[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Stack them five stories high and the entire population of the planet would fit in Oklahoma alone with 8,000 sq. miles to spare.
[/quote]
bullshit. There is no way that you could convince a handful of people to move to Oklahoma…I’m just sayin.
[quote]Killer Rabbit wrote:
Remember it is climate change now not global warming.
[/quote]
You beat me to it.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
We are arrogant to think we can alter or change the earth’s path of historical climate chage from hot to cold…
We, as a species, could turn the planet into a radioactive wasteland in a day. The idea that we are too insignificant to cause major changes is absurd.[/quote]
I really doubt that. We can kill each other all off easily but the Earth wouldn’t be harmed. The Earth’s already seen conditions we as humans can barely fathom.
I never bought the global warming thing, as I don’t feel humans can harm the Earth. We build huge cities, building and civilizations and the Earth destroys them whenever it pleases, whether the Earth is a concious being or not. We’re just renting right now.
The Brits are starting to think it is a scam.
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming.
On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
…
If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore.
Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change.
(He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cimmerian wrote:
I’m going to leave this thread be, as I try not to make a habit of arguing with people who have obviously already made up their minds.
Actually, I have not made up my mind about anything to do with climate change, etc.; hence the reason I question the enviro-fascists who try to pass themselves off as scientists.
Call my contrariness scientific inquiry.[/quote]
And call John Coleman a joke with no scientific credentials, and not even a degree in any field of science.
[quote]Gael wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cimmerian wrote:
I’m going to leave this thread be, as I try not to make a habit of arguing with people who have obviously already made up their minds.
Actually, I have not made up my mind about anything to do with climate change, etc.; hence the reason I question the enviro-fascists who try to pass themselves off as scientists.
Call my contrariness scientific inquiry.
And call John Coleman a joke with no scientific credentials, and not even a degree in any field of science.[/quote]
As in: On par with Al Gore?
What a joke this article is. The one and only scientific point he makes is that CO2 is a “trace” element in the atmosphere and therefor it cannot be responsible for global warming.
I read the entire thing, and he makes no other points.
This is not a scientific argument. It’s an appeal to stupidity.
Yes, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small compared to other gasses. And yes, water vapor and other greenhouse gases are much more prevalent. But these facts alone demonstrate nothing, because they do not speak to the sensitivity of climate to small changes in atmospheric composition.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Good read. CO2 is no more a greenhouse gas than water vapor – which is far more abundant.[/quote]
Water vapor IS a greenhouse gas. What’s your point?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In the history of civilization there has never been a case of nonsustainability – it simply cannot exist. The second life becomes unsustainable it will start dieing off; because it will, by definition, no longer be supported. It has never happened, it will never happen.[/quote]
Oh come on. You tried to pull this shit before.
There is a lag time between unsustainable practices and population drop off. What’s so hard to understand here?
Consequences do not come about the “second life becomes unsustainable.”
[quote]Gael wrote:
Consequences do not come about the “second life becomes unsustainable.”[/quote]
Doesn’t matter there is no way to prove it anyway.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
Consequences do not come about the “second life becomes unsustainable.”
Doesn’t matter there is no way to prove it anyway.[/quote]
I don’t need proof. Social security given current demographic trends is not sustainable, but the consequences will not be felt for decades. If this is so easy for you guys to understand when it comes to SS, it shouldn’t be so hard to understand in a broader context.
If you have $3000 in the bank, earn 1000 a week, spend 900 a week, and decide to have a kid which bumps costs up to 1100 a week, this is unsustainable, but you will be fine for 30 weeks.
What is so confusing?
Nature is more complex, but in short, fossil fuels are like money in the bank, and renewable resources are like income from a job.
[quote]Gael wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
Consequences do not come about the “second life becomes unsustainable.”
Doesn’t matter there is no way to prove it anyway.
I don’t need proof. [/quote]
Well there you have it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
Consequences do not come about the “second life becomes unsustainable.”
Doesn’t matter there is no way to prove it anyway.
I don’t need proof.
Well there you have it.[/quote]
Get back to me when you’ve developed a passing knowledge of the scientific method and an understanding of what “proof” is. Proof exists in formal systems, but not in the real world. Indeed, all scientific endeavor is provisional.
Lifticus said “you can’t prove it” as if this were a scientific rebuttal. Scientific proof does not exist, and his quip was in the same vein as those who cry that evolution is “just a theory.”
[quote]Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
Consequences do not come about the “second life becomes unsustainable.”
Doesn’t matter there is no way to prove it anyway.
I don’t need proof.
Well there you have it.
Get back to me when you’ve developed a passing knowledge of the scientific method and an understanding of what “proof” is. Proof exists in formal systems, but not in the real world. Indeed, all scientific endeavor is provisional.
Lifticus said “you can’t prove it” as if this were a scientific rebuttal. Scientific proof does not exist, and his quip was in the same vein as those who cry that evolution is “just a theory.”[/quote]
Must make debate easy.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
Consequences do not come about the “second life becomes unsustainable.”
Doesn’t matter there is no way to prove it anyway.
I don’t need proof.
Well there you have it.
Get back to me when you’ve developed a passing knowledge of the scientific method and an understanding of what “proof” is. Proof exists in formal systems, but not in the real world. Indeed, all scientific endeavor is provisional.
Lifticus said “you can’t prove it” as if this were a scientific rebuttal. Scientific proof does not exist, and his quip was in the same vein as those who cry that evolution is “just a theory.”
Must make debate easy.[/quote]
Must make debate super easy when you don’t take a stand.
What are you saying? That Lifticus’s “you can’t prove it” was a valid rebuttal? That you have proof for all of your convictions? That you need proof of something before you can take a stand?
If that’s not what you’re saying, you’re not saying anything at all.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Must make debate super easy when you don’t take a stand.
What are you saying? That Lifticus’s “you can’t prove it” was a valid rebuttal? That you have proof for all of your convictions? That you need proof of something before you can take a stand?
If that’s not what you’re saying, you’re not saying anything at all.[/quote]
I have proof that you don’t require proof for your non-sustaintability ideas.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Must make debate super easy when you don’t take a stand.
What are you saying? That Lifticus’s “you can’t prove it” was a valid rebuttal? That you have proof for all of your convictions? That you need proof of something before you can take a stand?
If that’s not what you’re saying, you’re not saying anything at all.
I have proof that you don’t require proof for your non-sustaintability ideas.[/quote]
No.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming.
On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
…
If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore.
Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change.
(He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
[/quote]
Yeah, I read that article too. Hansen was apparently using temperatures from august and rolling them over for Sept. and Oct.
Hence most of the planet was seeing record lows and snowfall and he was claiming it to be one of the hottest Octobers on record. What a fraud.
Hansen even admits as a retort that he has no direct access to the data he uses for any kind of quality control.
Someone should so this guy for fraud.