|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2007 : 23:07:11 [Permalink]
|
hondo said:
| Do you always put words in people's mouths? |
I'm not putting words in your mouth.
You made the claim that Al Gore said humans are the sole cause for the current warming.
I asked you to provide a source for that, you refused. When asked again, you went off on some tangent about fear-mongering.
That is a tacit admission that you can't back up your bullshit claim. You know damn well that no one, not even Al Gore, has ever said that humans are the sole cause of global warming.
I don't give a flying fuck if you like Gore, or believe a word he says. The point here is that you have deliberately lied about statements made by Gore.
Your choices here are to continue on as you are, looking like a complete idiot, or to retract your false claim.
Look at it like this: Your opinion of Al Gore is irrelevent if you can actually argue intelligently against the specific points he makes. Don't kid yourself into thinking that Gore is responsible for the content of his presentation, he's just the messenger.
So really, find us a vid clip of Gore saying what you have claimed he is saying, and you will have almost everyone here joining with you in a valid criticism of such a claim. If it exists it should be simple to find. The man has been prolific in delivering speeches on this topic for several years now, giving interviews, even made a movie!
Uh huh. You resort to fallacious argumentation and to plain old fabrication in order to slander Al Gore. That has nothing to do with skepticism and everything to do with the fact that you are incapable of addressing the science he reports, and probably a little to do with your obvious personal dislike of the man.
Hint: If you could argue against the specifics of what he says, then you would not need to resort to telling lies about what he has said.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2007 : 23:56:03 [Permalink]
|
JEROME DA GNOME:
Sea level rise chart compares 1961-1993 40 years to 1993-2003 10 years
do you see any problem with this?
Why would "they" decide to compare a 10 year time frame to a 42 year time frame? |
I see no problem and here is why:
From IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report/Summary for Policymakers (pages 5-7):
Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise (see Table SPM-1). {5.2, 5.5}
Table SPM-1. Observed rate of sea level rise and estimated contributions from different sources. {5.5, Table 5.3}
Rate of sea level rise (mm per year)
Source of sea level rise
1961 – 2003
1993 – 2003
Thermal expansion
0.42 ± 0.12
1.6 ± 0.5
Glaciers and ice caps
0.50 ± 0.18
0.77 ± 0.22
Greenland ice sheet
0.05 ± 0.12
0.21 ± 0.07
Antarctic ice sheet
0.14 ± 0.41
0.21 ± 0.35
Sum of individual climate
contributions to sea level rise
1.1 ± 0.5
2.8 ± 0.7
Observed total sea level rise
1.8 ± 0.5
a
3.1 ± 0.7
a
Difference
(Observed minus sum of estimated climate
contributions)
0.7 ± 0.7
0.3 ± 1.0
Table note:
a
Data prior to 1993 are from tide gauges and after 1993 are from satellite altimetry. |
Bolding mine.
They used different measuring instruments during those time periods! Naturally they would separate those periods based on the method used for data collection, the satellite altimetry being more precise than the previous method. They said exactly why they seperated those two time periods. Apparently you ignored their explanation and came to us with this for some reason I fail to understand. Did you actually read what they said?
But wait, there's more!!!:
•
Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise (ice caps do not include contributions from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets). (See Table SPM-1.) {4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 5.5}
•
New data since the TAR now show that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003 (see Table SPM-1). Flow speed has increased for some Greenland and Antarctic outlet glaciers, which drain ice from the interior of the ice sheets. The corresponding
increased ice sheet mass loss has often followed thinning, reduction or loss of ice shelves or loss of floating glacier tongues. Such dynamical ice loss is sufficient to explain most of the Antarctic net mass loss and approximately half of the Greenland net mass loss. The remainder of the ice loss from Greenland has occurred
because losses due to melting have exceeded accumulation due to snowfall. {4.6, 4.8, 5.5}
•
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003, about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. There is |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 00:20:57 [Permalink]
|
They're ba-ack.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Hondo
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 00:28:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
hondo said:
| Do you always put words in people's mouths? |
I'm not putting words in your mouth. |
| You made the claim that Al Gore said humans are the sole cause for the current warming. |
Made no such claim. I just said he misrepresented the issue.| I asked you to provide a source for that, you refused.When asked again, you went off on some tangent about fear-mongering. |
Fuck your appeal for citations, this isn't about WTC steel stress-points, I expressed my opinion. | That is a tacit admission that you can't back up your bullshit claim. You know damn well that no one, not even Al Gore, has ever said that humans are the sole cause of global warming. |
Once again, I never said that asshole.| I don't give a flying fuck if you like Gore, or believe a word he says. The point here is that you have deliberately lied about statements made by Gore. |
You actually think you have the ability to tell when someone else is lying when they're expressing their own opinion? Heh, that's pretty impressive, although I doubt outside of your own little fantasy world anyone would actually believe that shit. Probably explains why Randi's million wasn't scarfed by you, eh?| Your choices here are to continue on as you are, looking like a complete idiot, or to retract your false claim. |
You're in no position to tell me squat, seriously. My choices are my own. Do you really think you can dictate to me?  | Look at it like this: Your opinion of Al Gore is irrelevent if you can actually argue intelligently against the specific points he makes. Don't kid yourself into thinking that Gore is responsible for the content of his presentation, he's just the messenger. |
I'm beginning to think you have a thing for him. My opinion is as relevant as anyone else's here. You think you actually have a rebuttal to that? Think hard dude, don't let me down.  | So really, find us a vid clip of Gore saying what you have claimed he is saying, and you will have almost everyone here joining with you in a valid criticism of such a claim. If it exists it should be simple to find. The man has been prolific in delivering speeches on this topic for several years now, giving interviews, even made a movie! |
That's the apparent difference between us, I'm not reliant on links to make an opinion. A good example would be this current back and forth .. I don't need to post a vid of your butt-hole to opine that you're an asshole.| You resort to fallacious argumentation and to plain old fabrication in order to slander Al Gore. That has nothing to do with skepticism and everything to do with the fact that you are incapable of addressing the science he reports, and probably a little to do with your obvious personal dislike of the man. |
Sounds like this goes beyond global warming with you. Whatever, I think he is a fearmonger. Deal with it.| Hint: If you could argue against the specifics of what he says, then you would not need to resort to telling lies about what he has said. |
How can one's opinion be "lies?" Because you say so?
Your a real jerk Dude. The only actual winners here are the woos, you do know that don't you? If you continue to fuck with me they'll have some more chuckles.
|
| Edited by - Hondo on 05/14/2007 00:32:44 |
|
|
|
Hondo
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 00:52:40 [Permalink]
|
I re-read my posts and discovered that I did earlier post | ...but I don't buy into the Al Gore fear-mongering spiel as the sole reason for climate change ... |
So I owe Dude an apology. Dammit! 
I stand by my belief that Gore misrepresnts the issue but I'm obviously not above misprespresnting mine. It wasn't intentional, but the word sole does make it a statement that would require citations. My bad .. and my apologies Dude.
Alcohol & posting is never a good combination. 
|
| Edited by - Hondo on 05/14/2007 01:02:36 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 01:01:53 [Permalink]
|
hondo said:
| Made no such claim. I just said he misrepresented the issue. |
Yes, you did. Here is the link to the FIRST post in which you made this claim:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7999&whichpage=8#119099
In which you said:
| Speaking for myself, I don't think there's any need for a "conspiracy" regarding this subject, nor is there necessarily a black-and-white "either/or" option. I have no doubt CO2 (and other) emissions have a negative impact on our environment but I don't buy into the Al Gore fear-mongering spiel as the sole reason for climate change ... what "cured" the Ice Age? Republicans, Democrats ... Sheryl Crowe? |
(bolding mine)
Al Gore's primary focus, in his movie and speeches, is the human contribution to global warming. So...
You fucking DID say it. Who is the asshole now?
| You actually think you have the ability to tell when someone else is lying when they're expressing their own opinion? |
You are making an assertion about the comments of another person. What I, and other people capable of rational though, can indeed do is make the distinction between a person asserting a claim and stating an opinion.
You have asserted, erroniously, that Al Gore has claimed humans as the sole cause of climate change. What you have done, with regard to your claims about Gore's statements, is a far cry from stating an opinion.
| You're in no position to tell me squat, seriously. My choices are my own. Do you really think you can dictate to me? |
Glad to see that you have chosen to continue on being an idiot.
How can one's opinion be "lies?" Because you say so?
|
Not my problem that you are to stupid to make the distinction between opinion and assertion. But don't worry, you have plenty of company among some of the regular posters here, in that regard.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Hondo
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 01:04:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
hondo said:
| Made no such claim. I just said he misrepresented the issue. |
Yes, you did. Here is the link to the FIRST post in which you made this claim:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7999&whichpage=8#119099
In which you said:
| Speaking for myself, I don't think there's any need for a "conspiracy" regarding this subject, nor is there necessarily a black-and-white "either/or" option. I have no doubt CO2 (and other) emissions have a negative impact on our environment but I don't buy into the Al Gore fear-mongering spiel as the sole reason for climate change ... what "cured" the Ice Age? Republicans, Democrats ... Sheryl Crowe? |
(bolding mine)
Al Gore's primary focus, in his movie and speeches, is the human contribution to global warming. So...
You fucking DID say it. Who is the asshole now?
| You actually think you have the ability to tell when someone else is lying when they're expressing their own opinion? |
You are making an assertion about the comments of another person. What I, and other people capable of rational though, can indeed do is make the distinction between a person asserting a claim and stating an opinion.
You have asserted, erroniously, that Al Gore has claimed humans as the sole cause of climate change. What you have done, with regard to your claims about Gore's statements, is a far cry from stating an opinion.
| You're in no position to tell me squat, seriously. My choices are my own. Do you really think you can dictate to me? |
Glad to see that you have chosen to continue on being an idiot.
How can one's opinion be "lies?" Because you say so?
|
Not my problem that you are to stupid to make the distinction between opinion and assertion. But don't worry, you have plenty of company among some of the regular posters here, in that regard.
|
Read my last post. I edited it. I was wrong Dude. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 01:05:47 [Permalink]
|
hondo said:
| Read my last post. I edited it. I was wrong Dude. |
Ok.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 01:58:05 [Permalink]
|
Carbon dioxide: Chemical and physical properties
Carbon dioxide is a colorless gas which, when inhaled at high concentrations (a dangerous activity because of the associated asphyxiation risk), produces a sour taste in the mouth and a stinging sensation in the nose and throat. These effects result from the gas dissolving in the mucus membranes and saliva, forming a weak solution of carbonic acid. One may notice this sensation if one attempts to stifle a burp after drinking a carbonated beverage.
Its density at standard temperature and pressure is around 1.98 kg/mł, about 1.53 times that of air. The carbon dioxide molecule (O=C=O) contains two double bonds and has a linear shape. It has no electrical dipole. As it is fully oxidized, it is not very reactive and is non-flammable.
Carbon dioxide pressure-temperature phase diagramUnder normal atmospheric pressure (1 atm) at #8722;78.5 °C, carbon dioxide changes directly from a solid phase to a gaseous phase through sublimation or gaseous to solid through deposition. The solid form is typically called "dry ice". Liquid carbon dioxide forms only at pressures above 5.1 atm. Its triple point is -56.6 °C at 416.7 kPa and its critical point is 31.1 °C at 7821 kPa.
[edit] History of human understanding
Carbon dioxide was one of the first gases to be described as a substance distinct from air. In the seventeenth century, the Flemish chemist Jan Baptist van Helmont observed that when he burned charcoal in a closed vessel, the mass of the resulting ash was much less than that of the original charcoal. His interpretation was that the rest of the charcoal had been transmuted into an invisible substance he termed a "gas" or "wild spirit" (spiritus sylvestre).
The properties of carbon dioxide were studied more thoroughly in the 1750s by the Scottish physician Joseph Black. He found that limestone (calcium carbonate) could be heated or treated with acids to yield a gas he termed "fixed air." He observed that the fixed air was denser than air and did not support either flame or animal life. He also found that it would, when bubbled through an aqueous solution of lime (calcium hydroxide), precipitate calcium carbonate, and used this phenomenon to illustrate that carbon dioxide is produced by animal respiration and microbial fermentation. In 1772, Priestley published a paper entitled Impregnating Water with Fixed Air in which he described a process of dripping sulfuric acid (or oil of vitriol as Priestley knew it) onto chalk in order to produce carbon dioxide and forcing the gas to dissolve by agitating a bowl of water in contact with the gas.[1]
Carbon dioxide was first liquefied (at elevated pressures) in 1823 by Humphry Davy and Michael Faraday.[2] The earliest description of solid carbon dioxide was given by Charles Thilorier, who in 1834 opened a pressurized container of liquid carbon dioxide, only to find that the cooling produced by the rapid evaporation of the liquid yielded a "snow" of solid CO2.
|
And: Atmospheric concentration
It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article entitled Atmospheric carbon dioxide. (Discuss)
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured at Mauna Loa Observatory.As of January 2007, the earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 0.0383% by volume (383 ppmv) or 0.0582% by weight.[10] This represents about 2.996×1012 tonnes, and is estimated to be 105 ppm (37.77%) above the pre-industrial average.[11]
Because of the greater land area, and therefore greater plant life, in the northern hemisphere as compared with the southern hemisphere, there is an annual fluctuation of up to 6 ppmv (± 3 ppmv), peaking in May and reaching a minimum in October at the end of the northern hemisphere growing season, when the quantity of biomass on the planet is greatest.[citation needed]
Despite its small concentration, CO2 is a very important component of Earth's atmosphere, because it absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode) and enhances the greenhouse effect.[12] See also "Carbon dioxide equivalent".
The three vibrational modes of carbon dioxide: (a) symmetric, (b) asymmetric stretching; (c) bending. In (a), there is no change in dipole moment, thus interaction with photons is impossible, while in (b) and (c) there is optical activity.The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.[13] Volcanic releases are less than 1% of the amount which is released by human activities.[14]
Global fossil carbon emissions 1800 – 2000.From 1911 to 2004, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased from 300 ppmv to 377 ppmv or about 25%, most of it released since 1966. In contrast from 1832 to 1911, the increase was from 284 to 300 ppmv, which is only about 6%. Overall, the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased by 93 ppmv since 1832.[15][16] Monthly measurements taken at Mauna Loa[17] since 1958 show an increase from 316 ppmv in that year to 376 ppmv in 2003, an overall increase of 60 ppmv during the 44-year history of the measurements. Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased man-made CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. Around 24 billion tonnes of CO2 are released from fossil fuels per year worldwide, equivalent to about 6 billion tonnes of carbon. (See List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions.)
It should be noted that Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of sources, and "over 95% percent of these emissions would occur even if human beings were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."[18]
|
Furthermore: Historical variation
CO2 concentrations over the last 400,000 yearsThe most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260 – 280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years.
The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800,000 years before the present.[21] During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied between 180 – 210 µL/L during ice ages, increasing to 280 – 300 µL/L during warmer interglacials.[22] The data can be accessed here.
Some studies have disputed the claim of stable CO2 levels during the present interglacial (the last 10 kyr). Based on an analysis of fossil leaves, Wagner et al.[23] argued that CO2 levels during the period 7 – 10 kyr ago were significantly higher (~300 µL/L) and contained substantial variations that may be correlated to climate variations. Others have disputed such claims, suggesting they are more likely to reflect calibration problems than actual changes in CO2.[24] Relevant to this dispute is the observation that Greenland ice cores often report higher and more variable CO2 values than similar measurements in Antarctica. However, the groups responsible for such measurements (e.g., Smith et al.[25]) believe the variations in Greenland cores result from in situ decomposition of calcium carbonate dust found in the ice. When dust levels in Greenland cores are low, as they nearly always are in Antarctic cores, the researchers report good agreement between Antarctic and Greenland CO2 measurements.
Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day.On longer timescales, various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide levels millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2 concentrations (>3,000 ppmv) between 600 and 400 Myr BP and between 200 and 150 Myr BP.[26] On long timescales, atmospheric CO2 content is determined by the balance among geochemical processes including organic carbon burial in sediments, silicate rock weathering, and vulcanism. The net effect of slight imbalances in the carbon cycle over tens to hundreds of millions of years has been to reduce atmospheric CO2. The rates of these processes are extremely slow; hence they are of limited relevance to the atmospheric CO2 response to emissions over the next hundred years. In more recent times, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 Myr BP, and there is geochemical evidence that concentrations were <300 ppmv by about 20 Myr BP. Low CO2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favored the evolution of C4 plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 Myr BP. Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 million years.[27] During this period however atmospheric CO2 concentration has been lower than in preceding history.
|
And finally: | The Atmosphere of Venus consists of mainy carbon dioxide; about 96.5 percent |
An interesting article. It got graphs & charts & everything!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 02:35:48 [Permalink]
|
Whilst at Wikipedia, I looked up this: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
“IPCC” redirects here. For other uses, see IPCC (disambiguation).
IPCC
Assessment reports:
First (1990)
1992 sup.
Second (1995)
Third (2001)
Fourth (2007)
UNFCCC | WMO | UNEP
IPCC is the science authority for the UNFCCC Energy Portal
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans, based mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.[1] The Panel is only open to members of the WMO and UNEP.
IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[2][3] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[4].
|
And it goes on to state this: The TAR estimate for the climate sensitivity is 1.5 to 4.5 °C; and the average surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees over the period 1990 to 2100, and the sea level is projected to rise by 0.1 to 0.9 metres over the same period. The wide range in predictions is based upon several different scenarios that assume different levels of future CO2 emissions. Each scenario then has a range of possible outcomes associated with it. The most optimistic outcome assumes an aggressive campaign to reduce CO2 emissions, while the most pessimistic is a "business as usual" scenario. The more realistic scenarios fall in between.
IPCC predictions are based on the same models used to establish the importance of the different factors in global warming. These models need data about anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. These data are predicted from economic models based on 35 different scenarios. Scenarios go from pessimistic to optimistic, and predictions of global warming depend on the kind of scenario considered.
IPCC uses the best available predictions and their reports are under strong scientific scrutiny. The IPCC concedes that there is a need for better models and better scientific understanding of some climate phenomena, as well as the uncertainties involved. Critics assert that the available data is not sufficient to determine the real importance of greenhouse gases in climate change. Sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases may be overestimated or underestimated because of flaws in the models and because the importance of some external factors may be misestimated. The predictions are based on scenarios, and the IPCC did not assign any probability to the 35 scenarios used.
|
Now, before anyone starts whining about a lot of cut & paste I'll say that if someone can state my thoughts better than I, I'll happily give them the floor.
The report is obviously incomplete and will probably remain so. That's science. As new information comes in, the report will continue to expand. And I must ask: where exactly is the alledged political tampering.
I think that Gore is right and is effective as well. Like him or not, you're paying attention to him, aren't you?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 03:02:29 [Permalink]
|
But the treasonous Bush & his fellow travelers are trying, can't deny that. However those ignorant and corrupt political parasites can't change the science. All they can do is put forth their utter crap and try to influence the UN panel. And that won't change the science, either.
Global warming is real; it's here and we have been shown to be a major part of the problem, so do some honest research and then deal with it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 08:22:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hondo
I don't know that, but I don't discount that. Where's your skepticism? |
Being a skeptic in no way implies that one must automatically reject or be wary of consensus science.
| So unless someone is a scientist or expert in some field their opinion is irrelevant? |
On something as highly complex and technical as Global Warming? Absolutely.
I don't know a damn thing about car engines. If 9 out of 10 mechanics tell you that you need to replace your alternator or face a breakdown, how relevant would my contrary opinion be? None at all. Now, if that's true for something as simple as auto repair, how much more true would it be for an even larger and more complex challenge?
My excuse for what? I'm not the one claiming to know more than the scientists working on the problem.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/14/2007 08:25:57 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 11:24:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
JEROME DA GNOME:
By your statemnet the scientist who yields to the governmental pressure will be "blacklisted" by the government which provides the funds. |
Again you misrepresent what was said. A blacklisting would be by the scientific community regardless of who is doing the funding…
I am starting to smell Troll…
|
Now that's funny! Post #1 wasn't satisfactory for you? |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 11:34:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Originally posted by Kil
JEROME DA GNOME:
By your statemnet the scientist who yields to the governmental pressure will be "blacklisted" by the government which provides the funds. |
Again you misrepresent what was said. A blacklisting would be by the scientific community regardless of who is doing the funding…
I am starting to smell Troll… |
Now that's funny! Post #1 wasn't satisfactory for you? |
I wouldn't have expected it, but Dictionary.com's number-one definition for "gnome" includes "troll" as a synonym. Go figure. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 12:40:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by astropin
Originally posted by Kil
JEROME DA GNOME:
By your statemnet the scientist who yields to the governmental pressure will be "blacklisted" by the government which provides the funds. |
Again you misrepresent what was said. A blacklisting would be by the scientific community regardless of who is doing the funding…
I am starting to smell Troll… |
Now that's funny! Post #1 wasn't satisfactory for you? |
I wouldn't have expected it, but Dictionary.com's number-one definition for "gnome" includes "troll" as a synonym. Go figure.
|
That's even better!
Sorry I have not been around in a looooooong time. I do stop by from time to time. To be honest it was posts and people like this that sort of drove me away......I just tire of the "same old, same old". Must be getting cynical in my old age. I have been doing what I can on other parts of the web......trying to get people to think "why do you believe what you believe?" Dawkins, Harris & Dennette are my hero's (as well as all of you fine regulars here) especially after watching all of the videos here: http://beyondbelief2006.org/About/ . |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 05/14/2007 13:11:01 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?
Topic Locked
