|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 12/17/2007 : 01:57:06 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| No. That any argument based upon some unknown thing happening at an unknown time and having unknown effects would be seriously considered would be a miracle. |
I was never arguing anything based on some unknown. And is it your belief that infinite finite man has such a grasp on GW that if some unknown were to arise showing that GW was not man enhanced then you would just assume that it must be a miracle because no natural phenomena could have slipped past infinite finite man? That's what I gather.
| Regardless, you are assuming that there are no unknown(s), correct? |
No, there's nothing to assume. |
In a world full of infinite unknowns for finite man, oh yes there is.
| We only assume things that there are good reasons to assume. |
I thought you just said that there's nothing to assume?
| But assuming that there are "unknowns" offers us no benefit at all, |
We know they are there and wither that benefits us or not is irrelevant.
| it doesn't direct us towards any particular research path, it doesn't inform us. |
This does not change that fact that we are finite while trying to explain the infinite.
| Think about it this way, Bill: if humans are causing most of the warming (and thus humans can fix a lot of it), then by working with the U.N. you will lengthen the lives of the people who will suffer most – |
Even if man was the main cause of the GW there is no way that would be a worse outcome then giving control to the UN over anything.
| the people who are so distant from Western civilization that they don't understand why their crops are failing |
Who's crops are you referring to?
| and their once-bountiful rivers are turning into fetid pools – |
What rivers and fetid pools are you referring to here?
| the people least likely to have accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour. |
Now your just being a sensationalist.
| Adding years to their lives offers more opportunities to Save them, after you've saved them. |
More sensationalism.
| If other people are the primary cause of warming, don't you have a God-given duty to aid the less-fortunate? |
We have a God-given duty to help the less-fortunate, period.
| Of course, if man isn't the cause, then God must be the cause. |
God is the un-caused first cause.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/17/2007 01:59:41 |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 02:05:13 [Permalink]
|
| Who said it's a hundred year cycle? |
157, I apologize. According to the article since records began in 1850. All I am saying is that in any 157 year snapshot I would expect the 10 warmest years to be in close proximity to one another, same with the 10 coldest. Showing me a 10 year warming trend from a 157 year window does little for me with millions of years of global warming and cooling lurking in the backdrop.
| Plus, the warming is accelerating. Looks like a trend to me... |
We have already agreed on this a hundred times. With the backdrop of millions of years of global warming and cooling I suspect it may be a trend of natural phenomena while you insist that is mostly man inspired.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/17/2007 02:11:21 |
|
|
|
recurve boy
Skeptic Friend
Australia
53 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 03:00:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Who said it's a hundred year cycle? |
157, I apologize. According to the article since records began in 1850. All I am saying is that in any 157 year snapshot I would expect the 10 warmest years to be in close proximity to one another, same with the 10 coldest. Showing me a 10 year warming trend from a 157 year window does little for me with millions of years of global warming and cooling lurking in the backdrop.
|
You'd be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
(grab a ruler)
The 10 coldest temperatures are spread over a 50 year period.
The 10 hottest, ignoring the last 13 years since we've been setting new records, are spread over 50 years as well. There is a clustering of 5 or so records in the early 90s.
Reconstructed temperatures over the last 1000 years indicated that the last decade is a bit of an anomaly. It also, coincides with a CO2 concentration that is almost double that of concentrations reconstructed over the last 400, 000years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
I can't believe you're arguing over speculation when you could have just googled the data. 
| Plus, the warming is accelerating. Looks like a trend to me... |
We have already agreed on this a hundred times. With the backdrop of millions of years of global warming and cooling I suspect it may be a trend of natural phenomena while you insist that is mostly man inspired.
|
What happened to 4.5 billion? Surely the ozone free, humid, ammonia rich atmosphere is indicative of the atmosphere we have today.
Wiki matches what the IPCC reports says. So, I'm sticking with it.
Edit: Too many quotes |
| Edited by - recurve boy on 12/17/2007 03:02:03 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 03:35:59 [Permalink]
|
recurve said:
I can't believe you're arguing over speculation when you could have just googled the data.
|
This is Billscott we are talking about. Once you get to know him a bit better, you'll understand.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 05:43:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
recurve said:
I can't believe you're arguing over speculation when you could have just googled the data.
|
This is Billscott we are talking about. Once you get to know him a bit better, you'll understand.
|
Hey, Dude-- let's be nice. I am hopeful that we might be nearing a critical mass, where there are so much data that Bill scott will perhaps be willing to concede that something is wrong with the world. That, or he'll simply admit that he doesn't want to believe it, regardless of what the data tell us. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 09:07:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
If you're wrong and we do nothing, the Earth undergoes dramatic changes that will threaten our way of life. If we're wrong and we do something, then we pollute less and conserve fossil fuels more.
I'd much rather have us wrong but have done something then you wrong and have done nothing.
|
AGW or no AGW I agree with less pollution and conserving more fossil fuel. So if AGW is the cause for looking for alternative fuels and a better and cleaner way of doing things then I have no problem with this in and of itself and would very much encourage it. My fear is the extreme where we have worked ourselves into a frenzy to the point where we demand the UN step in and save us all. I also worry about knee-jerk reactions where taxes and emissions are levied to the point where economies are damaged or destroyed, standard of livings go way down and developing third world nations are forced to stay third world. I believe the potential for damage in letting the UN and AGW extremists run the show would rival or exceed the potential for damage from any GW itself, natural or otherwise. This would be a logical assumption based on the UN's previous track record.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 09:13:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Hey, Dude-- let's be nice. I am hopeful that we might be nearing a critical mass, where there are so much data that Bill scott will perhaps be willing to concede that something is wrong with the world. That, or he'll simply admit that he doesn't want to believe it, regardless of what the data tell us.
|
I have conceded something to bring wrong with the world long before the AGW debate ever arose. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 09:45:58 [Permalink]
|
Okay Bill, here's the thing. Yes there are natural cycles. Yes, we may be in a natural warming trend. But natural causes and man made causes are not mutually exclusive. What everyone is worried about, and with a lot of good science to back up this worry, is that we have tipped the scale's in a bad way, by adding to the natural causes, a whole lot of green house gas that simply would not be there if not for us.
Now, it could be that nature produces more of these gases than we do. But then, for the climate to sustain life as we like it to be, greenhouse gasses are a necessary part of regulating the planets climate. The problem comes when there is just to much of what is usually a good thing. At what point do we tip natures scales by spewing extra gasses into the air? Gasses that wouldn't be there, if we weren't putting it there. And that is really what we are talking about here.
You can talk about natural cycles until the cows come home, and that will not change the fact that we are now, for the first time in history, adding massive amounts of gasses that must be factored in over and above what nature produces on its own. Just how much can we tinker with nature before it bites us back? Based on what I have seen in the studies and in the literature on the subject, the biting back has begun. We see that in the acceleration of warming worldwide.
We know that we can only muck around with an eco system so much before we destroy it. We have done that many times. So why would our atmosphere be any different? Your belief that the atmosphere can take anything we can throw at it is baffling to me. When one mid sized volcanic eruption can change, at least temporarily, climate patterns all over the planet, how can you think that our constant spewing of extra gasses will have no effect on our climate over time? Apparently, human arrogance knows no bounds.
It seems to me that the deniers of AGW as at least part of the cause of our current warming see money and ideology, and not the planets well being as the bottom line. It has led to a kind of willful blindness that speaks poorly of us, but is a consistently human trait. Far thinking has not been one of our strong suits as a species. It's something that must be worked at.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 11:46:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Okay Bill, here's the thing. Yes there are natural cycles. Yes, we may be in a natural warming trend. But natural causes and man made causes are not mutually exclusive. What everyone is worried about, and with a lot of good science to back up this worry, is that we have tipped the scale's in a bad way, by adding to the natural causes, a whole lot of green house gas that simply would not be there if not for us.
Now, it could be that nature produces more of these gases than we do. But then, for the climate to sustain life as we like it to be, greenhouse gasses are a necessary part of regulating the planets climate. The problem comes when there is just to much of what is usually a good thing. At what point do we tip natures scales by spewing extra gasses into the air? Gasses that wouldn't be there, if we weren't putting it there. And that is really what we are talking about here.
You can talk about natural cycles until the cows come home, and that will not change the fact that we are now, for the first time in history, adding massive amounts of gasses that must be factored in over and above what nature produces on its own. Just how much can we tinker with nature before it bites us back? Based on what I have seen in the studies and in the literature on the subject, the biting back has begun. We see that in the acceleration of warming worldwide.
We know that we can only muck around with an eco system so much before we destroy it. We have done that many times. So why would our atmosphere be any different? Your belief that the atmosphere can take anything we can throw at it is baffling to me. When one mid sized volcanic eruption can change, at least temporarily, climate patterns all over the planet, how can you think that our constant spewing of extra gasses will have no effect on our climate over time? Apparently, human arrogance knows no bounds.
It seems to me that the deniers of AGW as at least part of the cause of our current warming see money and ideology, and not the planets well being as the bottom line. It has led to a kind of willful blindness that speaks poorly of us, but is a consistently human trait. Far thinking has not been one of our strong suits as a species. It's something that must be worked at.
|
Wither I accept AGW or not I am still all for cleaner and greener technologies and advancements. I want clean air, clean water, limited landfills etc... I think you and I would agree on a lot of these issues with or without AGW. Where our paths appear to separate is when it comes to the "what to do about it?". Handing over the lead role, or any role for that matter, to the UN and a lesser degree the Al Gore extremists would be adding gasoline to the fire as the UN track record, as well as the AG environmental extremists, speaks for itself with it's massive list of failures and corruption.
The US voters can use their vote to push the US government to act well before the UN ever could. And as a sovereign nation that is the way it should be. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 12:08:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Hey, Dude-- let's be nice. I am hopeful that we might be nearing a critical mass, where there are so much data that Bill scott will perhaps be willing to concede that something is wrong with the world. That, or he'll simply admit that he doesn't want to believe it, regardless of what the data tell us.
|
I have conceded something to bring wrong with the world long before the AGW debate ever arose.
|
Obviously I was speaking about MMGW even if I referred to it obliquely as something "wrong with the world" |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 12:29:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Dude, every century since the creation of the planet has had a 5th highest year average temperature for the globe.
|
So, you are a Young Earth Creationist?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 12:35:52 [Permalink]
|
Cune said:
| Hey, Dude-- let's be nice. I am hopeful that we might be nearing a critical mass, where there are so much data that Bill scott will perhaps be willing to concede that something is wrong with the world. That, or he'll simply admit that he doesn't want to believe it, regardless of what the data tell us. |
I AM being nice!
If Billscott rmains unconvinced that humans are a major source of the current global warming, after the hundreds of pages of discussion here and the volumes of data freely available, then he clearly isn't going to have a different take on it anytime soon.
As the saying goes, "You can't reason a man out of something he wasn't reasoned into."
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 13:34:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
My fear is the extreme where we have worked ourselves into a frenzy to the point where we demand the UN step in and save us all. I also worry about knee-jerk reactions where taxes and emissions are levied to the point where economies are damaged or destroyed, standard of livings go way down and developing third world nations are forced to stay third world. I believe the potential for damage in letting the UN and AGW extremists run the show would rival or exceed the potential for damage from any GW itself, natural or otherwise. This would be a logical assumption based on the UN's previous track record.
|
You have been listening to too many conservative's fearmongering, and are falling for a logical fallacy called False Dichotomy: It's either business as usual or economical catastrofy in the hands of ecology fundies.
There are several other answers that should be considered. Sweden reduced it's carbon emmission by 9% since 1990, and had a 44% economic growth at the same time. This shows that economic ruin is avoidable while at the same time taking responsibility for the climate.
2% of my utility bill goes directly to a fund for building wind power plants.
We both belong to some of the world's most technologically advanced nations in the world. The problem is inertia in politics. Sweden is a smaller country, so it's easier to change direction. I've already started to do my part. Now it's your bloody turn to get your act together. Bill scott, realize that conservatives will not be interested in change. You can change direction, but it will require you to be smart. Which of the parties seem more interested in caring for ecology? Which party is painting the picture that is that false dichotomy I told you about? (either business as usual or economical catastrofy in the hands of ecology fundies) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 14:12:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
AGW or no AGW I agree with less pollution and conserving more fossil fuel. So if AGW is the cause for looking for alternative fuels and a better and cleaner way of doing things then I have no problem with this in and of itself and would very much encourage it. My fear is the extreme where we have worked ourselves into a frenzy to the point where we demand the UN step in and save us all. I also worry about knee-jerk reactions where taxes and emissions are levied to the point where economies are damaged or destroyed, standard of livings go way down and developing third world nations are forced to stay third world. I believe the potential for damage in letting the UN and AGW extremists run the show would rival or exceed the potential for damage from any GW itself, natural or otherwise. |
And you called my appeal to your faith sensationalist. Sheesh!| This would be a logical assumption based on the UN's previous track record. |
Once again, you are confusing a conclusion for an assumption, but that's another subject.
But what did you say to me?| I was never arguing anything based on some unknown. |
Sure you were: you were and remain emphatic that there are unknowns. I wish you'd get around to explaining how those unknowns affect our science, though.And is it your belief that infinite finite man has such a grasp on GW that if some unknown were to arise showing that GW was not man enhanced then you would just assume that it must be a miracle because no natural phenomena could have slipped past infinite finite man? That's what I gather. |
You gather wrongly. In fact, since we weren't talking about that at all, I don't know why you'd attribute such a nonsensical position to me, other than to try to distract away from the fact that you're not discussing the science at all, despite implying that you would. Look at this, for example:| Regardless, you are assuming that there are no unknown(s), correct? |
No, there's nothing to assume. |
In a world full of infinite unknowns for finite man, oh yes there is.| We only assume things that there are good reasons to assume. |
I thought you just said that there's nothing to assume? |
You can't even keep the context straight in your head for two sentences. There's nothing to assume about unknowns, Bill. How can we assume anything about what we don't know?| Of course, if man isn't the cause, then God must be the cause. |
God is the un-caused first cause. |
Thank you for admitting that God has caused global climate change (whether man had a hand in it or not, since God caused man, too). Has God shared with you the reason He's doing this to us? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An international team of MMGW deniers (scientists)
