Page 103 of 111 FirstFirst ... 353939899100101102103104105106107108 ... LastLast
Results 2,041 to 2,060 of 2209
  1. #2041  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Well, I've posted this link before and I think does a very good job of looking at both sides of the issue. It is from a couple of years ago, but it does paint an interesting picture:

    Global Warming: Is it Real, are Humans the Cause, & can Anything be Done?
    Nice article. Someone with some sense.

    Now how long before zelgo pops in and claims its a rightwing blog?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2042  
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazy Wacko View Post
    I just have to have a short response to all of these posts of yours KAM. I wouldn't claim to know my way about Global Warming and what not because I have not researched it. I have read a little and I just happen to be a person that can sorta feel out when someone knows what they are talking about. Most of the stuff I've read about it reminds me of things I heard about in elementary school (20 years ago) and that is how I can recognize that I'm not being what you would call "duped" into believe something that all of sudden science is mysteriously making an issue out of. (socialists!) I'm not saying I think humans are or are not responsible for climate change, because I am not a scientist.
    In my opinion it is important to establish credibility if you want people to really listen. I have noticed that you do not post links very often and like you did above, make excuses for not doing so when asked to backup some of your opinions. When your not credible, all you have is an opinion.

    What I'm getting at is it does not help anyone when people such as yourself go about making seemingly false statements and then don't provide links. Why would I bother to waist time googling what looks and smells like bull**** from the get-go? Not to mention it only further reduces your credibility when we witness your snarling and foaming at the mouth responses (whether you like it or not, that's how you come across).
    Well, I'll take your statement here as sincere. We've had no interaction that would convince me you have any other motive. I'm afraid that has not been my experience with others here.
    Since, I'm assuming that you are being sincere, I'll explain a bit.

    However, I will first ask--why would you assume that I'm making ANY false statements? Why would you assume that my views about Global Warming/Climate change are inaccurate? By saying that I've stated "seemingly false statements, and something that smells like "BS" you are telling me that you've already been convinced of the opposing view. So, what you've revealed is that you have a certain bias. Not saying it is invalid to have a view--just that it is likely that your starting point might be shaping your views of my posts.

    Snarling and foaming at the mouth...well, that's your imagination at work. If that's how you envision my lack of patience with someone who has a history of peevish behavior then, I suggest you aren't looking at the whole picture.

    Let me ask--why must I provide documentatio, when others do not. Zeglo's claims (when he bothers to talk about the subject at all) are nothing more than a parroted view. A highly politicized view that through massive media campaigns has become the popular view. So, other than volume, what adds credibility to anything pro-global warming folks compared to me? You've said that you really don't know much about this issue (most people don't), other than what is pushed commonly--things like "green week" and all the other propaganda being bandied about. Do you think just maybe you default to your position because you've been subjected to one side in a successful propaganda campaign?

    Also--if you've read the posts (between arguing about the nature of science with people who have denied it), you will find that I've made reference to various substantive issues such as Global Temperature Records, Climate models and its shortcomings, and correlation between CO2 and Temperature--which is the central point of AGW claims. Now--apparently Zeglos' little tactic (used at various times when people want to avoid dealing with the points raised) is to demand documentation. Of course, everyone here has the internet at their fingertips and can look into any or all of those topics.

    Now, more to your point--do you really think it would make one bit of difference to someone like Zeglo if he had been provided links? Do you really think that I don't have a source where I learn various things and that I'm literally fabricating these claims from my own imagination?

    Would it really add "credibility" to my claims to provide what would surely be identified as a "cherry picked" source? Are you not aware that Zeglo has already declared that anyone who doesn't buy the AGW propaganda is the product of a "right wing think tank" or bought by oil companies or some other claim of that nature.

    Perhaps you are proving that Zeglo's tactic is in fact working. I don't know. We aren't posting at a research forum--its an off-topic phone site. I know very well that there isn't a snowball's chance in hades that Zeglo is going to even consider any link I post.

    Ideally, someone (like yourself) might read my views and say to themselves "Hmmm, I wonder if there is something to that?" and look it up and learn that there in fact are different views from what is pushed in the mainstream media and by our politicians. In short--you learning on your own is MUCH more likely to convince you than me posting a link that explicitly supports my view.

    ANYONE can find some source to agree with what they say--and as a defense, claiming the opposite is laughable--at least to me. I'm not used to being able to convince people--perhaps that's my shortcoming. I guess its possible that I've grown tired of trying--because of people like Zeglo--who don't care WHAT level of evidence you produce or what argument you make. What do you say to someone who has proven that no argument can ever persuade them? They simply don't care, because their goal isn't discussion--its simply to maintain their position. The internet is filled with these black holes.

    You've demonstrated a very valuable thing--which is the degree in which the average person is taught one side of this issue--the one that leads you to believe that any claim to the contrary is "BS." Me posting a chosen link isn't going to convince you, and it sure as heck isn't going to convince Zeglo. He knows that and I know that.

    And as I explained earlier--on a personal level, I dislike the twits that have nothing other than what someone else says. So, I am not all that big on posting links to argue for me. Its a discussion forum--I make attempts to DISCUSS, and I don't expect people to simply accept what I say, but likewise, I'm not going to jump at every demand for a link--especially by someone who has demonstrated what I find to be very insincere tactics--like Zeglo.

    So, I hope that helps you understand a bit.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 01/12/2010 at 09:27 AM. Reason: Clarifications
  3. #2043  
    I appreciate the thorough response KAM. Point well taken and I am not here to argue. I cannot speak on the validity of either argument so I will not try. I am a person that tends to just listen to people, smarter people than myself. I don't take their views as my own but when I hear something that rings true to what seems to make sense to me, I tend to get upset with people who tell me things that do not ring true.. because I quite literally do not want my mind full of what I consider to be false arguments that are used to fit particular agendas. Furthermore I get very uneasy when I read things from people who watch and believe what fox news tells them. I personally do not agree with any of our current mass media outlets.. Most of what they say are lies. That in itself is a bias I suppose. I tend to lean more towards what science says if I know what science actually says, not what the media tells me what science says. Why do I trust science? because usually the people involved in researching science have what I consider to be pure motives.. the pursuit of truth. It's what political powers and governments do with that science that hurts the world.
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2044  
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazy Wacko View Post
    I appreciate the thorough response KAM. Point well taken and I am not here to argue. I cannot speak on the validity of either argument so I will not try. I am a person that tends to just listen to people, smarter people than myself. I don't take their views as my own but when I hear something that rings true to what seems to make sense to me, I tend to get upset with people who tell me things that do not ring true.. because I quite literally do not want my mind full of what I consider to be false arguments that are used to fit particular agendas. Furthermore I get very uneasy when I read things from people who watch and believe what fox news tells them. I personally do not agree with any of our current mass media outlets.. Most of what they say are lies. That in itself is a bias I suppose. I tend to lean more towards what science says if I know what science actually says, not what the media tells me what science says. Why do I trust science? because usually the people involved in researching science have what I consider to be pure motives.. the pursuit of truth. It's what political powers and governments do with that science that hurts the world.
    Hello Again,

    I just edited that post to clean it up, but I guess you had already read it.

    A few comments. I too am skeptical of what the mass media tells us, because it is very clear to me that they have adopted the agenda of others. You mentioned Fox news--and I believe they do have a bias, but what confuses me is why people refuse to acknowledge that others also have a very clear bias. The New York Times and to a lesser degree, the Washington post have a liberal bias. The Washington Times has a conservative bias. MSNBC is very biased towards the liberal side. It is very hard to find an objective news source.

    As far as science...exactly--which is why it is so disturbing to know how far the media and politics are involved in this Climate Change issue. It ISN'T just science telling us objective facts. Science involved with this issue has been almost entirely consumed by political forces and their media allies. That's why I think it is very important to maintain a skeptical (which is a scientific principle) point of view, and not simply accept it when someone declares "the debate is over." That's ridiculous--a political tactic, not a scientifically valid claim.

    Now, I encourage everyone (and I've stated this before) to look into this issue on their own--read ALL sides of the issue. I'm sure there is bias on both sides of this as well, but what is very clear is that what politicians claim is not the whole story. Many factors influence our Global Temperatures, and the fact that the Global Temperatures have deviated from the predictions--should at a minimum cause anyone who values science to rethink the assumptions made.

    Since, you've demonstrated a certain level of sincerity in my view, I'll post a link (despite my general dislike), because you might find it interesting. I do not list this as THE source of my views or even necessarily agree with everything this person says. He touches on several subjects that probably aren't talked about in general media coverage of "global warming." I wouldn't list him as a skeptic necessarily either, although he doesn't seem in lock step with the AGWers views. I can't speak to his credentials either.

    See--that's another problem--I post a link, and suddenly I have to list a half dozen disclaimers. Anyway, here it is

    Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

    Decide for yourself if what he says is valid or interesting or not.

    KAM
  5. #2045  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Nice article. Someone with some sense.

    Now how long before zelgo pops in and claims its a rightwing blog?
    Thanks....I thought it did a great job of showing both sides. Bottom line for me, it made me realize that the variables involved are so complex that it is almost impossible to predict anything. I have no problem with cleaner air and water, but not when US citizens are on the hook for everything and other countries are allowed to continue doing what they are doing, and only we are penalized. The US alone wouldn't make much of a difference anyway.

    As for zelgo, he's doing research to determine that the author's spouse's brother was married to a woman whose father had a friend who worked for Exxon. That will make the rightwing connection.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2046  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Thanks....I thought it did a great job of showing both sides. Bottom line for me, it made me realize that the variables involved are so complex that it is almost impossible to predict anything. I have no problem with cleaner air and water, but not when US citizens are on the hook for everything and other countries are allowed to continue doing what they are doing, and only we are penalized. The US alone wouldn't make much of a difference anyway.

    I noted this in the link you posted:
    Industrial emissions of CO2 now became the bad guy because its concentration in the atmosphere increased from 315 ppm (parts per million) in 1957 to 370 ppm in 2002. Hotter temperatures, greenhouse gas CO2 increase; ergo GW is due to emissions from human use of fossil fuels, which when burned, emit CO2. It’s a theory that has not been proven scientifically. A scientist can perform a laboratory experiment to determine how strong a greenhouse gas CO2 is and what its affect is in some laboratory model system. But to extrapolate laboratory results to predict what is actually happening in the earth’s atmosphere is impossible. It’s all assumptions and imperfect computer models.

    Hmmm, imperfect computer models they say? Well, now that you've posted a link to this--which parallels what I've said about computer model accuracy, we can all agree then right? There's now a link--what else needs to be said?

    KAM
  7. hubz1124's Avatar
    Posts
    37 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #2047  
    TRUE... dont buy into the computer simulations 'doom and gloom' scenarios but the earth is most definitely warming
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2048  
    Quote Originally Posted by hubz1124 View Post
    TRUE... dont buy into the computer simulations 'doom and gloom' scenarios but the earth is most definitely warming
    Well, we've definitely had a period of increased temperatures. In the past ten years that has leveled off significantly and reversed to some degree.

    We are not sure whether or not the temperature will rise again, when or by how much. Some scientists are saying they expect this cooling trend to go for 30 years. I'm not sure I would place too much stock in this.

    What's important is to admit what we Don't know. What we don't know is how to account for all the variables that contribute to global temperature accurately. Thus any claims based on saying that they do are at best speculation. What we don't know is what solar activity will be. We don't know with much accuracy what the oceans will do (there are some identified cycles). We don't know what clouds will do (other than generically).

    In general--I think what we know is overwhelmed by what we do not know, so saying things like "the debate is over" is ridiculous on its fact--as are most political declarations of this nature.

    KAM
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2050  
    Oh Groovy...don't you know--the debate is over. There aren't any scientists who believe anything except what AGW alarmists demand.

    Seriously. This makes mention of the fact, that climate models are inaccurate and are incorrect in their predictions...amongst many other points.

    But I'm sure there are several people here who will just repeat the AGW mantra--anyone who doesn't buy into their claims are liars, funded by oil companies, whatever.

    KAM
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2051  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Oh Groovy...don't you know--the debate is over. There aren't any scientists who believe anything except what AGW alarmists demand.

    Seriously. This makes mention of the fact, that climate models are inaccurate and are incorrect in their predictions...amongst many other points.

    But I'm sure there are several people here who will just repeat the AGW mantra--anyone who doesn't buy into their claims are liars, funded by oil companies, whatever.

    KAM
    I'm sure it will almost certainly be either ad hominem or ad populum arguments... or both. But we shall see...
  11. #2052  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    But I'm sure there are several people here who will just repeat the AGW mantra-
    KAM
    My post is just to repeat the AGW mantra-
    Just call me Berd.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2054  
    One thing that I found telling about the "IPCC assessments". They don't, in fact, do their own research. They fund universities and other scientific research groups to do the studies they ask for (e.g., East Anglia). I think that much of this has to do with keeping those funding dollars coming, if you catch my drift?

    Would you trust smoking related research and data offered up by universities and scientific research groups, if the research was funded by Big Tobacco?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2055  
  14. #2056  
    Those crazy liberal whack jobs over at NASA support global warming view.

    Past decade warmest ever, NASA data shows

    The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, according to new surface temperature figures released Thursday by NASA.

    The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005. The other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998, NASA said.

    James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that global temperatures varied because of changes in ocean heating and cooling cycles. "When we average temperature over 5 or 10 years to minimize that variability," said Hansen, one of the world's leading climatologists, "we find global warming is continuing unabated."

    A separate preliminary analysis from another NASA office, the National Climatic Data Center, found that 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, based on measurements taken on land and at sea. The data center report, published earlier this week, also cited the years 2000 to 2009 as the warmest decade ever measured. The new temperature figures provide evidence in the scientific discussion of global warming but are not likely to be the last word on whether the planet's temperature is on a consistent upward path.

    Hansen, who has been an outspoken figure in the climate debate for years, has often been attacked by skeptics of global warming for what they charge is selective use of temperature data. The question of whether the planet is heating and how quickly was at the heart of the so-called "climategate" controversy that arose last fall when hundreds of e-mail messages from the climate study unit at the University of East Anglia in England were released without authorization.

    Critics seized on the messages as evidence that, in their view, climate scientists were manipulating data and colluding to keep contrary opinion out of scientific journals. But climate scientists and political leaders affirmed what they called a broad-based consensus that the planet was growing warmer, and on a consistent basis, although with measurable year-to-year variations.

    The NASA data released Thursday showed an upward temperature trend of about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per decade over the past 30 years. Average global temperatures have risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since 1880.

    "That's the important number to keep in mind," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at Goddard. "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."

    Policy makers at the United Nations climate change summit conference in Copenhagen last month agreed on a goal of trying to keep the rise in average global temperatures to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, to try to forestall the worst effects of global warming.
  15. #2057  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Those crazy liberal whack jobs over at NASA support global warming view.
    Well what do expect?
    It's not Rocket Science.
    Just call me Berd.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2058  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Those crazy liberal whack jobs over at NASA support global warming view.
    Nobody said they were whack jobs. The "whack" is all in the reporting. The title should have said ".... since 1880". And, I'll say this one more time. It's not about "global warming". It's about whether or not it's manmade. Nice headline though. Thanks
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #2059  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    It's not about "global warming". It's about whether or not it's manmade.
    Does it matter? If we can adjust it should we not?
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2060  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Does it matter? If we can adjust it should we not?
    I think we should worry about cleaning the environment.... because we should. I do not agree that the green house effect is a bad thing, or that carbon dioxide is anything more than plant food. I also think that we cannot change the impacts to tempurature that the sun, the earth's magnetic field and its shielding, and plate tectonics, affect.

    I think the whole train of thought that you've been riding on will be eventually be totally derailed.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Posting Permissions