Page 11 of 111 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131415162161 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 2209
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    The question which is being addressed here is: "Is there a significant chance that man-made activities contribute to global warming?"

    The answer to that question based on these studies is "yes, there is"

    Lets say you do not absolutely know for sure, but there is a significant chance you are going to drive off a cliff further down the highway. If you could, would you want to do something to decrease that risk just in case it happens?
    Well, obiously I would do something in that scenario, since not doing so would cause me great harm, if not death.

    Whether or not I choose to believe in man made global warming will not cause me immediate harm or death. Nor might it cause future generations harm or death.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  2. #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    The question which is being addressed here is: "Is there a significant chance that man-made activities contribute to global warming?"

    The answer to that question based on these studies is "yes, there is"

    Lets say you do not absolutely know for sure, but there is a significant chance you are going to drive off a cliff further down the highway. If you could, would you want to do something to decrease that risk just in case it happens?
    Agreed..... I said the same thing in post #130 in this thread.
  3. #203  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Whether or not I choose to believe in man made global warming will not cause me immediate harm or death. Nor might it cause future generations harm or death.
    So regardless of the cause, it sounds like you are convinced that global warming is not at all harmful. Is that what you are saying?
  4. #204  
    Quote Originally Posted by Joebar
    Agreed..... I said the same thing in post #130 in this thread.
    sorry, I got in the thread late
  5. #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    So regardless of the cause, it sounds like you are convinced that global warming is not at all harmful. Is that what you are saying?
    No. I never said that at all. I have said from the beginning of this thread, I feel this is natural. Warming and cooling trends would take place regardless of our exsitence. I am not convinced man is the culprit. The fact that we occupy the planet obviously suggests that we are contibutors, but I hardly believe we are the sole problem.

    As to your question specifically. Is global warming harmful or not? This depends entirely on the extent. If a warming trend continues for the next one hundred years, I'm sure there would be consequenses. However, no one, not you, myself, Clu or the "consensus" can say with 100% certainty that we are headed for dark times. And therein lies my issue. The alarmist/extreme attitude that some people have.

    I'm sorry this a definitive yes or no answer to your question, but it is the only way I can honestly answer it.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  6. #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    See, I was right, you didn't find anything of the sort you accused me of...

    Now to your latest accusation: I did NOT say you had claimed to be "more intelligent than any scientist here".

    I DID ask, though, what made you so sure that man-made global warming does not happen. As shown many times now, most scientists in the field agree that global warming takes place. You disargee. From that follows you think you know better. I would like to know why.

    I offered the following possible reasons:

    1. You have better data
    2. You have better knowledge about the underlying climatic processes
    3. You are more intelligent and hence draw more correct conclusions from the available facts
    4. Other possibilies not mentioned so far.


    (A) most climatologists say man-made global warming is a fact
    (B) treobk214 says man-made global warming is a myth

    Why do you know better, if none of the points 1.-4. suggested above apply? My theory is you don't really know better, you just claim you know better based on nothing.
    does anyone else find clulup to be intolerably arrogant? i mean this guy is so bent on condescension its mind-boggling! wow! listen, when i post these articles, i am doing so for the purpose of presenting the other side of the argument. and just because it undermines your own beliefs, clulup, you seem hell-bent on taking this obnoxious stance with people. do you find this necessary? in my experience, when one is so much on the attack as you are,it is due to some superiority complex - fear of being proven wrong. you, my friend, seem to have it.

    The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

    Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact."

    ^^^ what is so difficult for you to understand here, clulup? ^^^

    why are you so quick to discount an article such as this?


    "The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not. "

    the article states you must consider EVERY possible factor in the equation. sure, man`s role in contributing to this problem is increasing, as he states deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels has begun to dominate the natural causes, i am not debating that, but how can you rationally discount the role of the sun in this, considering the enormous energy output produced from it?!! isnt it premature to call it entirely the fault of mankind we cant know for sure how all the factors weigh in as they relate to the overall problem?

    "He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself"

    "Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming"

    clulup, looks like it wasnt me, rather it was david bellamy who stated that a growing number of scientists believe the nightmare version of global warming is a myth.. i am simply linking articles here to provide the another point of view in this argument. how is that a problem for you? im curious.






    http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1240&id=68

    Global Warming: Nature or Nurture?
    by Kevin Van Cott

    May 24, 2003

    I'm wondering if the major media outlets reported on the following item. Maybe I just happened to miss it, but I have my doubts.

    The June issue of Scientific American highlighted some research results out of Columbia University. Recently, Professor Richard Wilson published a peer-reviewed article in the journal Geophysical Research Letters where he reported the results of his studies on the amount of solar energy that our sun has been producing over the last 24 years. During this time period, the amount of energy the sun is producing has increased by 0.05% every 10 years.

    Now that may not sound like much to anyone, but, as Prof. Wilson points out in his article, the cumulative effects of this trend could be significant. For example, if this trend had begun even earlier, say as little as about 100 years ago, it would account for a significant amount of the global warming that has become so important to both climatologists and environmentalists.

    Prof. Wilson acknowledged that the whole story is not yet known, but his discoveries have shown that the mantra that has been chanted over and over in the media about how human activities are causing global warming needs to be re-evaluated.

    It appears that the issue of global warming is a bit more complicated than those in the major media outlets and the environmentalist organizations would want us to believe. It also appears that our "fragile ecosystem" is a bit more robust than they would have us believe



    The lesson for us here is that we need to be very careful when we hear so-called experts from lobbying groups pontificate about "scientific facts." Sure, university professors are not completely impartial, but in the realm of the natural sciences, hard data cannot be disputed, and the peer review system is one of the best detectors of phony science
    Last edited by treobk214; 02/22/2005 at 06:16 PM.
  7. #207  
    http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=1642

    Summary: The campaign to stampede the federal government into drastic action to counter "global warming" has never let honesty cramp its style.

    [www.CapMag.com] The campaign to stampede the federal government into drastic action to counter "global warming" has never let honesty cramp its style. The most recent ploy has been the release of a study from the Environmental Protection Agency which concluded that human actions were responsible for rising temperatures and that government restrictions on those actions were necessary to prevent various disastrous scenarios from unfolding.

    The problem is that all this hysteria was based on a computer model which had been shown to be incompatible with factual data. Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, had already exposed the inability of that computer model to account for existing temperature changes before its release to the public was allowed to suggest that it was able to predict future temperature changes.

    This is by no means the first time that a supposedly "scientific" report turned out to be a political report wrapping itself in the mantle of science. Last year, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, garnished with the names of numerous eminent scientists, which was widely hailed in the media as proving the dangers of global warming. The problem with that particular report was that the scientists whose names were put on display had not written the report nor even seen it before it was released.

    One of those eminent scientists, MIT professor Richard S. Lindzen, publicly repudiated the conclusions of the study on which his name had been displayed. As Professor Lindzen, a meteorologist, pointed out, "the climate is always changing. Innumerable factors go into temperature changes and many of these factors, such as the changing amounts of heat put out by the sun during different eras, are beyond the control of human beings."

    The same kind of ploy was used by a United Nations report on climate in 1996. After the scientists had reviewed the report, the following sentence was added, without their knowledge -- "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." But that is not what the scientists said.

    What are all these ploys about? There are people in the environmental cult and in the media who are hell-bent to have the United States and other countries sign the Kyoto treaty that would drastically restrict how our economy works and what kind of lives the average American could lead.

    Anything that allows them to impose their superior wisdom and virtue on the rest of us gets a sympathetic hearing. Moral melodrama also has great appeal to some. As Eric Hoffer said, "Intellectuals cannot operate at room temperature
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I have said from the beginning of this thread, I feel this is natural.
    You FEEL this is natural? How? With what senses? Are you psychic?
    Warming and cooling trends would take place regardless of our exsitence.
    This is undoubtedly true. However, modern research shows that we would have slight cooling under purely natural conditions, while, due to human emission of CO2, we are faced with the greatest increase in temperature we had so far in human civilisation...

    I am not convinced man is the culprit.
    People who have dealt with this questions for decades say otherwise. How comes YOU know better in this case?
    The fact that we occupy the planet obviously suggests that we are contibutors, but I hardly believe we are the sole problem.
    It is not the fact that occupy this planet, it is the fact that we burn fuel, thus emitting CO2, that causes man-made global warming.
    As to your question specifically. Is global warming harmful or not? This depends entirely on the extent. If a warming trend continues for the next one hundred years, I'm sure there would be consequenses.
    So we agree on that. Good.
    However, no one, not you, myself, Clu or the "consensus" can say with 100% certainty that we are headed for dark times.
    So you only act when you are 100.00% sure you are headed for dark times. Hard to believe, and also unreasonable...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #209  
    And from the article you kindly provided:
    "Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming. He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase"

    "I doubt it makes sense to debate details of an isolated study. What matters is the overall picture provided in the New Scientist article quoted by Insertion (and later by me), the one you found so interesting, too"

    -clulup

    oh ok. so if i understand you here, any other isolated studies, no matter how relevant or potentially critical to solving this problem, shouldnt be considered because they dont compliment the findings premised in your new scientist article, am i correct? in other words, if they dont serve YOUR agenda, then it doesnt make sense to debate them? how is this being fair to all sides? do you claim to be psychic? do you possess a higher intelligence than those who were involved in these isolated studies which would permit you to discount their findings? what if their findings turn out to have been critical and all the while you discounted them? is that a smart move?

    clulup, how transparent can you be here? and now you jump onto this tirade querying me as to how i know better than anyone else. consider ALL the possibilities here, clulup. i thought YOU were the one who be touting the scientific method here?

    ridiculous
    Last edited by treobk214; 02/22/2005 at 06:54 PM.
  10. #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    The fact that we occupy the planet obviously suggests that we are contibutors, but I hardly believe we are the sole problem.
    I totally agree, the causes are multifactorial, man-made plus natural.

    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    As to your question specifically. Is global warming harmful or not? This depends entirely on the extent. If a warming trend continues for the next one hundred years, I'm sure there would be consequenses. However, no one, not you, myself, Clu or the "consensus" can say with 100% certainty that we are headed for dark times. And therein lies my issue. The alarmist/extreme attitude that some people have.

    I'm sorry this a definitive yes or no answer to your question, but it is the only way I can honestly answer it.
    I agree, global warming, if it progresses will have harmful effects.

    So you agree that we are contributing to the warming, and you agree that warming will be harmful if it continues, so then why not address and try to fix the causes we have control over?
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 02/22/2005 at 07:26 PM.
  11. #211  
    " totally agree, the causes are multifactorial, man-made plus natural. "

    - cellmatrix

    I think this is the best conclusion that can be reached after all the dust settles in this debate.

    we are part of the equation, but certainly not the ONLY variable.

    as it has been said before, this is multifactorial problem, . and while we must definitely take precautions in limiting the ways in which we contribute to it, we can't prematurely assume ALL the blame when there are other issues that impact the climate.
  12.    #212  
    Man is a miniscule variable as the cause. The reason not to do anything to counter man's 'share' is the cost. The cost could force factories to change or even close. Goods would be in short supply or cost prohibitive to the masses. To avert this taxpayers would have to foot the bill for something that isn't necessary. The result would be inconsequential.
  13. #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Man is a miniscule variable as the cause.
    In every search of the literature that I do, looking at the journals where the best climate science is published, such as science, nature and proceedings of the national academy of science, as well as the science consensus article published two months ago, the articles suggest that man does contribute significantly to global warming.

    I asked you previously to define some search terms that we all can use on scholar.google.com (which by the way is an excellent scientific search engine, for all of you who may be interested). Please do so, and we all can look at the most relevant and recent articles and decide if they support your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    The reason not to do anything to counter man's 'share' is the cost. The cost could force factories to change or even close. Goods would be in short supply or cost prohibitive to the masses. To avert this taxpayers would have to foot the bill for something that isn't necessary. The result would be inconsequential.
    Is there any hard evidence of economic depression in other countries as a result of adopting measures aimed at decreasing global warming?
  14. #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You FEEL this is natural? How? With what senses? Are you psychic?
    This is such a ridiculous question. Again, you're reverting to your condescending ways. Should I have said "opinion" rather than "feel"? I'm sure you know what I am talking about.
    [QUOTE=clulup]This is undoubtedly true. However, modern research shows that we would have slight cooling under purely natural conditions, while, due to human emission of CO2, we are faced with the greatest increase in temperature we had so far in human civilisation...Why are you only concerned of CO2? What about methane? Is this not the number 2 culprit? Should we eliminate cattle from the planet, since they expel methane gases each time they burp? Why are you so bent on mans contribution when you can factor other things as well?
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    People who have dealt with this questions for decades say otherwise. How comes YOU know better in this case? It is not the fact that occupy this planet, it is the fact that we burn fuel, thus emitting CO2, that causes man-made global warming.
    So we agree on that. Good. So you only act when you are 100.00% sure you are headed for dark times. Hard to believe, and also unreasonable...
    Why is this hard to believe? I never said i KNOW better. In American justice, we convict a person of crimes only when it can be proved BEYOND a reasonable doubt. I have reasonable doubt. I'm sorry if you can't accept this.

    Stop trying so hard to convince me of something I have doubts on. You act as though the balance of humanity hinges on my acceptance of your stance. It does not. I understand your point of view. I accept it. I also disagree with it. Can you not accept that? Why must your opinion be law?

    This has become absurd now. I don't mind debates, but it is apparent that you can not accept my view point. You surely need not agree with them, but why you can't come to terms that my views on this are different than yours is beyond me.
    Last edited by Insertion; 02/22/2005 at 11:45 PM.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  15. #215  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I totally agree, the causes are multifactorial, man-made plus natural.
    Thank you CM, at least someone is willing to accept an opposing view.
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    So you agree that we are contributing to the warming, and you agree that warming will be harmful if it continues, so then why not address and try to fix the causes we have control over?
    Again this is mulifaceted. However, we are doing things. Automobiles are far less pollutive now than 30 years ago. Even an H2 probably puts out less than an old Chevy Vega did. I'm sure they will become even cleaner over time. And face it, some things are not economically feasible at this time. We could eliminate the huge demand on power plants if we all switched to solar. However that is an expensive switch. More than the average family would be willing to make. Nuclear power is "clean", however you know the problems and stigma with trying to build a nuke plant anywhere in this country.

    There needs to be balance, would you not agree?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  16. #216  
    I may be late to the "What happened to Global cooling?", but see http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-05/rd/ask-discover for an answer.

    Also see http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,66651,00.html for more about Global Warming.
  17. #217  
    "stop trying so hard to convince me of something I have doubts on. You act as though the balance of humanity hinges on my acceptance of your stance. It does not. I understand your point of view. I accept it. I also disagree with it. Can you not accept that? Why must your opinion be law?

    This has become absurd now. I don't mind debates, but it is apparent that you can not accept my view point. You surely need not agree with them, but why you can't come to terms that my views on this are different than yours is beyond me."

    thankyou, insertion. its nice to know others share this observation as well. I do not think I could have said it any better. I rest my case.
  18. #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Man is a miniscule variable as the cause. The reason not to do anything to counter man's 'share' is the cost. The cost could force factories to change or even close. Goods would be in short supply or cost prohibitive to the masses. To avert this taxpayers would have to foot the bill for something that isn't necessary. The result would be inconsequential.
    I don't believe that addressing man's portion of Global Warming would hurt the economy. There might be some short term issues, but in the long run the economy would be made stronger by the production of new technologies.
  19. #219  
    "Thank you CM, at least someone is willing to accept an opposing view."

    Id like to echo this sentiment, cellmatrix. very refreshing.
  20. #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    I may be late to the "What happened to Global cooling?", but see http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-05/rd/ask-discover for an answer.

    Also see http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,66651,00.html for more about Global Warming.
    Thanx for your participation DH. My mentioning of the Global Cooling though was not to support or strike down any thoeries. Rather, as I remember reading when i was young, this was a concern, and now it is the opposite. If we accept the fact that we now know much more than we did then, (which I believe we do) is it not out of the realm of possibility that thirty years from now, future models and data will bear a different result?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."

Posting Permissions