|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 05/15/2007 : 08:42:30 [Permalink]
|
I would remind that the antarctic is cooling and ice cover is increasing.
In their SciencExpress article, Curt Davis (University of Missouri-Columbia) and his collaborators used satellite radar altimetry measurements from 1992 to 2003 to determine that, on average, the elevation of about 8.5 million square kilometers of the Antarctic interior has been increasing |
This is wrong.
I know this will probably blow your fragile egg shell mind but the conclusion of the paper is that global warming is the cause of the increasing ice cover.
The paper also says that their findings are consistent with the IPCC report regarding antartica.
Gee, I guess these bastards are in on the conspiracy too. Where will it end!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 09:18:14 [Permalink]
|
Referring back to the OP:
JEROME DA GNOME, you simply can't deny the fact that your whole conspiracy argument is no more than arm chair speculation on your part. So far, your (weird) contention for what you think might be going on is evidence challenged. That's to say that you have nothing, nada, no support circumstantial or otherwise. It is counter intuitive, cynical, incoherent, bereft of facts, lacking in common sense, bogus, fallacious, not credible, post hoc, spurious, ignorant, indifferent to reasonable objection and lacking any kind of credibility.
It arrived DOA and is now pushing up daisies…
Perhaps it's time to look for other reasons why man made global warming may be false, because your tax conspiracy theory fails on every level.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 09:23:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cuneiformist---" No, it's utter paranoia. It is sheer lunacy"
This is a road I will not choose to travel.
You are most likly correct on this point.
|
Then I'm confused. If we more or less agree that the government isn't somehow influencing the science that supports global warming as it is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and if said data jibes with the larger report put forward by IPCC, then what basis is there to think that governments have somehow influenced in a dishonest fashion the IPCC report? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 10:21:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The governments do not tamper with the data. I contend that the data is presented in a manner which makes it seem more dramatic and makes implications that are not supported. |
You're not living in USA, are you?
Lost of the implications are done in the media outside of the reports of the ipcc.
|
I fail to see how IPCC or any government is to blame for that.
| Catastrophe and drama sell news papers. |
Absolutely! Still, I fail to see how IPCC or any government is to blame for that.
Perhaps you should support a better news-agency that isn't concerned with making bucks of selling news for profit by scaring the shit out of ignorant people. |
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. |
|
|
|
Hondo
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 16:25:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
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. |
Granted, and it's not something I often do. But when it comes to science, one mustn't forget it's a process and the consensus can change. Whether it will in this case is a matter of debate, with me anyway, but there was a time when global cooling had it's share of advocates among scientists.| 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 disagree. Strongly. Are you a scientist or expert on climatology? Parroting a consensus doesn't count.| 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? |
Global Warming isn't a car. Your analogy might explain why you're willing to agree with the majority, but as far as I'm concerned the behavior of the sun and it's effects on our climate is not sufficiently understood at this time to the degree necessary for me to start marching in lock-step with the current scientific consensus. Not yet anyway.| My excuse for what? I'm not the one claiming to know more than the scientists working on the problem. |
Did I say I "knew more"' than scientists that are 'working on the problem?' I'll admit I was trashed the other night but don't recall claiming that I was a scientist, let alone one without peer. Just so there's no misunderstanding of my position, I am aware that scientists are "working on the problem" but I don't think their work is done. I do believe our pollutants impact the environment, but believe it's possible that we'd see global warming anyway...even if we lived in caves. It's not GW that I dispute, it's the extent that your "scientific consensus" currently says we factor into the equation that I'm skeptical of. Maybe they're right. We'll see... |
|
|
|
Hondo
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 16:34:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by Hondo
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?
CO2 emissions aren't doing us any favors but I don't think we should start rationing toilet-paper just yet. |
Hi, Hondo. I was actually trying to get to the bottom of the initial suggestions made by JdG. The central thesis as I understand it was that global warming (or at least the human contribution aspect of it) is a hoax put forward by a government or governments in order to raise taxes or otherwise reap some financial benefit (cf. his first post).
There are, of course, two claims being made here. The first is that the science behind the arguments for man-made global warming are incorrect. The second is that a government (or governments) is to some degree behind the whole thing. And while most of the ten (so far!) pages of subsequent discussion/yelling has been focused on the former, I'm more interested in the latter. (This is the "Conspiracy Theory" folder, after all!) After all, it's one thing to suggest that most of the world's climate scientists are wrong. It's quite another, however, to argue that they're all somehow in league with government sources all in a giant plan to dupe the rest of us into paying needless new taxes.
Thus far, JdG has offered little in defense of this idea and, unless I missed it, he hasn't even replied to my argument. He seems to have disappeared on us, but perhaps he'll return with more evidence for a conspiracy.
|
My mistake the other night, besides posting when I was intoxicated, was basically one word: sole. That was sloppy and flippant and I even forgot that I had phrased it that way during my scrum with Dude. I don't blame him for asking for citations when my careless flippancy regarding that word skewed the point I was trying to make with that Gnome character. That's why I apologized, when careless or drunk it's too easy for one to project an impression that doesn't accurately reflect what one means to say, especially in a venue that relies on text and where the author is unknown to the other participants. I don't even believe Gore thinks global warming is solely predicated on homo sapiens' pollution habits but do feel that his message, one that's alarmist IMO, posits that our emissions are the issue, not poorly understood natural cycles.
My skepticism with regards to Global Warming is limited to the current thinking regarding the causation of this temperature rise. I don't see a special-interest conspiracy at all in JEROME DA GNOME's context. |
| Edited by - Hondo on 05/15/2007 16:41:43 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 17:23:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Filthy---"But I remind that the ice caps and glaciers are in recession"
I would remind that the antarctic is cooling and ice cover is increasing.
In their SciencExpress article, Curt Davis (University of Missouri-Columbia) and his collaborators used satellite radar altimetry measurements from 1992 to 2003 to determine that, on average, the elevation of about 8.5 million square kilometers of the Antarctic interior has been increasing |
Link please.... Do those measurements also include the sea-ice pack?
The weather is not consistant world wide. Some places will be 'abnormally,' so to speak, cooler, some 'abnormally' warmer. Never the less, overall ice loss is happening.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 17:39:37 [Permalink]
|
hondo said:
| My skepticism with regards to Global Warming is limited to the current thinking regarding the causation of this temperature rise. |
Soo... we aren't allowed to "parrot" the consensus, but you are allowed to dismiss it by fiat?
Surely you percieve the problem there.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 18:26:46 [Permalink]
|
Simple math provided by Filthy links.
1960 co2 concentration = 320ppm
2005 co2 concentration = 380ppm
"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 the Earth"
In 45 years co2 has risen 60ppm .
Man caused up to 5%.
Meaning that man has caused 3ppm of the increase over the last 45 years.
Natural events has caused the balance of 57ppm of the increase.
Hence the question-"Man made global warming a hoax?"
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 18:40:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Simple math provided by Filthy links.
1960 co2 concentration = 320ppm
2005 co2 concentration = 380ppm
"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 the Earth"
In 45 years co2 has risen 60ppm .
Man caused up to 5%.
Meaning that man has caused 3ppm of the increase over the last 45 years.
Natural events has caused the balance of 57ppm of the increase.
Hence the question-"Man made global warming a hoax?"
|
Mankind has added its CO2 contribution to the equation through the burning of fossil fuels. Since the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 has risen to the highest level in more than half a million years. This extra CO2 is the problems, and its rise matches the annual rise in worldwide mean temperatures.
MMGW is good, consensus science. The only "hoax" is being perpetrated by MMGW deniers.
[Edit for intelligibility; "the problems" to "the problem."]
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/15/2007 20:13:10 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 19:04:03 [Permalink]
|
HalfMooner---What do I have to gain from a "hoax being perpetrated by MMGW deniers"?
I beleived it when in the late 70's and early 80's when I was taught in public school that the next ice age would come before my children were grown.
I had no reason to doubt, MIT said it was so.
The doubt came when the data changed and the opposite "scenario" was purported to be from the same cause.
Late 70's--- Its getting cooler--- cause---MAN
Late 80's--- Its getting warmer--- cause---MAN
During my research I found out some of the earliest predictions of man made climate change came from a man desiring to promote nuclear energy.
Hence the assurtion that the data can be presented for political gain.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Hondo
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 19:27:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
hondo said:
| My skepticism with regards to Global Warming is limited to the current thinking regarding the causation of this temperature rise. |
Soo... we aren't allowed to "parrot" the consensus, but you are allowed to dismiss it by fiat?
Surely you percieve the problem there.
|
Seems to be one of your own making. For starters, since when does "skepticism" and "dismiss" mean the exact same thing? It doesn't, look it up.
Secondly, I never said you or anyone else here wasn't "allowed" to "parrot the scientific consensus" Dude, that's just twisting my words. We all do it when we agree with it, my point to H. Humbert was that it doesn't make the one doing it a scientist/expert by default.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 19:49:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I beleived it when in the late 70's and early 80's when I was taught in public school that the next ice age would come before my children were grown.
I had no reason to doubt, MIT said it was so.
The doubt came when the data changed and the opposite "scenario" was purported to be from the same cause. |
So you let yourself get suckered, and now you're bitter and angry about it. You've got an emotional interest in showing the current climate scientists to be inept fools, because that's what "they" did to you. That's why denying MMGW appeals to you, and why you'll never apologize for calling thousands of people frauds. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 19:58:07 [Permalink]
|
| MMGW is total hogwash. The correlation between CO2 gas and temperature is the other way around. I dont care what the supposed consensus is. It used to be the consensus that the earth was flat. |All physicists believed gravity was a force until einstein proved them wrong. Your appeals to authority mean absolutely nothing. Human beings are having zero effect on global warming. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:16:47 [Permalink]
|
j911ob asked, "HalfMooner---What do I have to gain from a 'hoax being perpetrated by MMGW deniers'?" I have no idea. You'd have to explain this political or psychological mystery yourself. Certainly not credibility, though.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?
Topic Locked
