper came out, it was immediately challenged by science writers and scientists alike, one of them being Benny Peiser, a prominent U.K. scientist and publisher of CCNet, an electronic newsletter to which I and thousands of others subscribe. CCNet daily circulates articles disputing the conventional wisdom on climate change. No publication better informs readers about climate-change controversies, and no person is better placed to judge informed dissent on climate change than Benny Peiser.

For this reason, when visiting Oreskes's page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes's correctness.

Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have, corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn't see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. Had I neglected to save them

after editing them, I wondered. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again! I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

Nonplused, I investigated. Wikipedia logs all changes. I found mine. And then I found Tabletop's. Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits, and, following what I suppose is Wikietiquette, also explained why. "Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!" Tabletop said.

I undid Tabletop's undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."

Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.

Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop's undid and protested: "Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him."

Tabletop parried: "We have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."

Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I -- no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone's views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out.

By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists. But unlike government propaganda, its source is not self-evident. We don't suspend belief when we read Wikipedia, as we do when we read literature from an organization with an agenda, because Wikipedia benefits from the Internet's cachet of making information free and democratic. This Big Brother enforces its views with a mouse.

While I've been writing this column, the Naomi Oreskes page has changed 10 times. Since I first tried to correct the distortions on the page, it has changed 28 times. If you have read a climate change article on Wikipedia -- or on any controversial subject that may have its own Kim Dabelstein Petersen -- beware. Wikipedia is in the hands of the zealots.

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers (Richard Vigilante Books). www.energyprobe.org



Sqrl on 20 May 2008
PS360ForTheWin said:
Sqrl said:

No your comment was perfectly in context. If you intended to point out those scientists then you could have done so directly. For instance:

Scientists like Climatologies Kerry Emanuel of MIT who previously had previously said GW would be the cause of horrible natural disasters based on his climate models and recently rescinded that position?

But you chose to site groups that are by their nature bound to political agendas and ideas and whom are rife with reasons to only site those who agree with them. You brought that unneccessary layer into the discussion, what was the point if not to site them?

Wikipedia, is a great source of information and you can make it sound like I disagree with everything there if you like but the simple fact is that much of what is there is correct and only a handful of it are things I've found reason to disagree with.

Are you planning to site specifics as I have done? Truly this debate is one-sided at the moment, you've asked me and others in several posts to take the words of the unspecified scientists and unspecified polticians, etc.. and I've responded with specifics. If you have nothing to site then state so and move on.

 


Wikipedia is specific, and if you agree with the article, then why do you say global warming is a myth, you have just contradicted yourself.


Please site for me where I said global warming is a myth. Are you unable to read what I've written? Start from the top and read what I've said rather than skipping lines and assuming you know what I'm going to say. You have completely failed to comprehend a single thing I've said as evidenced by this completely ignorant comment.

Additionally you've just claimed that by citing an encyclopedia you were being specific....I honestly don't know how to respond to that...it is a fairly insane position to take.
To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
Sqrl on 20 May 2008
PS360ForTheWin said:
Specifics, okay, heres a quote from Scientists, happy now -

We are not saying that the Earth's temperature is just going to rise. In general, as energy is added to a system, the fluctuations in the system increase. So, we expect more storms, more droughts, more wildfires, more floods, more fluctuations of all kinds. What we are saying is that weather conditions will become more volatile due to the impact of humans.

-- S. Mukherjee & D. Brouse (2004)

 This is directly contradicted by the article I will now post for the THIRD TIME in this thread.

Actually read it this time:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/hurricane-expert-reassesses-climate-link/index.html?hp 
To Each Man, Responsibility
PS360ForTheWin on 20 May 2008
Sqrl said:
PS360ForTheWin said:
2 can play at the posting game, also 32,000 is not alot when you think of how many scientists there are in the world, and also how is that evidence against it?

links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Predictions.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

Oh good, you can post links.

1) I've already rebutted this image in this thread, please see here.

2) Nobody debates the increase in C02, the actual impact of the C02 is what is in question. And in fact there is a great deal of evidence that C02 actually is itself driven by increasing temperature rather than the other way around. Additionally this graph suffers from a lack of scope similar to the problems I disussed about #1. As for the information regarding temperature driving C02 and not the other way this is nothing new and has been taught in climatology classrooms since the 60s, its actually an excepted process that the ocean absorbs C02 when temperatures are low and emits it when they are high.

3) Just like Mr Emanuel of MIT has recently rescinded his arguments about the effects of global warming on natural disasters which was based on his climate model so too is this graph based on climate models which ask us to suspend reality and ignore our complete inability to predict next week's weather much less almost 100 years into the future as this graph shows several models have done. In fact such models have a success rate somewhere south of 1% because ther are in fact so many of them that one of them will eventually get it right..unfortunately most are getting it wrong right now due to the recent cooling caused by "natural variations" which of course isn't allowed to account for the rise in temperature but rather only the fall.

4) Again I point out nobody questions that the earth warmed during the last 40 to 50 years, the question is whether it was induced by mankind or not. This graph doesn't really challenge anything I've said.


 So you disagree with global warming, yet you admit its happend/happening? what sort of point is that? Also given the rapid increases shown in these graphs, yours i note is not in the wikipedia article i linked to, its nieve to think humans had no impact on global warming.



PS360ForTheWin on 20 May 2008
Sqrl said:
PS360ForTheWin said:
Specifics, okay, heres a quote from Scientists, happy now -

We are not saying that the Earth's temperature is just going to rise. In general, as energy is added to a system, the fluctuations in the system increase. So, we expect more storms, more droughts, more wildfires, more floods, more fluctuations of all kinds. What we are saying is that weather conditions will become more volatile due to the impact of humans.

-- S. Mukherjee & D. Brouse (2004)

This is directly contradicted by the article I will now post for the THIRD TIME in this thread.

Actually read it this time:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/hurricane-expert-reassesses-climate-link/index.html?hp


 am im going to have to play she said, he said all day with you, id rather not, as its pointless and boring, the fact is more scientists agree with me than with you ok.



Sqrl on 20 May 2008
PS360ForTheWin said:

So you disagree with global warming, yet you admit its happend/happening? what sort of point is that? Also given the rapid increases shown in these graphs, yours i note is not in the wikipedia article i linked to, its nieve to think humans had no impact on global warming.


Global Warming does not equate to Anthropogenic Global Warming.  Please inform me in your next post if you're unable to grasp this.  

GW can be changed by human behavior and AGW cannot.  These are important distinctions when discussing a solution.  Again let me know if you grasp this concept.

PS - I hope I don't have to request a reciept that you were able to grasp a concept for everything I mention. I apologise if I am coming off as condescending but frankly you are having trouble grasping is the very basics of the discussion.



To Each Man, Responsibility
PS360ForTheWin on 20 May 2008
Sqrl said:
PS360ForTheWin said:
Sqrl said:

No your comment was perfectly in context. If you intended to point out those scientists then you could have done so directly. For instance:

Scientists like Climatologies Kerry Emanuel of MIT who previously had previously said GW would be the cause of horrible natural disasters based on his climate models and recently rescinded that position?

But you chose to site groups that are by their nature bound to political agendas and ideas and whom are rife with reasons to only site those who agree with them. You brought that unneccessary layer into the discussion, what was the point if not to site them?

Wikipedia, is a great source of information and you can make it sound like I disagree with everything there if you like but the simple fact is that much of what is there is correct and only a handful of it are things I've found reason to disagree with.

Are you planning to site specifics as I have done? Truly this debate is one-sided at the moment, you've asked me and others in several posts to take the words of the unspecified scientists and unspecified polticians, etc.. and I've responded with specifics. If you have nothing to site then state so and move on.

 


Wikipedia is specific, and if you agree with the article, then why do you say global warming is a myth, you have just contradicted yourself.


Please site for me where I said global warming is a myth. Are you unable to read what I've written? Start from the top and read what I've said rather than skipping lines and assuming you know what I'm going to say. You have completely failed to comprehend a single thing I've said as evidenced by this completely ignorant comment.

Additionally you've just claimed that by citing an encyclopedia you were being specific....I honestly don't know how to respond to that...it is a fairly insane position to take.

you posted a load of stuff saying gloabal warming isnt happening.