# Global Warming aka Atheism's Wrong Turn



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 8, 2007)

There are faithful believers in non "religious" topics of all kinds.

Science has rabid faithful believers. Take Global MAN MADE warming. Absolutely no proof man is causing any noticable increase, no evidence that any of the supposed triggers are responsible but we have rabid "believers".

They are on par with those that rabidly believe Elvis Presley is alive and well.


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 9, 2007)

jillian said:


> Don't you love it when you can have such an in depth conversation about serious topics?



I felt like Ricky Hatton


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There are faithful believers in non "religious" topics of all kinds.
> 
> Science has rabid faithful believers. Take Global MAN MADE warming. Absolutely no proof man is causing any noticable increase, no evidence that any of the supposed triggers are responsible but we have rabid "believers".
> 
> They are on par with those that rabidly believe Elvis Presley is alive and well.



Science runs on scepticism, not belief.  Ergo anyone who is a rabid faithful believer is just a fan and not a scientist and can safely be ignored.  Those champions of scepticism, scientists, should be heeded.  But I'm sure they would appreciate your advice on global climate change though, it should make them feel a whole lot better


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Science runs on scepticism, not belief.  Ergo anyone who is a rabid faithful believer is just a fan and not a scientist and can safely be ignored.  Those champions of scepticism, scientists, should be heeded.  But I'm sure they would appreciate your advice on global climate change though, it should make them feel a whole lot better



I doubt it. If they knew what was causing it, we would know. You can not provide a single verifiable scientific fact on what man made "what ever" is causing a rise in temperature. None exist. There are theories that can not be verified, can not be duplicated and do not historically match what we know from past times.

Further the supposed run away man made global warming is less than 20 years old and there are already indications the supposed rapid rise in temperature has already stopped. Some show evidence that it leveled off in 1998. Overall for 100 years a 1 degree rise in temperature is far from alarming. The supposed man made claim was because according to the fear mongers ( most not even scientists) a 1/3 of a degree rise occurred over about a 15 year period at the end of the 1900's.

Further the dire predictions were and are all based on inaccurate incomplete data and computer models, based on assumptions that are not even reasonable.

We do have scientific data that Mars, Jupiter Pluto and I believe Venus have ALL shown rises in temperature over the same period. Did man cause that too?


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 9, 2007)

Nah, fact is you don't want to know what's causing it because you've bought into the denialist politics.  Your choice.

As for proof, I don't have to prove a thing, I'm not a scientist but I heed those who are and I make sure I vote and put my support in whatever way I can to the politicians who can make a difference.  

If it's all bullshit when why is there a huge conference going on in Bali right now?

No matter, your denialists are in the minority.  Sure, your denialist in the White House will make sure the US drags its feet on this, just like we did with our Bush Mini-me clone, now gone, thankfully.  Hopefully the next president of the US will understand what's happening and will be able to lead America into the debate rather than block it on behalf of vested interests.

No world, no economy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Nah, fact is you don't want to know what's causing it because you've bought into the denialist politics.  Your choice.
> 
> As for proof, I don't have to prove a thing, I'm not a scientist but I heed those who are and I make sure I vote and put my support in whatever way I can to the politicians who can make a difference.
> 
> ...



And there we have it.... a TRUE believer. Facts? Unimportant. Verifiable scientific process? Not needed. Realistic and consistant use of historic data? Not required.

I should bookmark this so anytime in the future you make ANY comment about religion I can point out your FAITH.


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And there we have it.... a TRUE believer. Facts? Unimportant. Verifiable scientific process? Not needed. Realistic and consistant use of historic data? Not required.
> 
> I should bookmark this so anytime in the future you make ANY comment about religion I can point out your FAITH.



Either you have a serious comprehension problem or you are wilfully blind.  Could be both.

I refuse to wear a label you choose to put on me because you find it difficult to read, comprehend and respond, in the same vein, to a post.  You can choose to label me a "true believer", I refuse to wear that label.  I know exactly how I think, how I look at things, how I critically evaluate things for myself and neither you nor anyone else in this forum or in any other aspect of my life is going to force me to wear a label at their convenience.  You consider me a true believer, that handicaps your ability to discuss issues with me.  You'll play the label card and I'll decide it's pointless discussing anything further with you.  Simple as that, so now you know.

Now, let's get something straight.  I choose to accept what scientists agree on at any given time.  I understand that that agreement is always tentative, that it's subject to revision when a better explanation (with evidence) comes along.  I don't plunge in and blindly "believe" anything.  When the reports of cold fusion come out some years ago, breathlessly reported in the popular media, unscientific me thought it was bullshit.  It was.  The scientific community proved it was wrong and everyone kept looking.  That's why I trust science, because, apart from the obvious human flaws in any individual scientist, the scientific community, as an aggregation, tends to overcome those flaws to produce something useful which we can use to further our knowledge.

Any time you wish to put science up against religion and take me on about it, feel free.  But understand that my usual reticence about criticising personal belief systems (provided they don't impact on me) will be put aside.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Either you have a serious comprehension problem or you are wilfully blind.  Could be both.
> 
> I refuse to wear a label you choose to put on me because you find it difficult to read, comprehend and respond, in the same vein, to a post.  You can choose to label me a "true believer", I refuse to wear that label.  I know exactly how I think, how I look at things, how I critically evaluate things for myself and neither you nor anyone else in this forum or in any other aspect of my life is going to force me to wear a label at their convenience.  You consider me a true believer, that handicaps your ability to discuss issues with me.  You'll play the label card and I'll decide it's pointless discussing anything further with you.  Simple as that, so now you know.
> 
> ...



Except for that small annoying little point of fact.... there is no science to back up the claim man is causing Global Warming.


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except for that small annoying little point of fact.... there is no science to back up the claim man is causing Global Warming.



Who told you that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Who told you that?



LOL, provide some actual evidence, scientific evidence that man has caused any great warming. If you can, you can win the Nobel prize in science.

All they say is " it makes sense that man has effected it". The current supposed causer has been shown in times past to NOT behave in the manner they claim it behaves now. In relation to temperature.

Further the supposed continued rise since 1998 is bogus, it is all "adjusted" temperatures. According to "gasp" scientists.

Hell your consensus agrees that they do NOT know what is causing or caused the rapid heat increase. Science has not been provided to link man to Global Warming. If you can do it, you will be a rich man indeed.

Politics has linked man to Global Warming. BAD politics.


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 9, 2007)

> there is no science to back up the claim man is causing Global Warming



No, really, who told you that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> No, really, who told you that?



Use Google you will discover all by yourself who has stated JUST that.

Better yet.... provide us with the scientific cause of man made global warming. Then provide us with any or all proofs that these theories hold any actual water at all.

Let me help you. One of the supposed causes of man made global warming is our release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet the SCIENTIFIC history of the world clearly shows the supposed correlation does not happen in the past. Nor does it explain why OTHER planets in the solar system are heating up also.

Further the heating of the planet is NOT at all layers of the atmosphere. Suggesting that our stations checking the supposed increase at GROUND level which do not match the non existant heating at higher levels are the problem.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 9, 2007)

One thing about scientists I'll say is this: Every single piece of human progress - whether it be the combustion engine or plastic polymers that conduct electricity (and everything in between) is a result of scientific experiments and conclusions. Whether it be better crop yeilds, getting to the moon, medicines that fight cancer, or the latest camcorder technology. At the heart of these discoveries and expansion of human endevour has been science. No amount of prayer invented electricity. No amount of prayer invented penicillin. No amount of prayer allows aircraft to fly. No amount of prayer encourages and accelerates computer programmes. At the heart of any of these things is science - physics, chemistry and biology. So when the VAST majority of scientists believe and state that humans are having an affect on the planet, and global warming, forgive me if I heed their opinions on the cause and not some idealogues who usually have some political axe to grind and are more often than not believe in a so-called Christian god of which there is NO veriable proof of existance, only faith. It is not lost on me that those who demand scientific proof of global warming, readily believe their whole existance is due to some omnipotent being of which there is absolutely not one iota of evidence ever existed.


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Use Google you will discover all by yourself who has stated JUST that.
> 
> Better yet.... provide us with the scientific cause of man made global warming. Then provide us with any or all proofs that these theories hold any actual water at all.
> 
> ...



Uh-oh.  The well-used "Go and google it" explanation makes another helpful appearance.  And just when I thought we were going to get to the bottom of the issue as well.  Shucks.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 9, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> One thing about scientists I'll say is this: Every single piece of human progress - whether it be the combustion engine or plastic polymers that conduct electricity (and everything in between) is a result of scientific experiments and conclusions. Whether it be better crop yeilds, getting to the moon, medicines that fight cancer, or the latest camcorder technology. At the heart of these discoveries and expansion of human endevour has been science. No amount of prayer invented electricity. No amount of prayer invented penicillin. No amount of prayer allows aircraft to fly. No amount of prayer encourages and accelerates computer programmes. At the heart of any of these things is science - physics, chemistry and biology. So when the VAST majority of scientists believe and state that humans are having an affect on the planet, and global warming, forgive me if I heed their opinions on the cause and not some idealogues who usually have some political axe to grind and are more often than not believe in a so-called Christian god of which there is NO veriable proof of existance, only faith. It is not lost on me that those who demand scientific proof of global warming, readily believe their whole existance is due to some omnipotent being of which there is absolutely not one iota of evidence ever existed.



Sure thing, another true believer. You will believe a white smock if it is worn by a scientist. What is funny is a "majority" of scientists have NOT made any such claim.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 9, 2007)

tigerbob said:


> Uh-oh.  The well-used "Go and google it" explanation makes another helpful appearance.  And just when I thought we were going to get to the bottom of the issue as well.  Shucks.



Perhaps YOU can answer the questions? Provide some scientific methodology to support the claims made, not by a majority of scientists but a majority of looney Tunes.

Millions and millions are waiting for actual scientific evidence that man has caused any heating of the globe on a permanent bases that effects the entire world and not local heat sinks like cities.


----------



## Annie (Dec 9, 2007)

tigerbob said:


> Uh-oh.  The well-used "Go and google it" explanation makes another helpful appearance.  And just when I thought we were going to get to the bottom of the issue as well.  Shucks.



The temps have warmed up, the gist of the argument from my pov, is there certainly isn't a consensus on the cause of it. It may be man made, it's possible. Equally, perhaps indeed more likely is cyclical. I posted this earlier:

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=629680#post629680

This was written by someone with much better credentials:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Then there's this very jargon loaded discussion of models:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing, another true believer. You will believe a white smock if it is worn by a scientist. What is funny is a "majority" of scientists have NOT made any such claim.



Great comeback..NOT! Try and add some meat to your answer and dismiss mine point by point. You not being able to, speaks volumes and decreases your argument substantially..


----------



## jodylee (Dec 9, 2007)

non belief is non belief. it has no lineage even though you can try to construct one. there is no voice of atheisum no guide book, the only one thing atheists share is not beliving in god thats it. you can't group atheists into a religoius group. they are not. they are individuals who have made there own mind up, and in my view, should not go around shouting about there beliefs. or become as bad as the religions they have an aversion to.


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 9, 2007)

I agree to a point.  Atheists like Richard Dawkins are atypical.  I think, most - in my experience - are content to live and let live.  I can only speak for myself on this but I will bite back when I am told I adhere to "the religion of atheism" mainly because that idea is as dumb as a rock and I have to have a spray.  

On the other hand I find religion a very interesting concept, but I do tend to treat it as an artifact, a human construct and that can annoy some religious people who think I'm having a shot at their religion when I'm not.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 9, 2007)

Funny how this thread moved from religious belief to scientific belief, I guess maybe that is at the core of much of these arguments. But even scientists disagree on GW as the following debate demonstrates.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/anderson07/anderson07_index.html

We 'brights' should hope the scientists are wrong, the religious should pray the scientists are wrong. But the pollution we have done to this beautiful earth should show anyone who pays attention, we sure as hell can destroy a good thing, be it a field, river, or lake. If we can do it on a small scale the large scale seems more certain.  Ever see a superfund site in the middle of what should be paradise? I road by one today with my son around Princeton NJ.


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 9, 2007)

That scientists disagree is good, it's part of science I think, to test everything and to accept nothing unless it's been proven (I still don't understand the falsifiabilty thing but I do get replication).  But from the policy point of view I think a harm minimisation stance is the way to go while the science is continuing to be worked out.

Now I suppose I'll get bombarded by the denialist chorus


----------



## Annie (Dec 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> That scientists disagree is good, it's part of science I think, to test everything and to accept nothing unless it's been proven (I still don't understand the falsifiabilty thing but I do get replication).  But from the policy point of view I think a harm minimisation stance is the way to go while the science is continuing to be worked out.
> 
> Now I suppose I'll get bombarded by the denialist chorus



What is this in response to?


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 9, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> The temps have warmed up, the gist of the argument from my pov, is there certainly isn't a consensus on the cause of it. It may be man made, it's possible. Equally, perhaps indeed more likely is cyclical. I posted this earlier:
> 
> http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=629680#post629680
> 
> ...



I don't have much truck with hysteria-merchants and extremists.  I'm not that fond of blind-faith denialists either.  Just don't call me a fence-sitter because I've made my mind up to support a cautious, harm-minimisation approach to global climate change.  

I don't believe we need to freeze our arses off in the dark because we shut down power-stations too early or that we need to start trekking to more moderate climes while they still exist but I do think we need to take that cautious, harm-minimisation approach.  I bristle at outright denialism, I get cranky with wild-eyed doomsayers.  I don't understand science well enough to read the journals but I do take notice of cautious warnings from those without axes to grind.


----------



## Annie (Dec 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I don't have much truck with hysteria-merchants and extremists.  I'm not that fond of blind-faith denialists either.  Just don't call me a fence-sitter because I've made my mind up to support a cautious, harm-minimisation approach to global climate change.
> 
> I don't believe we need to freeze our arses off in the dark because we shut down power-stations too early or that we need to start trekking to more moderate climes while they still exist but I do think we need to take that cautious, harm-minimisation approach.  I bristle at outright denialism, I get cranky with wild-eyed doomsayers.  I don't understand science well enough to read the journals but I do take notice of cautious warnings from those without axes to grind.



I'm serious here, I've read your 'rants' about US, I've now posted some things that really make me wonder. There are 3 listed, can you give me your take, doesn't matter a whit if I agree or not, just wondering. I've found you very fair and rational, I hope you'd say the same.


----------



## jillian (Dec 9, 2007)

I've never once seen Dee rant about anything.

So must be some pretty benign *rants*


----------



## Annie (Dec 9, 2007)

jillian said:


> I've never once seen Dee rant about anything.
> 
> So must be some pretty benign *rants*



It's just like when I rag at you, others take it wrong. He knows what I mean. He also has answered in some degree.


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 9, 2007)

Stick around jillian, when rant season hits me it can be hysterical  

Peter Foster's article is nothing new.  It's the usual stuff from the right who want to whip up hysteria that the science of climate change is just an attempt by those crazy commos to slam capitalism into the dirt.  Except it's nothing of the sort.  He does the usual banging on about how governments are now captives of the global climate change proponents, aided by a compliant media (no doubt he's spewing that none other than Rupert Murdoch is concerned about global climate change).  

The problem isn't capitalism, it's industrialism.  The Soviets managed to turn much of Russia and its associated states into environmental disasters - the Aral Sea for example.  Foster fails to understand that there are no economic ideology wars any more.  When the Soviet Union crashed and burned there went the ideas of the command economy.  Any country with an ounce of pragmatism about it is in favour of the mixed economy.  The only squabbling nowadays is the ratio.  So Foster can quit dredging up the spectre of Marxism, it's no longer seen as a valid economic theory (although it does retain some use as a tool for social analysis).  But in his article there is it, front and centre.  

On China and India and the other latecomers to industrialism - since we're all on the same planet we have to convince their governments and their people that there are other ways of bringing up the standard of living.  And while we're at it we should remind them that creating massive wealth for a few and consigning the overwhelming majority of the population of each country to poverty is not how it's supposed to work, but that's another argument.

As for Foster's reference to Lomborg - well, Lomborg hasn't much credibility despite the best efforts of the denialist fluffers, he really can't get it up any longer - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Stick around jillian, when rant season hits me it can be hysterical
> 
> Peter Foster's article is nothing new.  It's the usual stuff from the right who want to whip up hysteria that the science of climate change is just an attempt by those crazy commos to slam capitalism into the dirt.  Except it's nothing of the sort.  He does the usual banging on about how governments are now captives of the global climate change proponents, aided by a compliant media (no doubt he's spewing that none other than Rupert Murdoch is concerned about global climate change).
> 
> ...



And yet you can not answer simple straight forward questions that anyone that does or does not believe in Man made Global warming should know in order to make an informed decision. You have simple stated you will "faithfully" believe the supposed consensus , when science is not about consensus at all.

You trot out a claim that the vast majority of scientists believe something that they do not. You can not articulate anything of substance on the subject except " pollution is bad" and want us to take you seriously.

I and most people that have not bought into the BS of man made Global Warming are not denying anything. You are the denier , you can not answer simple questions. The west has been busy since the 60's working diligently to improve anti pollution devices and technology, they have been working steadfastly to lower emissions, they have been working to clean up old mistakes.

Meanwhile China, India and a host of third world countries are busy polluting with impunity, ignored by the supposed saviors of mankind and the planet. While the west is told to emasculate its economies the 3rd world is told not to worry, continue to do as you please.

There is no science involved in a 20 year blip on a world with billions of years of history. And true scientists know it and are speaking out even though in the past anyone that did had their careers and years of training schooling and work destroyed by character assassination and worse.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet you can not answer simple straight forward questions that anyone that does or does not believe in Man made Global warming should know in order to make an informed decision. You have simple stated you will "faithfully" believe the supposed consensus , when science is not about consensus at all.



Science isn't about consensus?   Then pray tell, what is it about?   Please explain how things are thought to be facts if its not about consensus?   Please explicitly describe how, without a consensus, we as a society come to acknowledge things as facts.  



> You trot out a claim that the vast majority of scientists believe something that they do not. You can not articulate anything of substance on the subject except " pollution is bad" and want us to take you seriously.



Do you consider yourself an expert on anything?   Ever watch two amateurs argue about something which you, as an expert, find ludicrous?   This is why you and him, or you and me arguing about global warming is stupid.   Listen to the experts.   Believe them or not, but you won't find the anwser yourself.



> I and most people that have not bought into the BS of man made Global Warming are not denying anything. You are the denier , you can not answer simple questions. The west has been busy since the 60's working diligently to improve anti pollution devices and technology, they have been working steadfastly to lower emissions, they have been working to clean up old mistakes.



And emissions have been going down then right?...oh wait, nope.



> Meanwhile China, India and a host of third world countries are busy polluting with impunity, ignored by the supposed saviors of mankind and the planet. While the west is told to emasculate its economies the 3rd world is told not to worry, continue to do as you please.



Our economies are masculine?   Awesome.   Anyway, some individuals I think find it a bit unappealing to ask a country to stop its economic engines when the economic engines are currently providing things like food, clean water, and housing to vast numbers of extremely poor people.    That, and oh, by the way, the US has been polluting for how long exactly?   Lets add up how much each country has polluted during its existence and THEN figure out how much it needs to reduce, shall we?   



> There is no science involved in a 20 year blip on a world with billions of years of history.



Actually there is science involved in it.   Blips don't happen on there own.   They are caused by something.   Discovering the causes natural phenomena is a practice humans have taken up.   We even have a name for it.   Its called "science".  



> And true scientists know it and are speaking out even though in the past anyone that did had their careers and years of training schooling and work destroyed by character assassination and worse.



Right...as if you have the qualifications to determine what makes a "true" scientists or not?   

Just like your opinion of court cases comes from reading summaries of them from eyoz or whatever that site was, right?


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet you can not answer simple straight forward questions that anyone that does or does not believe in Man made Global warming should know in order to make an informed decision. You have simple stated you will "faithfully" believe the supposed consensus , when science is not about consensus at all.



I've pointed out, several times, my position.  And several times you've accused me of "belief".  The same tired old _ad hominem_ argument.  




			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> You trot out a claim that the vast majority of scientists believe something that they do not. You can not articulate anything of substance on the subject except " pollution is bad" and want us to take you seriously.



See above.



			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> I and most people that have not bought into the BS of man made Global Warming are not denying anything. You are the denier , you can not answer simple questions. The west has been busy since the 60's working diligently to improve anti pollution devices and technology, they have been working steadfastly to lower emissions, they have been working to clean up old mistakes.



It's more than pollution.  Get with the current programme.



			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> Meanwhile China, India and a host of third world countries are busy polluting with impunity, ignored by the supposed saviors of mankind and the planet. While the west is told to emasculate its economies the 3rd world is told not to worry, continue to do as you please.



We'll see what comes out of Bali.





			
				RetiredGySgt: said:
			
		

> There is no science involved in a 20 year blip on a world with billions of years of history. And true scientists know it and are speaking out even though in the past anyone that did had their careers and years of training schooling and work destroyed by character assassination and worse.



Speak of irrelevant, why did you quote my post and not address it?  You just sprayed a bunch of generalisations.  Are you working off a script?


----------



## Gunny (Dec 10, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I don't have much truck with hysteria-merchants and extremists.  I'm not that fond of blind-faith denialists either.  Just don't call me a fence-sitter because I've made my mind up to support a cautious, harm-minimisation approach to global climate change.
> 
> I don't believe we need to freeze our arses off in the dark because we shut down power-stations too early or that we need to start trekking to more moderate climes while they still exist but I do think we need to take that cautious, harm-minimisation approach.  I bristle at outright denialism, I get cranky with wild-eyed doomsayers.  I don't understand science well enough to read the journals but I do take notice of cautious warnings from those without axes to grind.



What would work REALLY well with me is if some of this hysteria was channeled toward an actual determination as to the cause PRIOR TO trying to cure it.  

If it's al cyclical change in the Earth's climate, then all the meetings, treaties, and witchdoctor cures will have the same effect as pissing into the wind.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 10, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> What would work REALLY well with me is if some of this hysteria was channeled toward an actual determination as to the cause PRIOR TO trying to cure it.
> 
> If it's al cyclical change in the Earth's climate, then all the meetings, treaties, and witchdoctor cures will have the same effect as pissing into the wind.



You haven't been paying attention, according to Larkinn and D it is all decided, We have caused it and must fix it. Science has of course forgotten the middle step, you know, the part where they show us WHAT we did to cause it?

But we are denialists because we want such a silly thing as evidence of man actually causing a problem, since if we do not know what caused it, we obviously can not "fix" it.

Now Larkinn has decided that he is just to dumb to actually want to know what it is we have done that we supposedly will fix. And D, well he thinks we should just stop doing everything that might possibly, maybe, could have caused it, while still heating all our homes and running all our business, I assume on mud water?


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 10, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> What would work REALLY well with me is if some of this hysteria was channeled toward an actual determination as to the cause PRIOR TO trying to cure it.
> 
> If it's al cyclical change in the Earth's climate, then all the meetings, treaties, and witchdoctor cures will have the same effect as pissing into the wind.



The hysteria we can all do without.  I get pretty ticked off when the eye-rollers come on and tell us the world is going to burst into flames next Friday if we don't all stop breathing immediately.

As I've said in the thread I'm no scientist, I don't have a hint of a scientific mind so I can't pronounce on the science and I just try and follow the mainstream (rather than the esoteric) debate.  But it seems to me that cyclic change is part of the Earth's climate yes.  

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.html

Now that sort of stuff I learned at high school.  The question for me is have humans, through industrialism, caused climate change to get out of whack (I told you I was unscientific).  

http://unfccc.int/2860.php


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 10, 2007)

From your link...


> United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali poised for political breakthrough
> Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia
> 3 December 2007
> The United Nations Climate Change Conference - Bali, 2007 got underway Monday, poised for a breakthrough in international climate change negotiations.
> pdf-icon Press release (130 kB


----------



## jillian (Dec 10, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> It's just like when I rag at you, others take it wrong. He knows what I mean. He also has answered in some degree.



Fair enough!


----------



## Annie (Dec 10, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Stick around jillian, when rant season hits me it can be hysterical
> 
> Peter Foster's article is nothing new.  It's the usual stuff from the right who want to whip up hysteria that the science of climate change is just an attempt by those crazy commos to slam capitalism into the dirt.  Except it's nothing of the sort.  He does the usual banging on about how governments are now captives of the global climate change proponents, aided by a compliant media (no doubt he's spewing that none other than Rupert Murdoch is concerned about global climate change).


Well if financial times is Murdoch owned, I didn't know it. Reading it after borrowing your glasses, I can see how you arrive at your conclusion regarding his trying to panic people. 





> The problem isn't capitalism, it's industrialism.  The Soviets managed to turn much of Russia and its associated states into environmental disasters - the Aral Sea for example.  Foster fails to understand that there are no economic ideology wars any more.  When the Soviet Union crashed and burned there went the ideas of the command economy.  Any country with an ounce of pragmatism about it is in favour of the mixed economy.  The only squabbling nowadays is the ratio.  So Foster can quit dredging up the spectre of Marxism, it's no longer seen as a valid economic theory (although it does retain some use as a tool for social analysis).  But in his article there is it, front and centre.
> 
> On China and India and the other latecomers to industrialism - since we're all on the same planet we have to convince their governments and their people that there are other ways of bringing up the standard of living.  And while we're at it we should remind them that creating massive wealth for a few and consigning the overwhelming majority of the population of each country to poverty is not how it's supposed to work, but that's another argument.
> 
> As for Foster's reference to Lomborg - well, Lomborg hasn't much credibility despite the best efforts of the denialist fluffers, he really can't get it up any longer - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg




I've put on my own glasses now. Pollution is way down in the US from where it was even 15 years ago. We no longer have smog, the Lake is cleaner. I can only tell about my own area. From what I've read though, pretty much holds across the states. People here are enviro aware. Our grocery has encouraged cloth sacks over plastic or paper. Those that can afford it have returned to having milk delivered in reusable glass bottles. We totally recycle refuse. Cars are much cleaner running, SUV's are not as popular and the ones being sold are getting better mileage.

I think the problem is, we don't like OUR government telling us to this or that, much less some 'august' body that also is hitting our pocketbook, while labeling us 'bad folk' and giving a pass to others. China and India are not only industrializing, they are not taking care to put cleansers into new buildings, while the US corps are retrofitting old ones-which is much more expensive. Many of the oil producing countries are consuming more gallons of oil than US, the first time ever. 

Then there are the countries that pushed for Kyoto, hypocritically not making the scores they pledged to, not paying the offsets they agreed to. All the while screaming about the US not signing. Meanwhile, the US has made most of the markers that would have been ours if we signed. It's not that the US citizen doesn't care about 'the world', rather we just get to it as we can, don't need another piece of paper.

Just my pov, as of this morning.

Oh yeah, harking back to MSG post, I'm NOT convinced that 'global warming' is man made, however, that doesn't mean that taking affordable steps, which for the most part, US is doing, can cause harm. As said, we are doing better than most at cleaning up our bit of the world.


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 10, 2007)

I remember back in about 1966 or 1967 or thereabouts watching a tv programme here which looked at pollution in the Derwent River (on which Hobart sits) and the programme flagged some terrible pollution being created by a business on the Derwent River.  Here we are in 2007 and Tasmania has a reputation of being environmentally aware and a "clean" state (good for its major industry - tourism - oh, if you're coming to Australia, don't overlook Tasmania, it really is beautiful).

I also remember reading Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring".  Nowadays you can find plenty of people who will come down on Carson.  But guess what?  She belled the cat.  We listened.  We benefited.

From a personal point of view I have to say I'm not arguing for a return to things of stone and wood (Chips will get the musical reference).  I am not in favour of shutting everything down and creating a new Dark Ages for our species.  I am  in favour of us taking appropriate and conservative steps in dealing with global climate change.  I'd like us to do the small steps now so that we don't need to actually take radical steps in the future, radical steps such as destroying the benefits of industrialism and advanced capitalism.  

If you found a suspicious lump would you ignore it?  Would you wait to be told that it metastised?


----------



## Gunny (Dec 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You haven't been paying attention, according to Larkinn and D it is all decided, We have caused it and must fix it. Science has of course forgotten the middle step, you know, the part where they show us WHAT we did to cause it?
> 
> But we are denialists because we want such a silly thing as evidence of man actually causing a problem, since if we do not know what caused it, we obviously can not "fix" it.
> 
> Now Larkinn has decided that he is just to dumb to actually want to know what it is we have done that we supposedly will fix. And D, well he thinks we should just stop doing everything that might possibly, maybe, could have caused it, while still heating all our homes and running all our business, I assume on mud water?



Is mud water cheaper than wood?


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 10, 2007)

We have a saying here in Aus, "there's money in mud."
It contrasts with the poverty that is in dust.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 10, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I remember back in about 1966 or 1967 or thereabouts watching a tv programme here which looked at pollution in the Derwent River (on which Hobart sits) and the programme flagged some terrible pollution being created by a business on the Derwent River.  Here we are in 2007 and Tasmania has a reputation of being environmentally aware and a "clean" state (good for its major industry - tourism - oh, if you're coming to Australia, don't overlook Tasmania, it really is beautiful).
> 
> I also remember reading Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring".  Nowadays you can find plenty of people who will come down on Carson.  But guess what?  She belled the cat.  We listened.  We benefited.
> 
> ...



And yet you claim anyone that doesn't buy into man made glob al warming because no science provides any clue as to WHAT it is we are doing to heat the planet are denialists. You ignore that the US IS doing more than most to clean up and to ensure we get better and better at not messing in the first place.

I wonder why that is?


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet you claim anyone that doesn't buy into man made glob al warming because no science provides any clue as to WHAT it is we are doing to heat the planet are denialists. You ignore that the US IS doing more than most to clean up and to ensure we get better and better at not messing in the first place.
> 
> I wonder why that is?



No, you said I said those things - note this - _And yet you claim anyone that doesn't buy into man made glob al warming because no science provides any clue as to WHAT it is we are doing to heat the planet are denialists._

Where did I say, _"because no science provides any clue as to WHAT it is we are doing to heat the planet.."?_ Those are  your words. Don't try to verbal me, it's not a good idea.

Nor did I write anything that accords with, _"You ignore that the US IS doing more than most to clean up and to ensure we get better and better at not messing in the first place."
_

Where did I ignore anything?f


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 10, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> What would work REALLY well with me is if some of this hysteria was channeled toward an actual determination as to the cause PRIOR TO trying to cure it.



That was the purpose of the IPCC.   



> If it's al cyclical change in the Earth's climate, then all the meetings, treaties, and witchdoctor cures will have the same effect as pissing into the wind.



And if its not you and the folks who don't believe may end up dooming us all.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You haven't been paying attention, according to Larkinn and D it is all decided, We have caused it and must fix it. Science has of course forgotten the middle step, you know, the part where they show us WHAT we did to cause it?



Right...science hasn't addressed what humans did to cause it at all.   



> But we are denialists because we want such a silly thing as evidence of man actually causing a problem, since if we do not know what caused it, we obviously can not "fix" it.



No, you are a denialist because you want absolute proof.   There is plenty of evidence out there.   



> Now Larkinn has decided that he is just to dumb to actually want to know what it is we have done that we supposedly will fix.



I have?   Surely after posting how I thought I was the smartest person ever about 500 times, you can't believe this?   Seems you are contradicting yourself ol boy.  



> And D, well he thinks we should just stop doing everything that might possibly, maybe, could have caused it, while still heating all our homes and running all our business, I assume on mud water?



Try reading what me and D have to say as opposed to seeing that we've posted and then closing your eyes and trying to clairvoyantly figure it out.   It would make your responses much more relevant.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 10, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Right...science hasn't addressed what humans did to cause it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your as smart as a box of rocks. You have said more than once you can not fathom what the real scientists say so won't even try. You have done the same in this very thread. That YOU think your the cat's meow on brains doesn't mean you are.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> That YOU think your the cat's meow on brains doesn't mean you are.





RetiredGySgt said:


> Now Larkinn has decided that he is just to dumb



So...do I think I am "to dumb" or do I think I am the "cat's meow on brains"?

Considering you can't even understand what I actually state, try not to scry what I think about myself.   

Oh, and by the way, learn the difference between intelligence and knowledge.  I have never stated I'm not smart enough to learn the science.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 10, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> So...do I think I am "to dumb" or do I think I am the "cat's meow on brains"?
> 
> Considering you can't even understand what I actually state, try not to scry what I think about myself.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, learn the difference between intelligence and knowledge.  I have never stated I'm not smart enough to learn the science.



But up to this point you admit to not fully understanding it, yet still manage to claim that your fictitious majority that say man is causing the majority of global warming must be right and you continue to believe the highly flawed IPCC report.  When told the evidence that it is flawed is readily available, instead of examining it for yourself you not only demand others provide it for you, but stick your fingers in your ears like a four year old when they present it to you.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 10, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> But up to this point you admit to not fully understanding it, yet still manage to claim that your fictitious majority that say man is causing the majority of global warming must be right.



You don't fully understand it either.   Nor does RGS.   But nonetheless you both insist that you know more than the scientists do and want to come up with your own theories.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 10, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> and you continue to believe the highly flawed IPCC report.



And how do you know its flawed?   Oh right, some people told you so.



> When told the evidence that it is flawed is readily available, instead of examining it for yourself you not only demand others provide it for you



Ah yes...I'll examine it for myself.   Oh wait I see an inconsistency between that and other findings.   Does that mean the IPCC is wrong or that the other things are wrong?   



> , but stick your fingers in your ears like a four year old when they present it to you.



Because, surprise surprise, I don't think you know more about climate change than what was it we figured out...42% of scientists?   Not a majority, no, but their opinions carry a hell of a lot more weight than you do.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 10, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> And how do you know its flawed?   Oh right, some people told you so.



How do you knot it isn't?  Wait I know this one.  "Despite not understanding the data I trust them."





Larkinn said:


> Ah yes...I'll examine it for myself.   Oh wait I see an inconsistency between that and other findings.   Does that mean the IPCC is wrong or that the other things are wrong?



I don't know.  Neither do you.  Like me, you're pretty sure you think you know.   





Larkinn said:


> Because, surprise surprise, I don't think you know more about climate change than what was it we figured out...42&#37; of scientists?   Not a majority, no, but their opinions carry a hell of a lot more weight than you do.



Never claimed I did.  I do think less than half of the scientific community haveing a unified opinion isn't enough to call this a closed case.  Apparently you do.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 10, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> How do you knot it isn't?  Wait I know this one.  "Despite not understanding the data I trust them."



Do you go into the doctors office and demand to know exactly what they do, exactly how the medicine works, what evidence there is that the medicine works, which tests have been done, which doctors have done tests and refuted them, blah blah blah.   



> I don't know.  Neither do you.



Really?   You don't know?   Then why do you consistently claim that its flawed?  



> Like me, you're pretty sure you think you know.



Unlike you, I listen to what the scientific community is saying.   You like to find one guy, read his book, and then think that he knows all the anwsers.  



> Never claimed I did.  I do think less than half of the scientific community haveing a unified opinion isn't enough to call this a closed case.  Apparently you do.



I've never called it a closed case.   You however have said they are incorrect.   I think they are incorrect and that those who disagree are largely doing so for political reasons.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 10, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Do you go into the doctors office and demand to know exactly what they do, exactly how the medicine works, what evidence there is that the medicine works, which tests have been done, which doctors have done tests and refuted them, blah blah blah.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If a doctor tells you your left leg is going to fall off for no apparent reason do you just say "ohh, ok, what shall we do?" If the same Doctor tells you your sick , he doesn't know why your sick but he thinks if he cuts off both your legs it might help a little, do you say " ok, when is the operation?"

If your son comes home with a comunicable sickness and you learn 5 other kids in his class have the same sickness, do you burn down your barn cause he played in it and it might have caused the sickness? Or you find out 5 kids around the city, that have had no direct contact with your son have the same sickness BUT all 6 have been to the same park with the same mosquitos there, do you drain your pond and do nothing about the pond at the park?

Just curious?


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> If a doctor tells you your left leg is going to fall off for no apparent reason do you just say "ohh, ok, what shall we do?"



I ask if there is anything that can be done to save it and perhaps go for a second opinion.   



> If the same Doctor tells you your sick , he doesn't know why your sick but he thinks if he cuts off both your legs it might help a little, do you say " ok, when is the operation?"



Try creating analogies that have some relevance.   



> If your son comes home with a comunicable sickness and you learn 5 other kids in his class have the same sickness, do you burn down your barn cause he played in it and it might have caused the sickness?



Is there a link to the barn and their sickness?   Are there numerous scientific studies which hypothesize a direct link between them?  



> Or you find out 5 kids around the city, that have had no direct contact with your son have the same sickness BUT all 6 have been to the same park with the same mosquitos there, do you drain your pond and do nothing about the pond at the park?



I wonder at the incompetence of whoever devised the poorly written and incoherent hypothetical.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 10, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> I wonder at the incompetence of whoever devised the poorly written and incoherent hypothetical.



You and me both. 

RSG only confirms what I have thought all along. He has given no thought to the numerous studies done by scientists over the past few decades. In-depth studies. His last post gives the impression that as far as he's concerned a whole slew of scientists have woken up one day, opened the curtains in their bedrooms, looked out the window and gone "Ah, today is the day that global warming started. And I'm gonna tell the world, that today is the day I decided humans are the cause of it".
Makes you wonder if has read anything other than neocon drivel on the subject. Totally uninformed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 10, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> I ask if there is anything that can be done to save it and perhaps go for a second opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The two you do not like are directly related to the Global warning is caused by man joke we have.

Kyoto proposes we pay billions and ruin economic growth with absolutely no evidence the proposed action has ANYTHING what so ever to do with Global man made warming. We are told we need to cut our legs off in the hopes it may help a problem that may not even be our problem.

Other planets in the solar system are showing continued heating, yet we are told the only common factor, the Sun, has nothing to do with our heating. Instead we are told we should take action to stop something that is not proven that we are even causing. And that we should do so in the hopes it might help.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 10, 2007)

Further you insist you will just "believe" ( you know have faith) that some men and women in white smocks might be right about a warming trend and that even though they do not know what is causing it we should damage our economies while ignoring emerging polluters. Your defense being they know more then you do. So I assume when a doctor just tells you , with no explaination he is going to cut off your legs, you will of course agree with him, cause after all, he is the doctor and you do not know medicine, why ask at all?


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The two you do not like are directly related to the Global warning is caused by man joke we have.



What in hell?   



> Kyoto proposes we pay billions and ruin economic growth with absolutely no evidence the proposed action has ANYTHING what so ever to do with Global man made warming. We are told we need to cut our legs off in the hopes it may help a problem that may not even be our problem.



RGS...there is LOTS of evidence, there just isn't proof.   What you think scientists have these views with NO evidence?   



> Other planets in the solar system are showing continued heating, yet we are told the only common factor, the Sun, has nothing to do with our heating. Instead we are told we should take action to stop something that is not proven that we are even causing. And that we should do so in the hopes it might help.



Correlation does not mean causation.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Further you insist you will just "believe" ( you know have faith)



Please acknowledge at least that you recognize the difference between having faith in something there IS evidence for and something there is NOT evidence for.   



> that some men and women in white smocks might be right about a warming trend



Are you joking?   Are you seriously saying that the earth is not even warming up?   Even Bush doesn't go along with that crap anymore.   



> and that even though they do not know what is causing it we should damage our economies while ignoring emerging polluters.



Umm actually scientists aren't the one saying who should reduce emissions and who shouldn't.   

This is a retarded game of chicken little.   "well if they won't cut emissions we won't either and fuck the world!".   How about you do whatever you can to cut emissions and hope that others do the same.   I know, I know, you want to be the "winners" when the world floods.   You want to die with the most stuff.   Well some of us don't want to die.   



> Your defense being they know more then you do. So I assume when a doctor just tells you , with no explaination he is going to cut off your legs, you will of course agree with him, cause after all, he is the doctor and you do not know medicine, why ask at all?



I'm sorry, have scientists said we need to cut emissions with no explanation?  

No, they haven't.   As I said before, come up with coherent analogies.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 10, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Do you go into the doctors office and demand to know exactly what they do, exactly how the medicine works, what evidence there is that the medicine works, which tests have been done, which doctors have done tests and refuted them, blah blah blah.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As usual you attribute beliefs and assumptions on to people that aren't true and for which there is little to no evidence for simply for ease of argument.  You need to start asking yourself what it is reasonable to assume about people's beliefs.  No reasonable person could conclude about me what you have time and again.  (i.e I believe one person's opinion is the be all and end all).


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 10, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> As usual you attribute beliefs and assumptions on to people that aren't true and for which there is little to no evidence for simply for ease of argument.



Please explain exactly who I am attributing "beliefs and assumptions" onto, and who those individuals are.



> No reasonable person could conclude about me what you have time and again.  (i.e I believe one person's opinion is the be all and end all).



You rely wayyyy too much on one persons research & book for your opinions about global warming.  When I asked for backup evidence you cited his bibliography and got a list of people who support him from his home-made website.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 10, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Please explain exactly who I am attributing "beliefs and assumptions" onto, and who those individuals are.



First and foremost me, but it seems to be a general trend with anyone you don't  agree with.  I think it's really amusing that you attribute so many beliefs to people that are inaccurate.  If you didn't you would probably find there is more common ground than you think. 





Larkinn said:


> You rely wayyyy too much on one persons research & book for your opinions about global warming.  When I asked for backup evidence you cited his bibliography and got a list of people who support him from his home-made website.



Again that is a false assumption which you continue to insist upon.  I know as well as you do to put all or most stock in the idea that one theory is the truth  over all others is silly.  All I have done is continue to point out there are other scientifcally legitamte theories for what we're seeing.  And they warrant attention before the next liberal quack claims we must take drastic measures to avoid the 'emergency'.  RGS is correct when he points out there is very little good evidence to support the idea that it is predominantly man makeing the Earth warmer.

A little common sense alone should lend credance to the idea that there are other possibilities as to why the earth is warming.  History being the big one.  We know it has been significantly warmer than it is now far prior to industrialization.  Greenland was named Greenland for a reason you know. Scientific theories continue to emerge as well regarding sun cycles and there effect on climate.  Do you honestly believe the evidence of ice ages and warming trends that Earth's temperature was constant and non-volatile right up until industrialization?  You may very well expose yourself to other ideas though you have also show you will remain truly obstinate about it insisting, despite little to know mreit, that basically anything oppossed to anthropogenic global warming is non-credible.   It isn't me who has put all my stock in one theory with blinders on to all other ideas.  It's you.  Do really think those that believe an alternative theory is most likely want to be wrong?  It is my best interest and that of world's that every scientific avenue is exhausted  before declaring we didn't create this problem.


----------



## eots (Dec 10, 2007)

I dont know how much global warming is man made or how effective we can be at reducng it. I do know the fact is being explotied for globalist political agendas that have nothing to do with global warming


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 11, 2007)

eots said:


> I dont know how much global warming is man made or how effective we can be at reducng it. I do know the fact is being explotied for globalist political agendas that have nothing to do with global warming



that Al Gore won a peace prize for it should be proof enough of that.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 11, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> RGS is correct when he points out there is very little good evidence to support the idea that it is predominantly man makeing the Earth warmer.



Most of your post is the same tired of shit you repeat everywhere.   But, there is one thing which is amusing.

I'm sorry...where in "there is no science" did you get the idea that there is "very little" good evidence?   Oh wait, I see, you were assuming a more charitable interpretation of his statements.   Or was this just you lying again?


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 11, 2007)

A word of advice Bern...not that I really mind because its hilarious when you do this.   But if you are going to attempt to criticize me, do it 1)  Accurately and 2) about something which you don't do.   Or clean up your own act before you go around all holier than thou attempting to tell me how to act.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 11, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> A word of advice Bern...not that I really mind because its hilarious when you do this.   But if you are going to attempt to criticize me, do it 1)  Accurately and 2) about something which you don't do.   Or clean up your own act before you go around all holier than thou attempting to tell me how to act.



I think you know how useless that suggestion is.  After all you obviously haven't taken it to heart when I gave it to you.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 11, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Most of your post is the same tired of shit you repeat everywhere.   But, there is one thing which is amusing.
> 
> I'm sorry...where in "there is no science" did you get the idea that there is "very little" good evidence?   Oh wait, I see, you were assuming a more charitable interpretation of his statements.   Or was this just you lying again?



I believe it's called paraphrasing.  But you go ahead and focus on semantics instead of the issue itself.  And why does the left have such a problem with the definition of the word 'lie'?


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 11, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> I think you know how useless that suggestion is.  After all you obviously haven't taken it to heart when I gave it to you.



Thats because you failed on #1 of the test as well.   Failure for multiple reasons, a spectacular defeat.



> I believe it's called paraphrasing



No, actually paraphrasing is saying the same thing as someone else said, in a different way.   What you did was say something ELSE that someone else said, in a different way.   



> But you go ahead and focus on semantics



Semantics?   You mean pointing out your hypocrisy?   I will.   Its amusing.



> instead of the issue itself.



The issue?   The issue is you trying, and failing, to psychoanalyze me.   I am sticking to that issue and mocking you for how utterly pathetic and idiotic it is.   



> And why does the left have such a problem with the definition of the word 'lie'?



Please, oh wise Bern, tell me how I used the definition incorrectly.   Be careful not to assume anything in your description.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 11, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> No, actually paraphrasing is saying the same thing as someone else said, in a different way.   What you did was say something ELSE that someone else said, in a different way.



Semantics?   You mean pointing out your hypocrisy?   I will.   Its amusing.[/QUOTE]

apperently we don't understand the word hypocrisy either.



Larkinn said:


> The issue?   The issue is you trying, and failing, to psychoanalyze me.   I am sticking to that issue and mocking you for how utterly pathetic and idiotic it is.



When someone is as void of ovjectivity and incapable of haveing a reasonable conversation, who focuses more on semantics than the issue, then most likely there is an element of personal psychology in the way.  I know and most on this board know that where you are concerned that issue is arrogance.  It's the only real explanation for why you avoid issues and get into semantical debates   



Larkinn said:


> Please, oh wise Bern, tell me how I used the definition incorrectly.   Be careful not to assume anything in your description.



A lie requires knowledge of the truth and deliberate attempt to mis-characterize it.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 11, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> apperently we don't understand the word hypocrisy either.



I understand it fine, boyo.   



> When someone is as void of ovjectivity and incapable of haveing a reasonable conversation, who focuses more on semantics than the issue, then most likely there is an element of personal psychology in the way.



Funny, its only some of the conservatives on this particular board who have ever thought that.   I guess its a feature of people who go to boards where most agree with them who think that anyone who disagrees with them is not objective.   

And really...judging someones personal psychology from their actions on a messageboard is ludicrous, absurd, and moronic.   But it does provide a laugh, so keep at it.   Tell me which theories of psychology are you using Bern?   Where were you trained in psychology?   What prestigious undergrad were you a psych major at?   



> I know and most on this board know that where you are concerned that issue is arrogance.



tsk tsk...speaking for the rest of the board again Bern?   Assuming yet again.  You really can't get over it can you.   



> It's the only real explanation for why you avoid issues and get into semantical debates



How about this:   I realize that language matters and if you want to have any real conversation with someone who disagrees with you, one needs to figure out what the terms are, what exactly they mean when they say something, and why they say that.   

Oh wait...but I guess I could just assume all that.    

Of course if I assumed it, you'd be all mad at me for that.   Is it perhaps that your gripe with me is not anything realistic?   Rather you dislike me because you want to win on the internet and you feel stymied by this "arrogant" young pup who recognizes you for the utter dumbass that you are?   



> A lie requires knowledge of the truth and deliberate attempt to mis-characterize it.



Are you unable to read?   Do you have comprehension problems?

I asked *tell me how I used the definition incorrectly*.   If I wanted a definition of what a lie is, I have more intelligent things to get it from.   Such as a book.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 11, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> That was the purpose of the IPCC.
> 
> 
> 
> And if its not you and the folks who don't believe may end up dooming us all.



And if it's not, you and the folks crashing wildly into the woods shooting at anything that moves instead of acquiring an actual, legitimate target may end up doomed anyway.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 11, 2007)

Y'all are like ... "My car won't run ... I'll start trying to make it run by getting new tires and a new antenna ball for it."


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 11, 2007)

The only reason people on the left do not tell you what an idiot you are when you play semantics is because you agree with them.

You do not argue a point, you try to twist what people say and you purposefully try to change the argument not about the point, but rather some word definition.

You almost never actually state YOUR point, playing semantics so that you have an out when caught. You and maineman both played the game with the word lie. Arguing that since one definition is any thing that was not true was a lie meant Bush lied. Ignoring intent. Until your caught the same way, then it is all about intent.

You play games with words in an effort to twist, to obfusicate issues. You almost never state your position on an issue and play the " words are important" game, which really means " I can change the subject"

You know it or your to stupid to know your own games.

As for intelligence, you HAVE stated your smarter than all but maybe a couple people on this board. You routinely claim your smarter than most anybody you do argue with. You wear your supposed intellect on your sleeve and use it to try and win arguments, not on merit of ideas but because you claim you are just smarter than others.

You play games and we all know it. You know it too. Its your whole shtic.


----------



## jillian (Dec 11, 2007)

Please don't speak for "people on the left"... as if a) you have any understanding of how others' think; or b) the "LEFT" is some homogeneous entity where there's total agreement.

"I do not belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat" -- Will Rogers.

As for "word games" and "semantics", most of the people who say that simply can't keep up with him.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 11, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> And if it's not, you and the folks crashing wildly into the woods shooting at anything that moves instead of acquiring an actual, legitimate target may end up doomed anyway.



Not really.   The repercussions if the IPCC folks are right are far far worse than any economic damage we could do ourselves.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 11, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Not really.   The repercussions if the IPCC folks are right are far far worse than any economic damage we could do ourselves.



The problem with this is the "if."  

What "if" Iran pops up with a nuke tomorrow?  You can't have an "if" as a standard of proof on one issue, but demand concrete, unimpeachable evidence on the other.

I have no problem doing what we can to curb any man-made global warming.  But I first want to see the evidence that it IS man-made.  

How can one even suggest enacting random legislation against whatever they think might be causing it?  That is not logical at all, IMO.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The only reason people on the left do not tell you what an idiot you are when you play semantics is because you agree with them.



Considering you are unable to understand basic sentences, or make them half the time, I really advise you not to speak for "the left".   It looks like someone else on "the left" already decided to tell you how stupid that was.   Consider it repeated.   



> You do not argue a point, you try to twist what people say and you purposefully try to change the argument not about the point, but rather some word definition.



Blah blah blah...same old shit, different day.   I've responded to this.   If you care to maybe address my points when I respond to you I'll do it for real.   Until then, you don't get real anwsers.



> You almost never actually state YOUR point, playing semantics so that you have an out when caught. You and maineman both played the game with the word lie. Arguing that since one definition is any thing that was not true was a lie meant Bush lied. Ignoring intent. Until your caught the same way, then it is all about intent.



Umm no, I argue that I don't lie because you are too stupid to understand what I am saying, not some crap about intent is different.   And I always state my point, its just not always directly relevant to the position.   I don't need to have the anwser to something to know that someone elses anwser is asinine.



> You play games with words in an effort to twist, to obfusicate issues. You almost never state your position on an issue and play the " words are important" game, which really means " I can change the subject"



Didn't you already say this?   I mean, in this post.   You've said it throughout the board about 400 times by now.   But at least keep it to once a post.

By the way RGS...you ever respond to your 6-3 idiocy or when Shogun ripped you a new one in that Iran thread?   Nope?   Didn't think so.   Or how about when you started that thread, with beautiful almost clairvoyant timing, about how liberals say shit and leave threads  




> You know it or your to stupid to know your own games.



Right.   You know me better than I know myself RGS.   And over the internet no less.   I wonder what prestigious institution YOU got your psych degree at?  



> As for intelligence, you HAVE stated your smarter than all but maybe a couple people on this board.



Yes, I have.   Congratulations on getting something right.   



> You routinely claim your smarter than most anybody you do argue with.



Thats because people I argue with routinely have the stupidity to mention my intellect.   



> You wear your supposed intellect on your sleeve and use it to try and win arguments, not on merit of ideas but because you claim you are just smarter than others.



Umm, no.   Try finding the last ten threads where my intellect was brought up.   I'd be willing to bet that in 10 of 10, someone else brought it up first.   You and a few others are obsessed with what I think of my intellect.   I know I'm interesting, but really, get over me.



> You play games and we all know it. You know it too. Its your whole shtic.



I do now.   I used to treat you and your ilk seriously until I realized that you are all just a bunch of dumbfucks.   Now?  No, I don't take you seriously.   You follow me around on various threads saying retarded shit and trying to analyze me.   Yes I'm going to fuck with you.   Cry me a river.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 11, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> The problem with this is the "if."
> 
> What "if" Iran pops up with a nuke tomorrow?  You can't have an "if" as a standard of proof on one issue, but demand concrete, unimpeachable evidence on the other.



They are both "if" statements.   But Iran having a nuke won't doom the world, its only if it decides to use that.   And that is predictable, imo.   Is it dangerous?  Yes.   Will it lead to worlds end?  I think not.   



> I have no problem doing what we can to curb any man-made global warming.  But I first want to see the evidence that it IS man-made.



There is lots of evidence that it is.   Is it conclusive?  No.   Will it ever be conclusive?  No.   But 5 years ago this exact same discussion was going on except it wasnt "is man the cause of global warming" it was "is the earth warming at all?".   Oh, and glory be, its indisputable that now it is.   

I'm reminded of the debate between evolution and creationists.   Evolution gets connection after connection right, prediction after prediction is right and still people say "well its not proven yet".   No, its not.   It won't ever be.   There are limits to human knowledge.    You want to think that its  massive coincidence that evolution just happens to match up with vast empirical data?   Fine.  Rot in your own ignorance, thats cool. But you want to think that its just a coincidence that man-made global warming matches up with empirical data?  That suddenly matters a hell of a lot.   



> How can one even suggest enacting random legislation against whatever they think might be causing it?  That is not logical at all, IMO.



Because a very large number of very qualified people believe they know for sure what is causing it.   They don't have the political solutions to stop it, but they think they know whats causing it.


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 11, 2007)

This is why the conference in Bali is a good idea.  Of course there needs to be a mood of scepticism, there has to be evidence of causes provided because if it isn't then the electorates of every country represented at the conference will not just be sceptical but will feel as if they've been fooled and we know how electorates act when they think they've been suckered.

The fierce denialists are on the other end of the curve from the fierce promoters of the idea of human-influenced global climate change.  Somewhere between them lies the actuality.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 12, 2007)

jillian said:


> Please don't speak for "people on the left"... as if a) you have any understanding of how others' think; or b) the "LEFT" is some homogeneous entity where there's total agreement.
> 
> "I do not belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat" -- Will Rogers.
> 
> As for "word games" and "semantics", most of the people who say that simply can't keep up with him.



Change that to right or republican or even Bush and I suggest you take your own advice, or wait I forgot, dems/libs don't take advice they are to smart for that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 12, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Considering you are unable to understand basic sentences, or make them half the time, I really advise you not to speak for "the left".   It looks like someone else on "the left" already decided to tell you how stupid that was.   Consider it repeated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Arrogant asshole is a good definition for you. Do us all a favor and quit claiming in one post you never said your smarter then everyone else then in the next saying you are smarter then everyone ( ohh wait you admitted maybe 2 people MIGHT be as smart as you). Semantics at work yet again.

You do not take people serious, not because they are stupid but because your an arrogant asshole that thinks your to smart to be bothered. You do not answer questions because you can not. Your afraid someone might use any actual stance you might fumble your ignorant arrogance into saying against you and your just not smart enough to keep things straight.

I don't run away from retards like you and Shogun, neither of you have any real position, your both automations of one type or another, spouting a party line while decrying anyone that might support something you disagree with as mindless drones.

Unlike your lying ass I have positions and I do not play word games rather then state those positions. I also haven't spent every day since republicans lost an election ( we lost, you morons did not win) crying about how somehow you cheated us. Nor have I ever claimed a marginal win was some sort  of mandate of the people like your ilk tries to do every day.

Your so smart your an ignorant asshole.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 12, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Change that to right or republican or even Bush and I suggest you take your own advice, or wait I forgot, dems/libs don't take advice they are to smart for that.



Then I'll tell you to do the same thing, and then to shut up because I don't spew insults about the right.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 12, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Arrogant asshole is a good definition for you. Do us all a favor and quit claiming in one post you never said your smarter then everyone else then in the next saying you are smarter then everyone ( ohh wait you admitted maybe 2 people MIGHT be as smart as you). Semantics at work yet again.



Lmao semantics?   I can see why you constantly get everything wrong if you can't figure out the difference between what...15 and 17 people or however many regulars there are here.   

Accuracy is important.   Try it sometime instead of just assuming    But will Bern attack you for that?   Naah.  



> You do not take people serious, not because they are stupid but because your an arrogant asshole that thinks your to smart to be bothered.



When I said I don't take YOU serious I meant I don't take YOU serious.   You aren't people.   You follow me around making asinine comments.   Don't expect me to take you serious, you are a joke.



> You do not answer questions because you can not.



Actually I respond to pretty much everything anyone says for better or for worse.   People rarely ask me questions, they usually just accuse.  



> Your afraid someone might use any actual stance you might fumble your ignorant arrogance into saying against you and your just not smart enough to keep things straight.



Right.   I'm terrified of looking stupid here.   I'm terrified of people here disliking me.   Thats why I'm so meak, not outspoken at all, and never say my opinion.



> I don't run away from retards like you and Shogun, neither of you have any real position, your both automations of one type or another, spouting a party line while decrying anyone that might support something you disagree with as mindless drones.



So I can expect to see your reply in the thread where he ripped you a new one?   How about the 6-3 thread?   Going to admit you were wrong in either of those?   



> Unlike your lying ass I have positions and I do not play word games rather then state those positions.



Congratulations you have an opinion.   Really, those are so terribly rare.   Ever heard of the saying "opinions are like assholes, everyones got one"?   Next you'll be bragging that you also have an asshole.   Congratulations!   Really, we are all so impressed with you.



> I also haven't spent every day since republicans lost an election ( we lost, you morons did not win)



Umm, yeah actually sounds like crying to me.   "waah you didn't win...its we who lost".   Sorry, but your party doesn't decide everything there other individuals out there besides yourself and those you identify with.



> crying about how somehow you cheated us. Nor have I ever claimed a marginal win was some sort  of mandate of the people like your ilk tries to do every day.



Please quote where I said the Republicans cheated the Dems in 2000.   Or retract it.   Or pull your usual routine and just don't post here anymore.   I wonder how many threads I can run your sorry ass out of.   



> Your so smart your an ignorant asshole.



Try learning English then coming back to me.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 12, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> They are both "if" statements.   But Iran having a nuke won't doom the world, its only if it decides to use that.   And that is predictable, imo.   Is it dangerous?  Yes.   Will it lead to worlds end?  I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That very large number of very qualified people who "believe" they know for sure what is causing it haven't shown one shred of convincing evidence that points to anything other than "man-made."  

There are an equal number of qualified people who "believe" it's a cyclical change in the Earth's climate.  There is scientific evidence that has in fact happened in the past.

Again, I see no point in enacting solutions without identifying the problem except to appease the "feel good" in the alarmists.  I have no problem with finding a solution to an actual problem.


----------



## Annie (Dec 12, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Because a very large number of very qualified people believe* they know for sure* what is causing it.   They don't have the political solutions to stop it, but *they think they know whats causing it.*



The bolded just 'jumped out' at me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 12, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Larkinn View Post
> ...
> 
> 
> ...



this from Mr semantics? Come now you can do better. In 2 connected sentences you just said they know and then said they think they know.... which is it?

More importantly if they KNOW why can they * NOT PROVE IT *? If they THINK they know why can they NOT provide us with a theory that has more than the few people they have believing it? A theory so full of holes that laymen can grasp it and throw rocks at it?

And next question Mr. faithful ( last I checked 58 is higher than 42 by the way) why is that at least for 5 years now and possible 9 there has been NO real rise in temperature? If we are in this runaway greenhouse effect why did it stop? If we are causing it what did we do to stop it and if we did stop it, why do we need to do more?

This is shaping up to be JUST like the "we are all gonna FREEZE" scare in the 70's. The difference this time is the whackos have gotten politicians involved. And Big Brother the UN sees a means to scare Countries into being subservient to them.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> The bolded just 'jumped out' at me.



Rarely, rarely, rarely will I stick up for Larkinn.  This could be the first time in fact.  But the fact that neither of you see any significance (or just plain deliberately ignored it) in the word 'beleive' says a lot.  Is there really a significant difference between 'beleive they know' and 'think they know'?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 13, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Rarely, rarely, rarely will I stick up for Larkinn.  This could be the first time in fact.  But the fact that neither of you see any significance (or just plain deliberately ignored it) in the word 'beleive' says a lot.  Is there really a significant difference between 'beleive they know' and 'think they know'?



With Larkinn? YES. He plays little games like this all the time. Anyone else wrote those two sentences and he would be on about how they didn't mean the same thing for pages.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> That very large number of very qualified people who "believe" they know for sure what is causing it haven't shown one shred of convincing evidence that points to anything other than "man-made."



okay back to the 'pile on'. 

And again I ask even though the 'large number' (that have provided little hard evidence, btw) comprises less than half of the scientific community you are still fairly certain that group is right?


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2007)

alternative evidence as to why Greenland's ice sheet is melting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071213/sc_livescience/magmamaybemeltinggreenlandice


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 13, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> That very large number of very qualified people who "believe" they know for sure what is causing it haven't shown one shred of convincing evidence that points to anything other than "man-made."



Actually they believe there is convincing evidence.   Do you believe you are more qualified then them to determine what counts as convincing evidence?



> There are an equal number of qualified people who "believe" it's a cyclical change in the Earth's climate.  There is scientific evidence that has in fact happened in the past.



Really?   Link to the "equal number of qualified people who "believe" it's a cyclical change"



> Again, I see no point in enacting solutions without identifying the problem except to appease the "feel good" in the alarmists.  I have no problem with finding a solution to an actual problem.



Large numbers of extremely qualified people believe they have identified the problem.   That they can't convince American Conservatives of that fact, a group not known for their love of cutting edge science (except Star Wars...now that as a winner!), does not mean they haven't identified the problem.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 13, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> The bolded just 'jumped out' at me.



Perhaps you should have paid attention to the non-bolded part as well.   The "believe" they know and "think" they know are roughly the same thing.


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> alternative evidence as to why Greenland's ice sheet is melting.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071213/sc_livescience/magmamaybemeltinggreenlandice



Von Friese also said the "Man in the Moon" was caused by meteorites and that there's another meteorite under the antarctic which caused the triassic extinction.... Of course, there's no evidence of it, but well, he thinks that's what happned.

Not exactly a lot of scientific consensus on his guesses. So, while he may at some point be found to be correct, I'm not sure I'd place a lot of faith in a single person who comes up with novel theories.


----------



## Annie (Dec 13, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Rarely, rarely, rarely will I stick up for Larkinn.  This could be the first time in fact.  But the fact that neither of you see any significance (or just plain deliberately ignored it) in the word 'beleive' says a lot.  Is there really a significant difference between 'beleive they know' and 'think they know'?



Point taken, They don't know. Neither do you. In the same vein, I do not know that man isn't causing the problem, which is one reason, beyond better air and water quality that I believe that individuals and businesses should do what is reasonable and affordable to clean up what they can.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Perhaps you should have paid attention to the non-bolded part as well.   The "believe" they know and "think" they know are roughly the same thing.



Is that like no evidence and almost no evidence are the same thing?


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 13, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> this from Mr semantics? Come now you can do better. In 2 connected sentences you just said they know and then said they think they know.... which is it?



Actually I said believe they know and think they know.   Try reading comprehension, son.



> More importantly if they KNOW why can they * NOT PROVE IT *? If they THINK they know why can they NOT provide us with a theory that has more than the few people they have believing it? A theory so full of holes that laymen can grasp it and throw rocks at it?



The few people they have believing it?   The few people?   There is a climate change conference going on at Bali right now.   It represents over 180 countries with a massive focus on the issue.   A "few people" who believe it?   Congratulations on being a dishonest shitbag again, but what else is new.   And really, because you think you can grasp it and throw rocks at it doesn't mean you can.   



> And next question Mr. faithful ( last I checked 58 is higher than 42 by the way)



Yes 58 is higher than 42.   Your point is what?   42% subscribe to the theory, think that its truth.   That doesn't mean 58% thinks its false.   There is a middle ground.   Although you are so proud of having an opinion (good job little RGS!), some people have the guts to say they don't know when they don't know.   Something you should try doing once in a while.



> why is that at least for 5 years now and possible 9 there has been NO real rise in temperature? If we are in this runaway greenhouse effect why did it stop? If we are causing it what did we do to stop it and if we did stop it, why do we need to do more?





> The five warmest years over last century have likely been: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006. The top 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.



http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html



> This is shaping up to be JUST like the "we are all gonna FREEZE" scare in the 70's. The difference this time is the whackos have gotten politicians involved. And Big Brother the UN sees a means to scare Countries into being subservient to them.



So tell me the massive number of scientists and international meetings that went into focusing on that scare?


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 13, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Rarely, rarely, rarely will I stick up for Larkinn.  This could be the first time in fact.  But the fact that neither of you see any significance (or just plain deliberately ignored it) in the word 'beleive' says a lot.  Is there really a significant difference between 'beleive they know' and 'think they know'?



Kudos.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 13, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> With Larkinn? YES. He plays little games like this all the time. Anyone else wrote those two sentences and he would be on about how they didn't mean the same thing for pages.



Umm, no.   Although if you are so good are predicting what I'd say, please come up with a theory for how the two are appreciably different and how that matters in this context.   Do come up with something that I would say, i.e. not completely incoherent, and retarded.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 13, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> okay back to the 'pile on'.
> 
> And again I ask even though the 'large number' (that have provided little hard evidence, btw) comprises less than half of the scientific community you are still fairly certain that group is right?



I believe them, yes.   I don't see very many reasons not to believe them, and generally the folks I see disbelieving them I suspect of ulterior political motives.   Its not convenient to believe it.   Its not nice.   But I'm not interested in the aesthetic values of my beliefs, I'm interested in the truth of them.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 13, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Is that like no evidence and almost no evidence are the same thing?



Not at all.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> I believe them, yes.   I don't see very many reasons not to believe them, and generally the folks I see disbelieving them I suspect of ulterior political motives.   Its not convenient to believe it.   Its not nice.   But I'm not interested in the aesthetic values of my beliefs, I'm interested in the truth of them.



And that is the debate I would rather have then the ones we usually digress into:

Reasons why the man-made theory should be questioned (some of you've seen):

1) We know it has been hotter in human history.  That, all by itself, should tell us we should maybe spend some time figuring if that is what's happening.

2)  This one is a little different and that is, SO WHAT?  As I mentioned before Greenland was named Greenland for a reason.   When the Vikings discovered it in about 1200 there was no glacier covering it and potatoes were farmed across much of it (which is starting to happen again).  Believe it or not a lot of good can come from this warming trend, specifically longer growing seasons and the ability to grow crops at higher latitudes.  I tried to make the case before that most things on the universe have a pattern or cycle to them. Things die and things are born.  Species become extinct and are replaced by new ones which eventually die and are replaced by new ones again.  Ocean levels of risen and fallen. glaciers have advanced and receeded. So why are we some so certain that dooms day is approaching when what we are seeing now has happened thousands of times before throughout Earth's history? 

My 'theory' on that to follow.


----------



## Vintij (Dec 13, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> And that is the debate I would rather have then the ones we usually digress into:
> 
> Reasons why the man-made theory should be questioned (some of you've seen):
> 
> ...




Stupid most ignorant thing you can ever say. 

Yes climate change has been going on for billions of years and we have recorded data of about the last 100,000 years from ice drilling. But to say that we should not be concerned with the current warming trend is just plain stupid.  

Oceans hold salt, salt is heavy.....alot heavier than fresh water. The bottom of the ocean holds the most salt, the atlantic current is a worldwide current of warm salt water from the atlantic through to the pacific. Ice caps are made of fresh water, fresh water dilutes salt water. When fresh water dillutes salt water it rises from the bottom of the sea slightly altering the current and warming the ocean. Warm oceans create hurricanes.  

The last natural warming trend, took 60,000 years to get back to normal you idiot.  And this was with natural volcanic activity during a period when the earth had a very thin atmosphere and nearly no troposhpere.  Think about this for a second, if it took the earth 60,000 years to heal itself with no atmosphere, how long will it take for someone like you to realize that temperature data aligns perfectly with the industrial revolution, meaning how on earth are we suppose to know what the planet will do naturally to heal itself if it has never encountered anything like the industrial revolution? 

Besides, It was the sea plants that saved the planet countless times, and other microscopic organisms that helped consume the carbon in the air through diffusion  (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...3A15752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) 

What you dont get is, when these organisms have to work extra hard to save us from ourselves......that is an indication that there is to much carbon in the air. How can these organisms survive in dilluted ocean water? 

Easy solution to global warming is to fertalize the ocean with millions of species of microscopic carbon eating organism's. 

But still, to say that it is not a big deal is complete ignorance and anyone who says global warming is not a problem or it does not exist, needs to take themselves to a childrens message board, or walk themselves to the top of the building they are in, and jump off. Do us all a favor and learn ANYTHING about ANYTHING before you talk about it. 

If only more people knew how plant life, and microscopic brainless organisms are saving us from our own destruction. 

Seriously, you people need to fucking die already. Not specifically you, but people like you who think the earth is a giant playground that we can do whatever we want to with no consequences.


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 13, 2007)

Yep, the news just keeps getting better and better about the environment - NOT!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/acid-sea-threat-to-reefs/2007/12/14/1197568217232.html


----------



## Vintij (Dec 13, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> this from Mr semantics? Come now you can do better. In 2 connected sentences you just said they know and then said they think they know.... which is it?
> 
> More importantly if they KNOW why can they * NOT PROVE IT *? If they THINK they know why can they NOT provide us with a theory that has more than the few people they have believing it? A theory so full of holes that laymen can grasp it and throw rocks at it?
> 
> ...





Again, one of the stupidest and absurd things I have ever read. I leave the message board for a few months, and you people let this type of garbage go around and believe it? 

Learn something before you talk about it. 

Please learn this, for christ sake.....the tempurature outside your home.....is not an indication of climate change you idiot.  

As i said to bern, perhaps you should learn something about ocean current, dilluted salt water, sea weed and other microscopic carbon absorbing organisms, the fresh water in polar ice caps, the weight of salt water versus fresh water, the cause of hurricanes, and everything else under the category of "science" 

Or is evidence not enough for you?  Perhaps you would like more speculation, or fantasy, perhaps a childrens story?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 13, 2007)

Vintij said:


> Again, one of the stupidest and absurd things I have ever read. I leave the message board for a few months, and you people let this type of garbage go around and believe it?
> 
> Learn something before you talk about it.
> 
> ...



SCIENTIFIC evidence provided by "gasp" SCIENTISTS that no increase planet wide has occurred in the last 5 years and some claim since 1998, sure thing you retard , that is not MY temperature. So 42 of 100 scientists say we are causing a warming trend, guess what you moron? That means 58 say we ARE not or do NOT know. As in the MAJORITY. You and Larkinn are idiots.

Go ahead you mental midget, read the report from Bali where it is presented that IN FACT no rise has occurred in the last 5 YEARS. So much for man made runaway global warming.

Now you and Larkinn can start character assassination of those 58 in 100 that do NOT agree we are the problem.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2007)

Vintij said:


> Stupid most ignorant thing you can ever say.
> 
> Yes climate change has been going on for billions of years and we have recorded data of about the last 100,000 years from ice drilling. But to say that we should not be concerned with the current warming trend is just plain stupid.



To put those two sentences together without seeing the contradiction in the two is what is stupid.  



Vintij said:


> Oceans hold salt, salt is heavy.....alot heavier than fresh water. The bottom of the ocean holds the most salt, the atlantic current is a worldwide current of warm salt water from the atlantic through to the pacific. Ice caps are made of fresh water, fresh water dilutes salt water. When fresh water dillutes salt water it rises from the bottom of the sea slightly altering the current and warming the ocean. Warm oceans create hurricanes.



Which brings up a great point.  One reason people are worried about the current trend has more to do with inconvenience than it does danger to the planet.  Yes more hurricanes will be inconvenient, you say we're screwing up mother earth yet it is you who propose we circumvent a natural cycle (if indeed that's what's happening).  



Vintij said:


> The last natural warming trend, took 60,000 years to get back to normal you idiot.  And this was with natural volcanic activity during a period when the earth had a very thin atmosphere and nearly no troposhpere.  Think about this for a second, if it took the earth 60,000 years to heal itself with no atmosphere, how long will it take for someone like you to realize that temperature data aligns perfectly with the industrial revolution, meaning how on earth are we suppose to know what the planet will do naturally to heal itself if it has never encountered anything like the industrial revolution?



Except for that darn ice age in the 1300 of course.  A link please to you interpretion of chronological events.



Vintij said:


> Besides, It was the sea plants that saved the planet countless times, and other microscopic organisms that helped consume the carbon in the air through diffusion  (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...3A15752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)
> 
> What you dont get is, when these organisms have to work extra hard to save us from ourselves......that is an indication that there is to much carbon in the air. How can these organisms survive in dilluted ocean water?



what evidence is there that they are workign 'extra hard'?



Vintij said:


> But still, to say that it is not a big deal is complete ignorance and anyone who says global warming is not a problem or it does not exist, needs to take themselves to a childrens message board, or walk themselves to the top of the building they are in, and jump off. Do us all a favor and learn ANYTHING about ANYTHING before you talk about it.



You would also need to reducate yourself on the benefits warmer temperatures (warmer than now) have provided civilizations in teh past (and are starting to again). 



Vintij said:


> If only more people knew how plant life, and microscopic brainless organisms are saving us from our own destruction.



Clearly the words of a reasonable individual 



Vintij said:


> Seriously, you people need to fucking die already. Not specifically you, but people like you who think the earth is a giant playground that we can do whatever we want to with no consequences.



You people but not me. got it.  I don't think the work is a playground. Do you need the assumption speech as well?  We do need to be mindful of the environment. I do think we need to find out if we have actually caused this or can (or should attempt to) control something that has happened hindreds of times before by government mandating that we completely upheave our economy.


----------



## Vintij (Dec 13, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> SCIENTIFIC evidence provided by "gasp" SCIENTISTS that no increase planet wide has occurred in the last 5 years and some claim since 1998, sure thing you retard , that is not MY temperature. So 42 of 100 scientists say we are causing a warming trend, guess what you moron? That means 58 say we ARE not or do NOT know. As in the MAJORITY. You and Larkinn are idiots.
> 
> Go ahead you mental midget, read the report from Bali where it is presented that IN FACT no rise has occurred in the last 5 YEARS. So much for man made runaway global warming.
> 
> Now you and Larkinn can start character assassination of those 58 in 100 that do NOT agree we are the problem.



"Greenland was once green you idiot" -larkin


Apparently Im dealing with someone with below average intelligence. I will not go further with you larkin. This quote has to be the single most uneducated quote I have ever read. You know what else? Oxygen used to be hydrogen?  Also, proteins used to be amino acids. Jesus christ your stupider than I thought. 




As for retired, well why should I debate you? Please give me one good reason why I should actually listen to someone who puts his entire (or lack there of) scientific confidence in ONE consensus result.  You sound like some kind of jesus freak, you know with the whole life devoted to one book. 

Ill entertain you by asking for more than one study or consensus on the number you proposed. But not with 100 scientists, (considering there are over 400,000 practicing scientists.  Not that it matters how many there are, what matters is the actual evidence.  Stop looking for articles on what scientists believe, and start looking at the actual research and judge for yourself.  Not that you ever made a single decision based on reason in your whole life.  

Show me retired. show me a study that stands up to the evidence that convinced me in the first place. Show me a consensus and ill show you evidence. show me evidence and Ill show you peer reviewed evidence. Show me peer reviewed evidence and Ill show you twice as many.  

You cant fool me. You cant go around speaking for the scientific community if you yourself know nothing about climate change, or science in general!


Seriously I know way to much about the memetical evolution of you people, and your so called "belief"

For the record "belief" is just speculation. While evidence is well, NOT speculation. Its grounds for a theory.  Not that you give word theory the respect it deserves. You choose a fictional book, you choose speculation, you choose fantasy, you choose ignorance. That is your choice, do not insult the scientific community for your mistakes.


----------



## Vintij (Dec 13, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> To put those two sentences together without seeing the contradiction in the two is what is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok larkin here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


there is your 1300 ice age. It was actually called the "little ice age". Not that it matters because it was "NATURAL"....The industrial revolution has never happend before you moron. The industrial revolution is something we call "not natural". What I was trying to explain to you is that earth does go through natrual climate change, but it has never ever gone through an "UN natrual" climate change.  Do you think that we are naturally part of this great big convenient industrial revolution cycle of climate change and ocean dillution? Wow, you need to think again.   

Things that occure naturally like an ice age, take thousands of years to get back to normal. Things that occur unaturally like an industrial revolution, and anthropogenic global warming......are different, WE DONT KNOW FOR HOW LONG OR WHAT EFFECT THEY COULD HAVE!!!!!   

Your ignorance is under the assumption that we are in a natural warming trend, well thats great and all but how do you explain the graph above? How do you explain the perfect symmetry with the timeline of the industrial revolution? How do you explain the higher content of fresh water in the north atlantic? How do you explain the diminishing number of microscoping carbon absorbing oranisms in the ocean? Please explain.

The job of a scientist, is not to take polls like politicians. Its to get the attention of people like you.....to stop doing the things you are doing before it becomes a REAL problem.

Here is a simple explanation of the carbon cycle 
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9r.html


And here is what Im talking about
http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/gases/gases_lecture_new.html


Read the paragraph on ocean and terrestrial carbon


If you dont want to here is a quote 

"Physical processes include the movement of carbon by ocean circulation from one location to another. Meteorologists and oceanographers call this process advection. Differences in temperature and salt content (salinity), in addition to the driving force of the wind and rotation of the earth, lead to bulk transport of carbon within and between major ocean basins"    

Thats called "advection"


"Another physical process is the diffusive mixing of water from one vertical level to another. Carbon dioxide dissolved in surface water is in equilibrium with CO2 in the atmosphere because of efficient mixing in the ocean surface water"

Thats called diffusion

Both are leading causes of the transportation of warmer water from the north to the south. Resulting in warmer ocean tempurature in a very efficient way. 

Its not the tempurature outside your home that matters, its the tempurature of the ocean you fucking morons. 

Warm oceans equals more severe hurricanes, flooding, Tsunami, severe ocean life extinction, severe inbalance of the ocean life cycle,  which equals destruction and extinction. Do you know how to reverse this process, do you have evidence from the past of how long it took for the earth to reverse this process itself? No you dont, because its "un-natural".


And just for the record, below it explains a "natural" warming cycle. 

http://books.google.com/books?id=zP...ts=OoG5Fh0km1&sig=oofwPc6dhCw4nTRzkcgdaF7I2pg



So retired, yes.....a "few hurricanes" do matter. Along with everything else.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2007)

Vintij said:


> Ok larkin here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
> 
> 
> there is your 1300 ice age. It was actually called the "little ice age". Not that it matters because it was "NATURAL"....The industrial revolution has never happend before you moron. The industrial revolution is something we call "not natural". What I was trying to explain to you is that earth does go through natrual climate change, but it has never ever gone through an "UN natrual" climate change.  Do you think that we are naturally part of this great big convenient industrial revolution cycle of climate change and ocean dillution? Wow, you need to think again.
> ...




Thanks for letting me off the hook.  Go get her Larkinn.  really there is no point in attempting to have a ratronale debate seeeing as how irrational you are.  Your worse the Larkin.  Your feigned disgust at what you think are my views coupled with your lack of perspective and horribly skewed notions to what constitutes reallity has so blinded you from haveing a reasonable conversation it simply isn't worth it.  I here by dub you Edward II.  

The obvious contradictions in your own words are alarming.  Climate cycles take thousands of years, yet what we have observed in still don't fully understand in just shy of 100 years has caused you to conclude there is some emergency?  Again get a little perspective would you.  You have to stop thinking in terms of human history (recent human history at that) and think in terms of earth history.  

You want to solve this problem? Maybe _you guys_, you religios fanatics (because current belief in AGW has all the pinnings of a religion) should go kill _yoursleves_ you hypocrit.  Affter all you're fucking up mother earth by your very existance.


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 13, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Thanks for letting me off the hook.  Go get her Larkinn.  really there is no point in attempting to have a ratronale debate seeeing as how irrational you are.  Your worse the Larkin.  Your feigned disgust at what you think are my views coupled with your lack of perspective and horribly skewed notions to what constitutes reallity has so blinded you from haveing a reasonable conversation it simply isn't worth it.  I here by dub you Edward II.
> 
> The obvious contradictions in your own words are alarming.  Climate cycles take thousands of years, yet what we have observed in still don't fully understand in just shy of 100 years has caused you to conclude there is some emergency?  Again get a little perspective would you.  You have to stop thinking in terms of human history (recent human history at that) and think in terms of earth history.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 13, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Thanks for letting me off the hook.  Go get her Larkinn.  really there is no point in attempting to have a ratronale debate seeeing as how irrational you are.  Your worse the Larkin.  Your feigned disgust at what you think are my views coupled with your lack of perspective and horribly skewed notions to what constitutes reallity has so blinded you from haveing a reasonable conversation it simply isn't worth it.  I here by dub you Edward II.
> 
> The obvious contradictions in your own words are alarming.  Climate cycles take thousands of years, yet what we have observed in still don't fully understand in just shy of 100 years has caused you to conclude there is some emergency?  Again get a little perspective would you.  You have to stop thinking in terms of human history (recent human history at that) and think in terms of earth history.
> 
> You want to solve this problem? Maybe _you guys_, you religios fanatics (because current belief in AGW has all the pinnings of a religion) should go kill _yoursleves_ you hypocrit.  Affter all you're fucking up mother earth by your very existance.




No, what has happened is you have had your arse handed to you on a plate and you don't like it.

Instead of ranting against her/him, destroy her/his points one by one. But you can't do that can you? Didn't think so...


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for letting me off the hook.  Go get her Larkinn.  really there is no point in attempting to have a ratronale debate seeeing as how irrational you are.  Your worse the Larkin.  Your feigned disgust at what you think are my views coupled with your lack of perspective and horribly skewed notions to what constitutes reallity has so blinded you from haveing a reasonable conversation it simply isn't worth it.  I here by dub you Edward II.
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> No, what has happened is you have had your arse handed to you on a plate and you don't like it.
> 
> Instead of ranting against her/him, destroy her/his points one by one. But you can't do that can you? Didn't think so...



She didn't make any points really.  i got a link to the carbon cycle.  Good great wonderful.  Not sure how it supports AGW really.

So why don't you step up to the plate and provide _your_ points.  I promise to attempt to destroy them one by one.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 13, 2007)

Vintij said:


> "Greenland was once green you idiot" -larkin
> 
> 
> Apparently Im dealing with someone with below average intelligence. I will not go further with you larkin. This quote has to be the single most uneducated quote I have ever read. You know what else? Oxygen used to be hydrogen?  Also, proteins used to be amino acids. Jesus christ your stupider than I thought.
> ...



YEt for all that spiel of yours there is NO known man made cause of global warming that can be proven. The supposed front runner of an idea, CO2 does not do as the Scientists that support the theory claim, when one looks back through the history available to us.

Nor can you explain why for at LEAST 5 years now NO global increase has occurred in temperature.  You can not explain why ground temperatures went up BUT atmospheric temperatures at higher levels DID not. You can not explain why one single season of no real importance that had 3 high level Hurricanes, none as strong as previous years even, is earth shattering proof of Global warming CAUSED by man. Even IF we believe those hurricanes were caused by global warming, you can NOT link them to any man made effect. And we have had what 3 years of almost NO hurricane activity.... gee so much for that doomsday prediction.

There is no clear science that links man to global warming. Further the only trend anyone was worried about was a 15 to 20 year trend that saw 1/3 of a degree temperature rise. That has not continued. It is JUST like the cooling scare in the 70/80 time frame. A short term blip that has NOT continued and no one can actually link to man.

Further the claim that no such rise has ever occurred in that time frame before is unprovable and most likely totally incorrect.

As for Larkinn, you may want to check your facts, he AGREES in principle with you, dumbshit.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 14, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> And that is the debate I would rather have then the ones we usually digress into:
> 
> Reasons why the man-made theory should be questioned (some of you've seen):
> 
> 1) We know it has been hotter in human history.  That, all by itself, should tell us we should maybe spend some time figuring if that is what's happening.



Thats a reason to question it?   AFAIK nobody has ever provided evidence for global warming by saying "this is the hottest its ever been, therefore we are causing it".   



> 2)  This one is a little different and that is, SO WHAT?  As I mentioned before Greenland was named Greenland for a reason.   When the Vikings discovered it in about 1200 there was no glacier covering it and potatoes were farmed across much of it (which is starting to happen again).  Believe it or not a lot of good can come from this warming trend, specifically longer growing seasons and the ability to grow crops at higher latitudes.  I tried to make the case before that most things on the universe have a pattern or cycle to them. Things die and things are born.  Species become extinct and are replaced by new ones which eventually die and are replaced by new ones again.  Ocean levels of risen and fallen. glaciers have advanced and receeded. So why are we some so certain that dooms day is approaching when what we are seeing now has happened thousands of times before throughout Earth's history?



Are you aware of the amount of infrastructure we have in low lying places?   Are you aware of the populated islands around the world which will be under sea level if the sea continues rising?   Its already happened.   So we get what...a longer growing seasons and the ability to grow crops at higher latitutudes.   Even if that were the case, please tell me how many crops would we need to grow to even out the economic impact of washing away Manhattan?   

Besides that there is worry that it will set off a chain reaction.   We simply don't know what will happen.   Maybe you'd like to play russian roulette with our species survival, but I'd really rather not.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 14, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> SCIENTIFIC evidence provided by "gasp" SCIENTISTS that no increase planet wide has occurred in the last 5 years and some claim since 1998, sure thing you retard , that is not MY temperature.



Have a link to this?   You made this claim and I already cited the opposite.   Where are you getting your numbers from?



> So 42 of 100 scientists say we are causing a warming trend, guess what you moron? That means 58 say we ARE not or do NOT know. As in the MAJORITY. You and Larkinn are idiots.



Why don't you, in your infinite wisdom, find out how many are saying they don't know and how many are saying we are not.   Most are saying we don't know.   So of those who subscribe to a theory, global warming being man made is adhered to vastly more than any other.   



> Go ahead you mental midget, read the report from Bali where it is presented that IN FACT no rise has occurred in the last 5 YEARS. So much for man made runaway global warming.



Care to provide evidence, again?



> Now you and Larkinn can start character assassination of those 58 in 100 that do NOT agree we are the problem.



And now you can stop assuming stupid shit.   Or not.   You might die from reasonableness overload.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 14, 2007)

I know really I am irrestible, but when having a conversation with each other that I'm not really a part of, do your best to leave me out.   Oh and figure out who you are talking too.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 14, 2007)

Larkinn is so smart he can not read what is posted on this board and what is reported about in the news, yup he is sure a fucking genius.

As for your claim temperatures have risen in the last 5 years, YOU provide raw numbers, not the "adjusted" ones that your lying UN watchdogs play with.

I mean even your non scientific mind should be able to google up some hard numbers from your loved scientific community of whackos. I wait with bated breath for raw data that shows a world wide rise in temperature over the last 5 years.

As for the report it hasn't risen maybe if you could read you might find it on this board somewhere you genius.

Venji voodo man is claiming your the one arguing about Greenland being green once as proof it is natural. I was just pointing out to the retard you did no such thing.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 14, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Larkinn is so smart he can not read what is posted on this board and what is reported about in the news, yup he is sure a fucking genius.



I'm sorry that I don't have time to stay home all day and read the putrid shit that you post.   I have other things to do with my life.   And I know...it really makes me a moron that instead of posting here I'm getting a Law School degree.   Instead of that I should probably drop out so I can read the news and these boards 24/7 so I don't miss anything so you might think I'm not up to par.

Why don't, instead of being a royal fuckhead, you just provide the link.   You bitch about how I don't address the issue?   Please notice how that when I asked for a link you made it personal.   I have numbers saying the exact opposite, which you ignored.   Does that make you a lying shitbag?  Probably.  Did I call you out until you decided to be a fucking retard?  No.   



> As for your claim temperatures have risen in the last 5 years, YOU provide raw numbers, not the "adjusted" ones that your lying UN watchdogs play with.



The EPA is not a "UN watchdog" you moron.   I will post it again for you.



> The five warmest years over last century have likely been: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006. The top 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.



That is from a US government report put out under the Bush administration.   



> I mean even your non scientific mind should be able to google up some hard numbers from your loved scientific community of whackos. I wait with bated breath for raw data that shows a world wide rise in temperature over the last 5 years.





> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/ann/global.html#Gtemp





> The global annual temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces in 2006 was +0.54°C (+0.97°F) above average, ranking 5th warmest in the period of record





> As for the report it hasn't risen maybe if you could read you might find it on this board somewhere you genius.



Sorry I have better things to do with my time than do your own research for you.   Besides the fact that your continued pattern of being a lying shitbag makes me wonder if I would find it at all.   You post the evidence for your own claims, jackass.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 14, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> I'm sorry that I don't have time to stay home all day and read the putrid shit that you post.   I have other things to do with my life.   And I know...it really makes me a moron that instead of posting here I'm getting a Law School degree.   Instead of that I should probably drop out so I can read the news and these boards 24/7 so I don't miss anything so you might think I'm not up to par.
> 
> Why don't, instead of being a royal fuckhead, you just provide the link.   You bitch about how I don't address the issue?   Please notice how that when I asked for a link you made it personal.   I have numbers saying the exact opposite, which you ignored.   Does that make you a lying shitbag?  Probably.  Did I call you out until you decided to be a fucking retard?  No.
> 
> ...



Learn to read and to think mr Einstein. I ask for RAW data, since 1998 at least the supposed rising temperature has all been " adjusted"  raw data does not support the supposed increase. That would be why a group of scientists can stand before the Bali Conference with a study showing NO temperature increase in the last 5 years.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 14, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Learn to read and to think mr Einstein. I ask for RAW data, since 1998 at least the supposed rising temperature has all been " adjusted"  raw data does not support the supposed increase. That would be why a group of scientists can stand before the Bali Conference with a study showing NO temperature increase in the last 5 years.



Put up or shut up.   Provide a link to your claims.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 14, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Thats a reason to question it?   AFAIK nobody has ever provided evidence for global warming by saying "this is the hottest its ever been, therefore we are causing it".



Never said they did.  The point is is that people are afraid of it getting warmer despite historical records indicating warmer temps have been benificial for things like crop yields and the ability to grow in areas that were previously to cold to do so (i.e. Greenland in the 1300s).    



Larkinn said:


> Are you aware of the amount of infrastructure we have in low lying places?   Are you aware of the populated islands around the world which will be under sea level if the sea continues rising?   Its already happened.   So we get what...a longer growing seasons and the ability to grow crops at higher latitutudes.   Even if that were the case, please tell me how many crops would we need to grow to even out the economic impact of washing away Manhattan?



Well aware, which makes a truly excellent point.  Look at the predominant argument for man made global warming.  It is basically saying we are screwing up the climate, that mother earth has a fever.  In a nutshell the idea is to stop what the harm we are causing and return earth to a more natural state.

Now I'm going to ask a favor. _Just_ for the sake of argument, I want you, Larkinn (not me Larkinn as Vintij has dubbed me) to accept that this is part of a cycle and man has had very little influence on the warming trend.  What does that say about your above statement?  Quite simply, if this is a natural cycle then it is in fact the proponents of man made global warming that want to circumvent nature.  They would be trying to add stability for convenience sake to something that simply isn't stable.  Whether we're causing it or not, if it gets warmer, ocean levels are gonna go up.  Are you suggesting that we circumvent mother nature and make it colder because we didn't account for the fact when we built our houses that the Earth changes over time?  Have you thought of the ramifuications of makeing it colder?  As I said before they are far more negatives with cooling trend then a warming trend (within an acceptable range of course).



Larkinn said:


> Besides that there is worry that it will set off a chain reaction.   We simply don't know what will happen.   Maybe you'd like to play russian roulette with our species survival, but I'd really rather not.



And being we don't know why are we suggesting a course of action when we don't know what will happen?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 14, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Put up or shut up.   Provide a link to your claims.



Read the board you dumb shit.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 14, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Read the board you dumb shit.



Link me to it.   You are a proven liar and I don't have the time to go searching for every one of your asinine claims.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 14, 2007)

Bern80 said:


> Never said they did.  The point is is that people are afraid of it getting warmer despite historical records indicating warmer temps have been benificial for things like crop yields and the ability to grow in areas that were previously to cold to do so (i.e. Greenland in the 1300s).



Thats nice.   Thats not a point refuting global warming, thats a claim that it won't negatively effect mankind.



> Well aware, which makes a truly excellent point.  Look at the predominant argument for man made global warming.  It is basically saying we are screwing up the climate, that mother earth has a fever.  In a nutshell the idea is to stop what the harm we are causing and return earth to a more natural state.



Yes it does.   It would like to do this without creating tens of millions of refugees.   



> Now I'm going to ask a favor. _Just_ for the sake of argument, I want you, Larkinn (not me Larkinn as Vintij has dubbed me) to accept that this is part of a cycle and man has had very little influence on the warming trend.  What does that say about your above statement?  Quite simply, if this is a natural cycle then it is in fact the proponents of man made global warming that want to circumvent nature.  They would be trying to add stability for convenience sake to something that simply isn't stable.  Whether we're causing it or not, if it gets warmer, ocean levels are gonna go up.  Are you suggesting that we circumvent mother nature and make it colder because we didn't account for the fact when we built our houses that the Earth changes over time?  Have you thought of the ramifuications of makeing it colder?  As I said before they are far more negatives with cooling trend then a warming trend (within an acceptable range of course).



Considering most of the global warming activists are advocating reducing human made emissions, no its not that they are trying to circumvent nature.  I've heard claims that some people want to do crazy shit to try to cool down the earth, but I've never heard them taken seriously.



> And being we don't know why are we suggesting a course of action when we don't know what will happen?



Two choices.   Either you:

1)  Stop eating as much, stop living the American lifestyle (oh noes, we will all be oh so impoverished!), and try to live sustainably.

2)  Pick up a gun with one bullet in it.   Put it to your temple and press the trigger.   See what happens.

Which one do you prefer?   I prefer 1.


----------



## Annie (Dec 14, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Link me to it.   You are a proven liar and I don't have the time to go searching for every one of your asinine claims.



http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878

Graphs of raw and adjusted.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880#more-1880

Years by temps


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 14, 2007)

This is what it's like right now - http://tinyurl.com/346wbl



> The southern part of the nation, from Brisbane across to the west coast, experienced its warmest year on record -- the Murray Darling Basin region in particular.
> 
> The chief executive of the Murray Darling Basin Commission, Wendy Craik, said while inflows to the basin were slightly improved this year, most recent figures again showed they were heading in the wrong direction.
> 
> ...



More at the link.


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Perhaps YOU can answer the questions? Provide some scientific methodology to support the claims made, not by a majority of scientists but a majority of looney Tunes.
> 
> Millions and millions are waiting for actual scientific evidence that man has caused any heating of the globe on a permanent bases that effects the entire world and not local heat sinks like cities.



Nope, I can't answer them.  I'm not a scientist.  Nor do I have the time or inclination to go trawling through Google for hours on end trying to find material for you to disagree with.

We appear to be on different sides of the coin.  You hear the opinions that support man-made warming and dismiss them as "looney tunes".  I hear them and think "Maybe there is something to all this.  I don't know."  I tend to support efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels anyway on the basis that they pollute and we 'll have to find a way to do without them someday anyhow.  

The majority of scientists do appear to support the man-made theory, but one has to be a bit sceptical about a lot of that since many in this group will be relying on research grants from sources who have a vested interest in promoting that sort of agenda.  

So, basically, I'm keeping an open mind about it.  You seem to like clear categories, so I'm sorry if this is inconvenient.


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 15, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> The temps have warmed up, the gist of the argument from my pov, is there certainly isn't a consensus on the cause of it. It may be man made, it's possible. Equally, perhaps indeed more likely is cyclical. I posted this earlier:
> 
> http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=629680#post629680
> 
> ...



Agree.  I am concerned that the earth is heating up.  Like all of us I want a world where my children and grandchildren can experience the same things we do, particularly the natural world.

I do have a concern that many of the people who are questioning the supposed evidence are effectively being silenced.  It's one of the things that makes me somewhat sceptical about many of the claims being made.  In general, I find that if people are certain of the point they are making then they tend to welcome questions from others, as they are sure that they have the answer to any question.  When someone wants dissent silenced I usually wonder what they have to hide.

But at the same time, I also try to consider what the boot looks like on the other foot.  

For example, there is little or no real evidence that 'second-hand' or 'passive' smoking is actually harmful, but anyone who questions this is automatically assumed to be in the pocket of 'big tobacco'.

One group of dissenting scientists are silenced and it's considered to be unjust and even a conspiracy, another group are silenced and nobody blinks an eye.


----------



## Crick (Jun 5, 2016)

Diuretic said:


> Who told you that?





RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL, provide some actual evidence, scientific evidence that man has caused any great warming. If you can, you can win the Nobel prize in science.



www.ipcc.ch

They did win the Nobel.



RetiredGySgt said:


> All they say is " it makes sense that man has effected it". The current supposed causer has been shown in times past to NOT behave in the manner they claim it behaves now. In relation to temperature.



No one in mainstream science has ever even suggested that CO2 will not increase in response to increased temperatures.  That you think this precludes it also _producing_ higher temperatures is simply your failing.



RetiredGySgt said:


> Further the supposed continued rise since 1998 is bogus, it is all "adjusted" temperatures. According to "gasp" scientists.



Temperatures have continued to rise.  If you believe "scientists" have concluded that this is only due to adjusted temperature data, let's see the scientists' names and statements.



RetiredGySgt said:


> Hell your consensus agrees that they do NOT know what is causing or caused the rapid heat increase.



False.  The consensus agrees with the findings of the IPCC and that is that our increased temperatures are primarily due to human activities: GHG emissions and deforestation.




RetiredGySgt said:


> Science has not been provided to link man to Global Warming. If you can do it, you will be a rich man indeed.



Go to the link provided above and look up AR5, Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis.  It might make you rich in knowledge (at least compared to your current state).



RetiredGySgt said:


> Politics has linked man to Global Warming. BAD politics.



Let's look at the political side of this.  As we all know, there is a _tendency_ for liberals to side with mainstream science on this question and conservatives to side with the fossil fuel industries.  Which do you think more likely to be telling the truth?  Which has a greater personal motivation?  Which has ADMITTED running a disinformation campaign? Which has been forced to take extremist, minority view science and insane, paranoid conspiracy fantasies in order to try to maintain their positions?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2016)

Reading this thread is a hoot! The OP is insane, and the denier cultists' responses to the scientific facts that the sane people post are ludicrous...and very pathetic. 

As I have said before.....*In the delusional world of the gullible denier cult retards, in their own pitiful excuses for minds, they are all, in spite of being ignorant, uneducated idiots, more than competent to critique and dismiss the scientific research on global warming and its consequent climate changes performed by the tens of thousands of PhD level climate scientists around the planet, who are generally in a high degree of agreement. RetiredGunnySack is a good example of these Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted, pseudo-science clowns.*


----------



## Crick (Jun 5, 2016)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There are faithful believers in non "religious" topics of all kinds.
> 
> Science has rabid faithful believers. Take Global MAN MADE warming. Absolutely no proof man is causing any noticable increase, no evidence that any of the supposed triggers are responsible but we have rabid "believers".
> 
> They are on par with those that rabidly believe Elvis Presley is alive and well.



What does this have to do with atheists Gunny?


----------

