Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 182
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by jewel View Post
    The article that you cited on wikipedia is conventional wisdom. It is based on the belief that oil is derived from fossils. That would mean that it would take several years to renew oil. True that this has been taught in science class, but science is not static. There are new discoveries that are made everyday that dispels conventional wisdom. Like for example the discovery of a certain kind of bacteria that eats dirt and yields crude oil? Now that didn't take years to process oil, did it? And have you heard about Eugene Island? A drilling site that's supposed to have ran out of oil but now is pumping daily tens of thousands of barrels again.

    Don't tell me that you are just like the other poster who will brand me as rude just because you cannot stand intelligent conversation. And, by the way, when did science became a game of consensus? Science is about facts and not opinions.
    your attitude is hostile so I agree with the rude remark, especially after calling another user a loser... as Berd said that kind of behaviour is not tolerated on TC...

    But ignoring all that I am curious about your claim... do you seriously think that there will be a way to renew enough oil for human consumption?
    If so I'd like some evidence backing up that very bold statement...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Where did this come from? Are we accusing someone of "political ideology?" If so, look in the mirror...
    I made no accusations of anyone: I merely stated that decisions should be made based upon science, not ideology. This holds for either side of the argument.

    However, the preponderance of scientific evidence is not even close to evenly split on this particular issue. While it is certainly possible to find some scientists who don't believe in climate change / global warming, this is not the feeling of the majority of the scientific community.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    do you seriously think that there will be a way to renew enough oil for human consumption?
    If so I'd like some evidence backing up that very bold statement...
    There was, in the 50's in Russia and the Ukraine, an alternative hypothesis that oil production was not actually produced from fossils. While it's sort of an interesting concept, this theory doesn't have the support of the majority of the scientific community.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  4. #144  
    Political correctness? When the guy pushing the government statics admits to fudging the stats, using wrong years, et cetera, when in actuality the temperature has been going down for the last decade, when anyway, the proof for climate change - global warming, whatever political term is being used is not as iron clad as Bubba Gore insists it is, then where does one say it is a fact? When I was growing up we were looking toward massive global cooling, then a period of nothing exciting other than DDT killing the world (what a bunch of bunk there) to now global warming - really now. There is more supporting cycling around the world than heating up the oven. Remember the big oven is the sun and when global warming happens so do the sun spots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I made no accusations of anyone: I merely stated that decisions should be made based upon science, not ideology. This holds for either side of the argument.

    However, the preponderance of scientific evidence is not even close to evenly split on this particular issue. While it is certainly possible to find some scientists who don't believe in climate change / global warming, this is not the feeling of the majority of the scientific community.
  5. #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Political correctness? When the guy pushing the government statics admits to fudging the stats, using wrong years, et cetera, when in actuality the temperature has been going down for the last decade, when anyway, the proof for climate change - global warming, whatever political term is being used is not as iron clad as Bubba Gore insists it is, then where does one say it is a fact? When I was growing up we were looking toward massive global cooling, then a period of nothing exciting other than DDT killing the world (what a bunch of bunk there) to now global warming - really now. There is more supporting cycling around the world than heating up the oven. Remember the big oven is the sun and when global warming happens so do the sun spots.
    I'd ask you to think about whether the above statement reflects a scientific opinion, or a political one. There is evidence to show that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community would tend to disagree with your assertions. The link below shows science organizations that have supported current climate change theory. If you discount wikipedia when as a source, it's rather simple to look at the original sources contained on this site:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

    Can you cite a single reputable national or international science organization (not individual scientists) that dispute the concept that humans have had an influence in climate change?
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/08/2009 at 02:31 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #146  
    I find it interesting that certain people who disagree, or object to their views being challenged, see Jewel as being rude (some moderators apparently fall into this category). While we can easily point to and judge the "loser" comment as being rude, I think some context may be in order.

    What I saw was someone who apparently didn't like an opposing view, kneejerk and put someone on ignore. That is a direct insult. I think Jewel was responding as most humans would; after being put on ignore for simply expressing an opinion. I wouldn't personally used the term loser, but closed minded or koolaid drinker.... maybe. And I mean those terms in the nicest way possible
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. jewel's Avatar
    Posts
    638 Posts
    Global Posts
    666 Global Posts
    #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    But ignoring all that I am curious about your claim... do you seriously think that there will be a way to renew enough oil for human consumption?
    If so I'd like some evidence backing up that very bold statement...
    1. Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels
    2. Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #148  
    Pardon my layman thinking, and speaking of global warming... I caught yet more scientific predictions being spouted on the radio the other day. Apparently the sun has reduced its activity, and they think the trend will continue, and "this group says" that we may be in for another mini-ice age. My first thought was.... well hey, if the sun's level of activity isn't a constant, and reduction of activity can cause cooling, then why aren't we talking about the sun when it comes to global warming?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. jewel's Avatar
    Posts
    638 Posts
    Global Posts
    666 Global Posts
    #149  
    I do apologize to all the persons that I have hurt because of my "rudeness." I just can't help it when America is being trashed or when I suspect that it is being belittled. I mean, we live in the greatest country on the face of the Earth. This country is better than Sweden or France or Canada or England. And I just couldn't take it when fellow Americans think that our country sucks.

    I hope you will all forgive me guys.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Can you cite a single reputable national or international science organization (not individual scientists) that dispute the concept that humans have had an influence in climate change?
    So what's your issue with individual scientists? Take a gander at this, before you answer, please.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by jewel View Post
    1. Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels

    This link from Research Geology give a good overview of the alternative theory of fossil fuel origins proposed in "Deep Hot Biosphere", and explains that this theory (abiotic origins) was proposed in the 1950's, but has been "overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated understanding of the modes of formation of hydrocarbon deposits in nature"

    http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf

    Someone writing a book certainly does not constitute the preponderance of scientific thinking.

    2. Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil
    Using the author of "Obama Nation" , who has a degree in Political Science, as a reference probably doesn't qualify as being within the mainstream of scientific thought. Rather, it shows the use of political ideology in place of scientific reasoning. I'm not sure that this helps make your point.

    For those interested in some informative information on the topic:

    the journal Nature
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/458945b.html

    Scientific American
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...warming-a-myth

    National Geographic
    http://environment.nationalgeographi...g/gw-real.html

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdf

    The National Academies of Science
    http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I find it interesting that certain people who disagree, or object to their views being challenged, see Jewel as being rude (some moderators apparently fall into this category). While we can easily point to and judge the "loser" comment as being rude, I think some context may be in order.

    What I saw was someone who apparently didn't like an opposing view, kneejerk and put someone on ignore. That is a direct insult. I think Jewel was responding as most humans would; after being put on ignore for simply expressing an opinion. I wouldn't personally used the term loser, but closed minded or koolaid drinker.... maybe. And I mean those terms in the nicest way possible
    I noted your error. It has nothing to do with an opposing view, it has to with their aggressive demeanor in their responses. Then to respond with the term, "coward" and "loser" to a Veteran is extremely disrespectful.

    An aggressive demeanor only leads to drama that they don't need here.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by jewel View Post
    Well Palandri is definitely a coward and couldn't stand intelligent conversation. All he needed to do was insist that he is 100% sure without giving proof, brand me as rude and add me to his ignore list. What a loser. He, he.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I find it interesting that certain people who disagree, or object to their views being challenged, see Jewel as being rude (some moderators apparently fall into this category). While we can easily point to and judge the "loser" comment as being rude, I think some context may be in order.

    What I saw was someone who apparently didn't like an opposing view, kneejerk and put someone on ignore. That is a direct insult. I think Jewel was responding as most humans would; after being put on ignore for simply expressing an opinion. I wouldn't personally used the term loser, but closed minded or koolaid drinker.... maybe. And I mean those terms in the nicest way possible
    I poked my head in to remind people to refrain from name calling and personal insults. It had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with any poster.

    Whether in context or out - calling an active member a coward or loser isn't necessary to carry on a civilized debate.

    Any further concerns about moderation can be handled via Pm.
    ToolkiT, Myself, or Dieter.
    Just call me Berd.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    I noted your error. It has nothing to do with an opposing view, it has to with their aggressive demeanor in their responses. Then to respond with the term, "coward" and "loser" to a Veteran is extremely disrespectful.

    An aggressive demeanor only leads to drama that they don't need here.
    I think you guys might be able to ease up and be friends now. We're all on the same team. He apologized, though you may have missed it.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #155  
    One of the quotes that stood out for me in that link I provided:

    Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    I think he's right. Global warming, whether truth or fiction, has become an ideology and therefore, a political football. That's dangerous.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    So what's your issue with individual scientists? Take a gander at this, before you answer, please.
    I have none...I happen to be an individual scientist.

    However, when scientist have differing views on a subject, they typically will look at the preponderance of scientific evidence. The evidence supporting the "human impact" on climate change vastly outweighs evidence to the contrary. This is why all of the organizations listed on the link I provided (Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) have taken the stance in support of climate change.

    Let me be clear - this is a topic for which debate is a good thing. However, it should be debated based upon clear scientific evidence, not individual opinions or political leaning. This is why I've been providing sources from reputable scientific organizations, and why I've asked for a single scientific organization with national or international reputation that disputes the prevailing theory. I have yet to see one produced here.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/08/2009 at 04:17 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  17. jewel's Avatar
    Posts
    638 Posts
    Global Posts
    666 Global Posts
    #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    your attitude is hostile so I agree with the rude remark, especially after calling another user a loser... as Berd said that kind of behaviour is not tolerated on TC...

    But ignoring all that I am curious about your claim... do you seriously think that there will be a way to renew enough oil for human consumption?
    If so I'd like some evidence backing up that very bold statement...
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I think you guys might be able to ease up and be friends now. We're all on the same team. He apologized, though you may have missed it.
    Thanks buddy.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I have none...I happen to be an individual scientist.

    However, when scientist have differing views on a subject, they typically will look at the preponderance of scientific evidence. The evidence supporting the "human impact" on climate change vastly outweighs evidence to the contrary. This is why all of the organizations listed on the link I provided (Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) have taken the stance in support of climate change.

    Let me be clear - this is a topic for which debate is a good thing. However, it should be debated based upon clear scientific evidence, not individual opinions or political leaning. This is why I've been providing sources from reputable scientific organizations, and why I've asked for a single scientific organization with national or international reputation that disputes the prevailing theory. I have yet to see one produced here.
    So again, what you are saying, by not saying it; implying that you will not accept individual scientists who disagree, even if they are "on the record" (did you look at my link too?), are in relevant fields of study, and number in the 100s (as I assume the numbers of scientists in your "institutions and organizations" number in the 100s as well). This would be because.... they aren't speaking on behalf of an institution? Sorry.... now I'm confused. Exactly why are you not seeing them as credible?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    So again, what you are saying, by not saying it; implying that you will not accept individual scientists who disagree, even if they are "on the record" (did you look at my link too?), are in relevant fields of study, and number in the 100s (as I assume the numbers of scientists in your "institutions and organizations" number in the 100s as well). This would be because.... they aren't speaking on behalf of an institution? Sorry.... now I'm confused. Exactly why are you not seeing them as credible?
    The number of scientists in my "institutions and organizations" is not hundreds, but more like millions.

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science alone serves 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. The American Geophysical Union has 50,000 members. The American Meteorological Society has over 11,000. The Geological Society of America has over 21,000. The American Public Health Association has over 30,000. That's just a small sample of the number of organizations that are supportive of the prevailing theory of climate change.

    In answer to your question, I don't find their particular argument as credible, due to the fact that the overwhelming preponderance of scientific opinion supports the other side of the argument.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/08/2009 at 06:22 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  20.    #160  
    Are there Three subjects now involved, God , science & government?
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions