Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 06:57:56 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Scientists Confirm Historic Massive Flood in Climate Change
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060228/
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

An Inconvenient Truth

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Inconvenient Truth  (Read 6787 times)
0 Members and 51 Guests are viewing this topic.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #150 on: April 07, 2007, 04:04:10 pm »

With respect, Merlin, you re not the person to lecture anyone on that.  An objective mind (as you claim to be) would arrive at the topic with no preconceived notions for or against global warming. You have clearly made your mind up against it, and no matter what information comes out, there apparently is no changing it.

Wrong - try something new...  Try reading.  I was in support of it, then I changed my mind.  Beyond that - even in this forum I have been asked:  "What would change your mind?"  I have answered specifically, consistently and honestly.  If you choose to ignore that, then the problem is yours - not mine.  Evidence, logic and the proper application of the scientific method is all it takes.

It depends on what sort of holes you are poking. The ones you have been poking in it (four times in the past where you claim CO2 followed, rather than led temps) is not a hole, it is an anomaly. As you can see by the chart, most of the time, it is the other way around - CO2 leading, which is where the earth is at now.

Wrong - that chart does not show that.  It is a macroscopic sampling that has an error rate larger than its precision.  The four times I am referring to are not anomolies - they are trends, and they are not included (per se specifically) on that chart.  Those four periods are mined from other, more precise, data sets consisting of dendochronological and ice core samples (including other Vostok cores).  Are you aware that there is very much more that leads and lags the temperature and Co2  emissions?  How about deuterium concentrations?  It's kind of eerie that the emissions seem to follow so closely to deuterium...  Like they were linked! 


I disagree, and, as I am sure you are aware of, so does the vast majority of the scientific community. 

You are allowed to do that in this country.  As for the majority - well, I don't mind being in a smaller, more friendly environment where the masses are moving away; it's cozy here - and quiet.

Very difficult to have a scientific discussion if you can't at least have some graphs or cite some of the original research of scientists.  Why make an exception for humor, so apparently exceptions can be made to needle those who don't share the same beliefs?  That sounds a little immature.

Who cares how it sounds to you?  Are you really so miserable that humor cannot be allowed into a debate; particularly when it is most often applied to make fun of one's self when we make mistakes?  You don't strike me as such, but your exclusion of humor appears foreign to me.  And why should I post graphs & data in the Inconvenient Truth Thread?  We're debating the validity of a popularizing documentary about a highly complex scientific issue written by a former V.P. that's a lawyer.  If this were a real - scientific thread, seeking to actually accomplish something I would be a man-possessed with graphics, charts and data galore.  That's exactly what I was suggesting, but so far, two of the biggest GW/GCC fans have not taken the bait.  I can only surmise that it is because you do not feel comfortable with having to have a science-based discussion where cuts & pastes are disallowed and you cannot reference news sources or blogs.  That takes away 90+% of the postings in this thread, leaving only the ones discussing the procedural issues, logic and the personal opinions (most of which would be removed at an academic site).  I wonder.... Will you be the one to "take me to task"?

Hardly.  Big oil has been very much responsible for putting a lot of the propaganda out there, I have yet to see you acknowledge that fact.

I probably didn't make myself clear enough when I said:  "I refer only to REAL SCIENTISTS who are not under the influence of the oil industry."  Otherwise, I have not acknowledged it specifically because it matters nought to me - I'm not associated with them and I don't know anyone who is.  If it makes you feel better though, I'll say the words:  The Oil Industry and the current Administration have played fast and loose with the facts - just like Al Gore did, but for their own [opposite] agenda.  That agenda would be to refute the idea that GW or GCC are happening at all; of which I have never subscribed to.

As for the usage of the word, "hoax," I'm assuming that is in reference to James Inhofe, the Senator who has blocked the Senate from taking measures on global warming for the last six years, who happens to believe it to be a hoax.  Both are a point of fact, and bringing up either is simply citing the reasons for the controversy (at least in the media) and why new regulations haven't been passed in Congress.  I find it a bit comical that either point would be one of contention, when apparently conservatives have been reduced to attacking Al Gore's lifestyle (though many of his proponents happen to be very rich themselves).

I'm lost here...  You are claiming facts in evidence for something we aren't discussing.  You are off on a tangent and I cannot tell why, so allow me to drop some bread crumbs so that you may find your way back. 

Anyway - You have used the term "hoax" more than once (to be sure), however, the most recent one had nothing to do with Inhofe.  I think I made my opinion of him and his actions clear.  I'm certain that I made my thoughts on his "case" known as well.  Now, as for the use of the offending term - allow me to refresh your memory:

Quote from:  YOU
Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:05:04 am
I don't see any emotionally driven scientists involved with this, save for the ones on the skeptic side. Think of it, most have presented literally nothing to back up their assertions (except, of course, the propaganda fed to them by the oil companies), but are so certain that global warming is a "hoax."

I do notice that you are introducing another "emotional term" into the discussion while arguing against doing so with the term "hoax" or "Big Oil".  It is "conservative".  I'm surprised that you didn't revert to the more hysterical "Neo-Conservative conspiracy" term, but I credit you for noticing that that would have only highlighted my point.  Why bother trying to label things?  Why not just let the chips fall where they may?

Since you brought it up - are you certain that it is only conservatives who think GW / GCC is a "hoax" that are critical of Gore's personal life?  You should check your facts.  Beyond that, Al brought it on himself by preaching that we should all do our very best, while living in a pallacial estate that consumes huge sums of energy - all while proclaiming to be "carbon neutral".  It's a joke - a farce and a gag to accept that.  But, keep in mind, I'm the one who credited him in the other thread (AL GORE - Oscar Award Winner) for converting his stance into gold.  I even took my hat off to him. 

Unlikely, I have simply not seen the growing skepticsm, nor any scientific reason for it other than people do not want to believe they are responsible.

Exactly as I stated.  You couldn't have made my point any more clearly for me.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy