On Global Warming, which = Climate Change
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Saturday, January 1, 2011 00:26
VIEWED: 5597
PAGE 4 of 5
Quote:What have you brought to the table? Geologic records? Historic records? The infrared absorption characteristics and residence time of greenhouse gases? Knowledge of mathematical modeling? Seriously, dude. Other than a hand-waving conviction that "this has all happened before" and a reference to "Greenland" having once been green (NOT EVER in the history of homo sapiens, h. neaderthalensis, or h. heidelbergensis!) ... On what, exactly, do you base your deep-seated conviction?
I'm just tired of having to try and convince you the world isn't flat.
You seem to think that 'debate' is the end all be all of determining truth. It isn't. I don't want to convince you. It can't be done. Despite your claims, you've already made up your mind. ,
Quote:Then why do you keep turning it into one? It looks like the only... and I mean ONLY... reason you react to global warming is because you perceive it to be an "anti-business" issue.
This isn't, to me at least, in any way a " Left / Right " issue
Quote:Well, not me. I have openly stated that I am against cap-and-trade, and so are many thoughtful environmentalists. So, who are you arguing with?
save for the fact that those pushing the global warming story have openly stated that the goal isn't to clean up anything ( cap and tax is the proof ), but to transfer wealth from the haves to the have-nots. A classic Left wing position.
BTW, I don't think that debate is the end-all and be-all of determining truth. If that were the case, scientists would never have to go into the lab, or into the field. They could figure out everything by just yakking at each other.
In a situation where you can't directly experiment, I think the best way to prove your hypothesis... and I have said this many times by now... is to be able to explain the facts (ALL the facts, not just a select few) and be able to predict events better than any other hypothesis.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ain't a matter of Charisma, tis a matter of Credibility.
When one has repeatedly lied, knowingly offered flat out untruths or ludicrous distortions as "fact" and then held that position in spite of reams of contradictory evidence, on top of stooping to name calling and flat-out nastiness when called on it...
No, people are not going to accept their unsupported word, not by a long-shot, and having offered supporting "evidence" that was, often as not, outright fiction and intentional lies, any outside evidence they offer will be questioned too.
Whereas on the other hand, someone who has been right a great deal of the time, even when initially dismissed or flamed, who has offered reams of solid, verifiable evidence from damn good sources will have the benefit of credibility, or at least you'd THINK so...
Right up till they once again say something people *wish* wasn't true, and the cycle starts again - some days I feel like Cassandra, and it's certainly no comfort being right about such awful stuff, but still one would THINK that after damn near a decade of being statistically correct, often chapter and verse (not talkin about folk here on the board, mind you, but folk I know in general), of having evidence in hand, sometimes from the very files of the accused, that people would not be so goddamn quick to dismiss arguments out of hand - but they are.
People as a rule ain't as open minded as even they themselve think, and someone telling them what they WANT to believe is always gonna have an edge over even the best of credibility, all that credibility gets you is the hook to set - at which point you'd damn well better have all your ducks in a row, and be fully prepared to argue your point, unless your intent is to simply throw it in their face and walk away.
So it isn't a matter of charisma whatever, so much as whether a person is seen as willing to actually back up their claims effectively - as a general rule around here, when one sees me make an unqualified claim around here, it's prettymuch a given I am prepared to do exactly that, often to a degree with borders on information-overload.
Others... not so much, and THAT, folks, is why they're not often taken seriously, even when they DO have a valid point.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Then why do you keep turning it into one? It looks like the only... and I mean ONLY... reason you react to global warming is because you perceive it to be an "anti-business" issue.
“Our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.- Hugo Chavez, at the "Climate Change" conference.
I'm simply not going to get in a pissing contest, where you toss up your "experts" and I toss out mine, and then you bitch about what's credible, what's peer reviewed, and this bitch fest goes on for 15 pages , which only ends in mindless name calling.
As I've said, 'debate' doesn't determine truth. You think it does, I don't.
I know the history of this planet, long before humans have set 2 feet on dry ground, and there's every indication that 'climate change' isn't that big of a deal. It's nothing we started, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
Can we as humans do a better job of keeping our pollution down ? Yep. You'll get my support there, no fuss. But to phony up this issue of man made global warming ?
Never.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Er... sometimes. But not always. I find Nikki to be generally polite and explanatory, and for her trouble she gets called all kinds of names.
I don't think persuasion is a matter of "convincing arguments." It is a matter of...charisma if you will. Saying the facts and figures in *just* the RIGHT way.
On the other hand, although Anthony is extremely polite, I find him unpersuasive. He has a fixed idea that being "fair" means treating everyone the same, but I have never been able to get a better explanation from him as to what he hopes to accomplish that way, or whether or not there are any exceptions. (For example, would he treat the mentally disabled the same as anyone else?)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Please, bring your experts. You never have before, so now would be a good start.
I'm simply not going to get in a pissing contest, where you toss up your "experts" and I toss out mine, and then you bitch about what's credible, what's peer reviewed, and this bitch fest goes on for 15 pages , which only ends in mindless name calling.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Please, bring your experts. You never have before, so now would be a good start.
I'm simply not going to get in a pissing contest, where you toss up your "experts" and I toss out mine, and then you bitch about what's credible, what's peer reviewed, and this bitch fest goes on for 15 pages , which only ends in mindless name calling.
This issue of global warming is every bit as worn out and over done as the claims of a young earth.
Playing this game, again, would serve no purpose, what so ever.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with the basics of what Rappy is saying. We've also observed in our human history a pattern of climate change that fits what we are currently going through without the need for big evil man-made carbons. During the Medieval period the earth was warmer than it is now and after wards eventually entered a 'mini ice age' that ended roughly around 1800 or 1900 (I'm sorry I don't remember the specific date). So our temperature should be rising without the influence of our industry and I'm not convinced our emissions are having much of an impact (or any for that matter).
Deforestation and destruction of ecosystems is more dangerous and a more believable cause than the carbon non-issue locked in everyone's tunnel vision (not that I'm convinced we have done or can do anything to influence the climate on that scale). I wish the media, governments and businesses would pay more attention to that. But, I suppose there's no revenue in protecting forest, so we're better off working towards something like carbon taxes...
Please forgive any spelling or poor grammar, itouches aren't condusive to good editing or referencing. I hope I don't ruin my argument too much with bad writing. I am looking forward to returning my computer and internet when I return from the holidays.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There is no global warming.
You claiming that snows in places which usually don't get snow, or this much, or this early in winter, is akin to waving a powerful talisman around , and claiming it wards off polar bears.
While doing so, in Miami.
See any polar bears in South Beach ?
That's proof that it works !
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
What an idiotic analogy.
ETA: Followed by the usaul refusal to provide anything to back your position, or discuss. Classic Rappy.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:See Rappy?
Playing this game, again, would serve no purpose what so ever.
You spend so much time decrying the lack of discussion suddenly find you REALLY don't want to "discuss" anything after all!
Please, bring your experts. I invite you, on this discussion board, to discuss your POV.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Happytrader: What I have learned from reading about climate change is that there are MANY possible causes: from solar minima to vulcanism to earth wobble. Of course, that doesn't mean that WE caused the previous changes. OTOH, that doesn't rule out our current effect, either. Just because it happened without us, don't make the logical mistake of thinking that it couldn't happen because of us. We COULD just be another one of the many possible causes.
Taking a lesson from the great Permian-Triassic extinction (in which 90% of all sea creatures and 75% of all land-dwelling creatures became extinct... it was the greatest extinction in the fossil record), the cause of tis great extinction was volcanic activity in Siberia. A great outpouring of basalt flooded and area roughly the size of the continental USA. On its way up, the magma passed though a great coal field, releasing gigatons of carbon dioxide and methane. The oceans became warm, acidic, and anaerobic. This concept is supported by methane isotopic data and marine data indicating acidification and a "reducing" (as opposed to oxidative) environment.
So, release of large amounts of carbon dioxide and methane can, indeed, cause the earth to warm.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME