Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Mr Sparkle]

The United States provides more aid, through federal and charitable means, than most other industrialized nations combined. Stop the hate, child.

so, this you will consider as fact, yet global warming is a scam?
uh huh.

right.

 

[Tron5000]

so, this you will consider as fact, yet global warming is a scam?
uh huh.

right.

Please, prove me wrong. I love learning new things. Show me that the amount of aid and assistance afforded the rest of the world by the US (federal and charitable) is matched by another CONTINENT.

 

[Danalys]

So you're equating predicting the weather with tossing coins and guessing which side they will land on. Sounds about right.

they both rely on probabilities so yes coin tosses was a suitable simplification so you could be shown that long term is more accurate that short term, or large scale more accurate then small scale. asimov used this idea as a basis for psychohistory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional)

Asimov used the analogy of a gas: in a gas, the motion of a single molecule is very difficult to predict, but the mass action of the gas can be predicted to a high level of accuracy

 

[Tron5000]

But is the data that is used to extrapolate these probabilities correct/consistent? Not in many of the instances I have seen.

I'm glad this can be kept to a (somewhat) civil debate. These discussions often venture into other territory.

 

[Danalys]

hell you can doubt the models all you want just don't doubt them because "they can't even predict tommorows weather."

when it comes to climate change there are varying competing models. good thing about science it that since they are competing they will try to find problems or inaccuracies in other models. altho at the moment the vast majority of debate is not if global warming is the current long term trend or not, since they've been there done that. the debate is about just how bad are things going to be.

 

[Tron5000]

See, the problem I have is that I believe that there are many scientists who are not attempting to prove or disprove other models. I think there are a great number of scientists who are interested only in securing their funding, or their stature (tenure), or their place as a contributor to a prestigious journal. I believe that many scientists ignore readily-available data (which contradicts their positions) in deference to data that fits their models, thus perpetuating a cycle of falsehoods and deception. I also believe that there is a significant lack of testing and verification (the bases of the scientific theory) where the issue of 'global warming,' or 'climate change,' is concerned.

 

[Tron5000]

hell you can doubt the models all you want just don't doubt them because "they can't even predict tommorows weather."

when it comes to climate change there are varying competing models. good thing about science it that since they are competing they will try to find problems or inaccuracies in other models. altho at the moment the vast majority of debate is not if global warming is the current long term trend or not, since they've been there done that. the debate is about just how bad are things going to be.

I take exception. There is a large number, a growing community, of experts who say that such is not the case. You may not hear from them in the mainstream media, but they are out there, and their number is rapidly increasing.

 

[CARNAGE-COMETH]

Negative Nellies

 

[Danalys]

I take exception. There is a large number, a growing community, of experts who say that such is not the case. You may not hear from them in the mainstream media, but they are out there, and their number is rapidly increasing.

quite frankly i just don't believe that. shame there's not something like project steve but for global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

 

[Danalys]

See, the problem I have is that I believe that there are many scientists who are not attempting to prove or disprove other models. I think there are a great number of scientists who are interested only in securing their funding, or their stature (tenure), or their place as a contributor to a prestigious journal. I believe that many scientists ignore readily-available data (which contradicts their positions) in deference to data that fits their models, thus perpetuating a cycle of falsehoods and deception. I also believe that there is a significant lack of testing and verification (the bases of the scientific theory) where the issue of 'global warming,' or 'climate change,' is concerned.

oh i see when they agree with you they are doing their job right, when they don't they aren't.

 

[Tron5000]

quite frankly i just don't believe that. shame there's not something like project steve but for global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

If you don't believe that, you are either choosing not to or you are not familiar with outlets that present you with their stories. The information is out there. It is readily accessible. And if you don't believe it, you either a) think that I'm lying, or b) think that such information is not out there.

I won't attempt to try to prove to you that I'm not lying. If that's what you think, I have neither the time nor inclination to fight the battle. If you believe, however, that this information is not out there because it is untrue, I invite you to look into it.

I got involved in this thread against my better judgment, knowing that the 'climate change' debate can become very heated (pardon the pun).

But I'll tell you this: I was once a very big proponent of the idea that human beings were causing the earth to heat up and causing weather patterns to change. Until, that is, I began to do some research. I realized that the mechanisms of this planet operate far beyond our understanding, and therefore far beyond our control.

 

[Tron5000]

oh i see when they agree with you they are doing their job right, when they don't they aren't.

That was in no way reflective of the post which you quoted. So since this has been twisted into something that it is not, I will cease this discussion and simply allow you to believe that I am a moron. Easier for both of us.

 

[CARNAGE-COMETH]

What if a giant Meteor hits the Earth and causes global extinction before global warming even has a chance to kill us all?

 

[Danalys]

no i think you are simply misinformed.

 

[Tron5000]

What if a giant Meteor hits the Earth and causes global extinction before global warming even has a chance to kill us all?

Global warming won't be the death of us. Just wait till the super-volcano under Yellowstone erupts. Hope you have a bunker where you can hide out for 3-4 years.

 

[Memphis Slim]

What if a giant Meteor hits the Earth and causes global extinction before global warming even has a chance to kill us all?

I've found a new world with a red sun. If I build a rocket ship, I can place my son in it and send him there just in time!

 

[CARNAGE-COMETH]

Sorry Slim but I just found out that world your talking about is going to get hit with super global warming soon.

possibly before earth gets destroyed by polar ice caps melting.

so I think everyone should start praying and get ready to move to heaven. I hear the economy is great there.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Sorry Slim but I just found out that world your talking about is going to get hit with super global warming soon.

possibly before earth gets destroyed by polar ice caps melting.

so I think everyone should start praying and get ready to move to heaven. I hear the economy is great there.

The world I'm talking about is a paralell dimension.

 

[Hotwire]

Does it really matter if global warming is real or not? Would it be so bad if we still followed cleaner ways of living? Reduce greenhouse gases, reduce our additcion to oil, use more energy efficient products? Would any of use treat our own homes the way we, as a population, collectively treat the Earth? This is our home, and we only get one. Now, it may not actually be possible to completely ruin the planet, but can sure as hell make it unlivable for humans. The planet will ultimately, be fine. Humans, on the other hand, may not be.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Please, prove me wrong. I love learning new things. Show me that the amount of aid and assistance afforded the rest of the world by the US (federal and charitable) is matched by another CONTINENT.

no, I'm not saying it's not true ( you did notice that) I'm saying that you believe THAT, yet think that global warming is a hoax.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

That was in no way reflective of the post which you quoted. So since this has been twisted into something that it is not, I will cease this discussion and simply allow you to believe that I am a moron. Easier for both of us.

actually it was reflective of your post. simply based upon the fact that your stance is based upon conjecture.

you even used the word " believe"

 

[Memphis Slim]

Does it really matter if global warming is real or not? Would it be so bad if we still followed cleaner ways of living? Reduce greenhouse gases, reduce our additcion to oil, use more energy efficient products? Would any of use treat our own homes the way we, as a population, collectively treat the Earth? This is our home, and we only get one. Now, it may not actually be possible to completely ruin the planet, but can sure as hell make it unlivable for humans. The planet will ultimately, be fine. Humans, on the other hand, may not be.

Classic bait and switch.....if we're found to be wrong, we're still right.

We've always tried to find cleaner ways to do things. But don't tell us we're destroying the world when we are not. Don't use fear tactics to get us to adhere to policies your own leader (Gore) won't debate openly!

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Classic bait and switch.....if we're found to be wrong, we're still right.

We've always tried to find cleaner ways to do things. But don't tell us we're destroying the world when we are not. Don't use fear tactics to get us to adhere to policies your own leader (Gore) won't debate openly!

so, if you're found to be wrong you will accept it?
because the data so far, the people involved in it have said that it doesn't actually erase a century of global warming, not pundits or opinion journalists.

the people that collected the data.

so you would do well to acknowledge them.
also, hate to break it to you, but we ARE destroying the planet, I know it's best for you if there's no responsibility, but sadly we are:

and lastly, why do you still hold on to the notion that Al Gore the guy you hate so much, is the " leader" it's really weird, I mean, the weirdest thing is that he is not the one putting the science out there, it's the SCIENTISTS that are responsible for the research that SHOULD debate.
simple.
regardless of Gore was dead tomorrow, the idea, the research and the situation would still be there regardless of your particular hate for Gore.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

oh, and who would Gore debate if he agreed to?
a politician or a scientist?

 

[jaguarr]

Classic bait and switch.....if we're found to be wrong, we're still right.

We've always tried to find cleaner ways to do things. But don't tell us we're destroying the world when we are not. Don't use fear tactics to get us to adhere to policies your own leader (Gore) won't debate openly!

jag