Atlantis Online
July 16, 2019, 03:28:16 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: USA showered by a watery comet ~11,000 years ago, ending the Golden Age of man in America
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050926/mammoth_02.html
 
  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 3177 times)
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #150 on: April 07, 2007, 03:18:17 pm »

Quote
Quote from: Jason on April 02, 2007, 04:55:33 pm
Sorry, Merlin, your words say one thing, but the way you say them speaks volumes.  You do tend to see only what you want to see, else your own emotionalism wouldn't enter into the argument.

This tactic has never worked for Byron, so I'm surprised that you would even bother; unless this was an attempt at humor...

It wasn't, and I haven't even read enough of your debates with Byron to even know what you're referring to.

Quote
Attempting to adopt my position so that you can switch with me, unfortunatley, requires that you ignore that I have been consisent throughout - and you have adopted every position available for tenancy on your side of the debate.

If that is meant to elicit an emotional response from me, forget it. Consistent throughout?  You could say that.  You start out by saying that human beings are not responsible for global warming, cite the opinions of a few fellow scientists you know to back yourself up, and from there on, apparently feel you are free to insult and belittle anyone who disagrees with you.  With respect, Merlin, that is not science, that is silliness.

 
Quote
I suggest that - if you do not have a confident enough grasp of the facts or the underlying science you should stick with cutting and pasting from the internet.  Your sarcastic condescension is funny though  - don't think that humor was lost on me.

I suggest you look back on my posts.  Very little of what I have said to you has been cut and pasted (with the exception of the graph to prove my point).  As for not having a confident grasp of the facts, well, as new science arises, the facts, do, at times, change, so no, I am afraid I don't have a grasp of all the facts, nor will I ever claim to. The difference between you and me is that I will, at least, admit that, your ego will apparently will never allow you to do the same.

Only a poor scientist will ever admit to having all the facts.  The evidence, though, points to human beings being responsible for global waming, as I said, that consensus is hardly getting out of fashion, but is firming up.


Quote
Quote from: Jason on April 02, 2007, 04:55:33 pm
Point is, if you were dispassionate about it, you'd be arguing less emotionally, more scientifically.  In other words, I detect a bias on your part.

Your antics are so transparent - a little adolescent but with a hint of maturity.  You confuse your terms (using them inproperly in the context) which either means you are young or do not have as good a grasp of the language as you want us to believe.

Hardly.

  
Quote
To be passionate about something does not require one argues/debates emotionally.  One can certainly discuss a scientifically-based subject  passionately - without interjecting emotional material.

Again, if what you suggest is "emotional material" the citing of all the money Big Oil has pumped into it's propaganda campaigns, or Imhofe's usage of the word, "hoax," then you are entitled to your beliefs.  Personally, as I said, that is simply a fact and it is now part of the historical record.  It is, however, no different than your numerous attempts to cite how much money Al Gore has made by alerting people to the dangers of global warming (which is, incidentally, only a fraction of what Big Oil has made during it's last few record setting quarters).

It is, frankly, impossible to have a debate on global warming without bringing in the consequences of what will happen if we do not act. Can we have a debate as to whether CO2 or some other agent is initiating global warming?  Yes we can, but I have yet to see any credible alternate hypothesis emerge, and, as the graph shows (though the relationship between CO2 and temps is complicated), it's apparent that the two are linked. The fact that CO2 leads most of the time would seem to close the case as to what is responsible, as well as what will happen (eventually) if we do not act, based on past climate models.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2007, 03:56:15 pm by Jason » Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #151 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.
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #152 on: April 07, 2007, 05:17:48 pm »

Quote
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.

With respect, Merlin, people do not need to know your entire history nor lfie story in order to debate you. As for the scientific evidence, there has been very little new information that casts doubt on the idea that human beings aren't behind global warming.  I agree that there are some questions raised by data occasionally that need to be answered, but questions about the data do not invalidate all the trends  altogether, unless, of course, one has already developed a bias against it.   

Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 02:42:09 pm
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. 


Really, it doesn't say that?  Let's have another look:



The blue line is CO2, the red one, of course, temps. As we can see once again, CO2, for the most part, leads.

Quote
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!


There are many other factors that both raise and cool the planet, but deuterium is a red herring. As I said just because CO2 causes global warming, it isn't the only factor that causes global warming, the relationship is complicated.  You are assuming a straight line where all the weather changes of the earth are caused by simply oine thing and it doesn't work like that.

Quote
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?


That's another red herring.  As for using humor to make fun of one's self, I have yet to see you do that. Most of the humor I have seen you use is to either make fun of Al Gore or the people you or the people debating you. Personally, I don't find that either constructive of informative, but hey, if you need to do that to make a point, no one is stopping you. Don't expect me to do the same in return, whenever possible, I prefer to take the high ground.

Quote
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"?

You are welcome to post whatever you want in this thread, I assume, just as Bee, Brandon, Allison or whoever are also free to post whatever they like.  What I dont understand is why you even want to puit contraints on the other posters.  I don't see anyone advocating putting constraints on you - meaning you can have a scientitic discussion as well as discuss the movie and all the latest GW news as well.

Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 02:42:09 pm
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. 


You were the one that claimed that words like "Big Oil" and "Hoax" were meant to create a more emotional debate, so I couldn't imagine why you were "lost" when I gave you the reasons why I elaborated why they should be a part of the discussion.  I suppose that I'm lost as to why you are lost.


Quote
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?

I'm sure I used the word, "hoax," more than once here. Jerry Falwell thinks it's a hoax, too.  The term is perfectly applicable to the discussion as the idea that global warming is a "hoax," has been propagated by anyone from the likes of (at one time or another) Imhofe, Falwell, Michael Crighton, among many, many others. You suggest that my usage of the word is to elicit emotionalism into the debate. Years from now, it will be part of the historical record that people like these considered it a "hoax."

As for possible usage of the term, "neo-con" and labelling, well, people are on the other side of the debate are labelled "environmentalists."  It doesn't make sense that one side has a name, while the other side doesn't.  Your wording:

Quote
"more hysterical "Neo-Conservative conspiracy" term

Certainly seems to elicit emotionalism, though, especially that word, "hysterical."  I try and stay away from derogatory terms whenever possible.


Quote
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. 


The vast majority are conservatives, let's face facts: people are never in perfect agreement on anything.

Quote
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.


As I understand it, the reason why his utility bills are high is because he is using green energy, which costs more.  He is also getting solar panels put in his house and drives a hybrid, but that's beside the point.  This attack on Al Gore is the exact same thing that you are accusing others of doing to divert attention, except that is is made by you. 

Ultimately, if your gripes is that the science hasn't proven that humans are behind global warming, then I'm sure that will be played out and eventually become known to the public.  But the theory (gathering steam for the last thirty years) is only gaining more credence, not less.
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #153 on: April 07, 2007, 05:29:16 pm »

It wasn't, and I haven't even read enough of your debates with Byron to even know what you're referring to.

We'll have to take your word for that then.

You start out by saying that human beings are not responsible for global warming, cite the opinions of a few fellow scientists you know to back yourself up, and from there on, apparently feel you are free to insult and belittle anyone who disagrees with you.  With respect, Merlin, that is not science, that is silliness.

Wrong again.  I never said any such thing.  What I said, and have said consistently is that, "The proof for that assertion does not exist."  Keep the facts straight - it's easier to remember them that way.  I do not, nor have I insulted you or anyone else who disagrees with me.  That's just purely an emotional response to being told you aren't consistent.  I forgive your silliness.

I suggest you look back on my posts.  Very little of what I have said to you has been cut and pasted (with the exception of the graph to prove my point).  As for not having a confident grasp of the facts, well, as new science arises, the facts, do, at times, change, so no, I am afraid I don't have a grasp of all the facts, nor will I ever claim to. The difference between you and me is that I will, at least, admit that, your ego will apparently will never allow you to do the same.

Wrong again.  I have, in here and elsewhere, admitted many errors.  I make them.  The difference between us has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with experience.  The most obvious side effect to more experience (on my behalf) is that I do not engage in discussions that I do not know a hell of a lot about; take note of the few threads I do participate in.  In this case, I participate in two formal scientific/academic forums - both of which are the primary reason for why I am completely up-to-date on the latest information.  They are also the reason why I was able to read the IPCC report long before it was issued and how I know that the models, simulations and predictions are all incorrect.  This is also how I know that the retrodictions invalidate the theory.  I'm here to learn and educate, and I think you have the potential to be a good debater Jason, but for the time being, you shouldn't leap to conclusions without first packing a chute.

As for looking back at your posts - you should re-read what I said.  I did not accuse you of anything specific.  Go ahead - re-read it without a preconceived notion and take a look at all of the posts that surround yours and mine.

Only a poor scientist will ever admit to having all the facts.  

And I suppose that this is your left-handed way of accusing me of acting as such?  I'm sure there is a famous saying in there somewhere - but I think you missed it.

The evidence, though, points to human beings being responsible for global waming, as I said, that consensus is hardly getting out of fashion, but is firming up.

The evidence that is being spoon-fed to the public certainly does.  But you are mistaken to think that there are more scientists moving toward it than away...  This goes back to the discussion earlier - you aren't seeing what you don't want to see.

It is, however, no different than your numerous attempts to cite how much money Al Gore has made by alerting people to the dangers of global warming (which is, incidentally, only a fraction of what Big Oil has made during it's last few record setting quarters).

Excuse me??  Do you have me confused with someone else?  My attempts to credit Al with making a profit are as offered - credit where credit is due.  Do not portray my motives as your own - I do not see demons in every dark alley and I do not have a boogeyman under my bed.  Not everything is a conspiracy to defraud or slander.  As you say, "it's a matter of public record" - Al has profitted from this process and I'd pat him on the back if he were here - not rub his nose in it.

It is, frankly, impossible to have a debate on global warming without bringing in the consequences of what will happen if we do not act.

I agree that the results of inaction in any discussion are a point of contention, however, I disagree that they are paramount to a disussion.  Quite frankly, this thread has been mostly a lot of rhetoric about the consequences - not the evidence; that's what makes it an emotional (vs. scientific) discussion. 

Can we have a debate as to whether CO2 or some other agent is initiating global warming?  Yes we can, but I have yet to see any credible alternate hypothesis emerge, and, as the graph shows (though the relationship between CO2 and temps is complicated), it's apparent that the two are linked.

You do realize that the charts run in reverse don't you?  They run left to right, and the temperature fluctations noticeably precede CO2.  Furthermore, recent work has tended to show that deglaciation CO2 increases lags temperature increases by about 600 years.  This and other observations of the surface and subsurface activity during the creation of the samples conceals much of the information we hope to get from them.  I suggest that you spend some time looking at the information contained in the following links:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html
http://serc.carleton.edu/usingdata/datasheets/Vostok_IceCore.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5517/662?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=the+evolution+of+climate+over+the+last++&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

The information at most of these sites is very detailed and requires patient determination to get through.  You will not find a "smoking gun" in bold print, highlighted and flashing neon; you'll need to read and comprehend.  If you look at the information critically, and assume an unbiased approach, you'll see that the precision is really quite weak.  Most of the information given also admits that the system of trapping the airbubbles in the ice is really not understood well at all.  Surface and subsurface interactions are a serious wild-card and deglaciation events (watch the temp. swings) confound much of the oxygen, carbon, methane and nitrogen readings.  It also goes on to say that the temperature derivations are "best guesses" based on prediction model that the temperature 'would have followed' CO2.  Like it or not - that's circular logic at worst - an assumption at best.  You can choose to trust my experience of not - it doesn't matter to me, but I've been 'here' before and I recognize all of the same signs as when I was 'here' last.  Much of this science is based on assumption and it only takes 1 or 2 to be wrong for the whole thing to be turned on its ear; hence why I reserve judgement in the absence of irrefutable evidence for a mechanism or active model.

The fact that CO2 leads most of the time would seem to close the case as to what is responsible, as well as what will happen (eventually) if we do not act, based on past climate models.

Actually it doesn't, but I covered that above.  Even if it did, it would still be anecdotal evidence that could, at best, be a clue - not evidence. 

All-in-all, you admit that you do not understand a bit of this and you further acknowledge just how complicated this is.  That's a good start.  For the heck of it, let's assume that temps. did follow CO2 - what next?  Why did the carbon increase in the past?  Why does methane not follow either carbon or temp?  Why does deuterium seem to precede carbon and follow temp.?  And then there's nitrogen...  It does its own thing altogether - like elemental formaldehyde absorption of ozone. 

As I have said a number of times - if we plug all of these (and many more) variables in our computer models, it shows temperature being artificially controlled (unknown heating), leading the process with methane slowly ramping up, carbon following linearly (but lagging a bit) until saturation points are achieved.  At that point we have historic level increases in nitrogen and formaldehyde.  Ozone is the next to collapse and then absorption grows again.  We wind up with graphs quite similar to the graph you posted.  On the other hand, if we artificially kick start the process by "mysteriously" increasing carbon (replicating mankind's influence) we have to achieve levels of carbon a hundred times higher than current levels in order to net a temp increase of 1oC.  Unfortunately, carbon levels a hundred times higher than today would change our entire existence.  This model also predicts that the world's oceans would have dissipated that heat immediately.  Like I said - the models don't work.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2007, 05:33:48 pm by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #154 on: April 07, 2007, 06:35:11 pm »

With respect, Merlin, people do not need to know your entire history nor lfie story in order to debate you. As for the scientific evidence, there has been very little new information that casts doubt on the idea that human beings aren't behind global warming.  I agree that there are some questions raised by data occasionally that need to be answered, but questions about the data do not invalidate all the trends  altogether, unless, of course, one has already developed a bias against it. 

You made the claim - I answered.  If you kept up with the discussion you would have understood the answer.    

Really, it doesn't say that?  Let's have another look:

Nope, it still doesn't.  Keep trying.

There are many other factors that both raise and cool the planet, but deuterium is a red herring. As I said just because CO2 causes global warming, it isn't the only factor that causes global warming, the relationship is complicated.  You are assuming a straight line where all the weather changes of the earth are caused by simply oine thing and it doesn't work like that.

There you go again...  I'm assuming nothing and I acutually do understand the complexity...  Apparently you don't see the significance of deuterium - it was a test to see if you would bother researching or just dismiss it out-of-hand.  You've made my point; thanks. 

That's another red herring.  As for using humor to make fun of one's self, I have yet to see you do that. Most of the humor I have seen you use is to either make fun of Al Gore or the people you or the people debating you. Personally, I don't find that either constructive of informative, but hey, if you need to do that to make a point, no one is stopping you. Don't expect me to do the same in return, whenever possible, I prefer to take the high ground.

You do know what a "Red Herring" means - don't you?  Well - let's assume that you do.  You are insinuating that I am inserting evidence or commentary to refute or switch the discussion.  Since I remained on topic both times, we can eliminate the "direction change" - leaving only the "refutation".  So, all we need to do is go back through the thread and find out where I used humor to make fun of AL or other people and compare it with the many times I have used humor for other reasons...  Like - to make people laugh, even at my own expense.  I'll let you handle that part, I already know the answer.  Here's a hint:  I know that I'm my own worst critic.    Grin

You are welcome to post whatever you want in this thread, I assume, just as Bee, Brandon, Allison or whoever are also free to post whatever they like.  What I dont understand is why you even want to puit contraints on the other posters.  I don't see anyone advocating putting constraints on you - meaning you can have a scientitic discussion as well as discuss the movie and all the latest GW news as well.

You too have a future in politics - you avoided answering that question completely.  You even went so far as to try and cast dispersions about my motives!  Transparent - but well done.  That now make three of you who are unwilling to demonstrate your GW/GCC knowledge and understanding in a format that is limited to only knowledge the poster possesses and not their ability to cut & paste bone.  I'm speaking figuratively of course, since you provide only scientific data and have only cut & pasted a graph or two.  I was actually thinking that you might be the one to take me up on the offer.  C'est la vie.

You were the one that claimed that words like "Big Oil" and "Hoax" were meant to create a more emotional debate, so I couldn't imagine why you were "lost" when I gave you the reasons why I elaborated why they should be a part of the discussion.  I suppose that I'm lost as to why you are lost.

No you aren't, now your just being evasive and argumentative. 

I'm sure I used the word, "hoax," more than once here. Jerry Falwell thinks it's a hoax, too.  The term is perfectly applicable to the discussion as the idea that global warming is a "hoax," has been propagated by anyone from the likes of (at one time or another) Imhofe, Falwell, Michael Crighton, among many, many others. You suggest that my usage of the word is to elicit emotionalism into the debate. Years from now, it will be part of the historical record that people like these considered it a "hoax."

And wouldn't it be a hoot if the newspapers read, "Though not a 'Hoax' as the skeptics of the 21st claimed, the gradual warming of the Earth due to gravitational and magnetosphere variations appears to be finally coming to an end."

As for possible usage of the term, "neo-con" and labelling, well, people are on the other side of the debate are labelled "environmentalists."  It doesn't make sense that one side has a name, while the other side doesn't.

I disagree - I am labelled an environmentalist by everyone who knows me or encounters me riding my bike to work in the rain & snow, filling my Rabbit-diesel up with McD's french-fry grease or carrying my lunch in a paper sack with that big goofy green symbol on the side.  Besides - "Neo-con" has nothing to do with the GW/GCC debate - it's a political term in its own right.

Your wording:

{snip}

Certainly seems to elicit emotionalism, though, especially that word, "hysterical."  I try and stay away from derogatory terms whenever possible.

Funny - it was you who used it first (we just had this discussion).  I was using it as a means of tipping my hat to you.   Wink

The vast majority are conservatives, let's face facts: people are never in perfect agreement on anything.

Much better - I'll agree with that.

As I understand it, the reason why his utility bills are high is because he is using green energy, which costs more.  He is also getting solar panels put in his house and drives a hybrid, but that's beside the point.  This attack on Al Gore is the exact same thing that you are accusing others of doing to divert attention, except that is is made by you. 

Huh  I didn't say anything about how much he pays - I commented on how much he consumed.  If he were using the National average of 10-11,000 annual Kw and paying through the nose for it, I would pat him on the butt and tell him, "Good job buddy - way to live the life."  But here are the real facts:  221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006.  More than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.  They have a 20 room mansion, and they both work out of their house - that's their excuse.  Then they begin talking about "footprints"...

Look, it isn't my intention to beat up on the guy for livin' large, I was just saying that he brought it on himself by doing so and preaching otherwise.  Once he puts up solar power cells and replaces every incandecent bulb w/ a compact flourescent one, he'll be about halfway to what my family has been doing for years.  I'd like to see him on a bike, using recycled materials more, driving less, flying less and supporting more local 'renewable source' strategies.  Until his REAL USAGE, not his arbitrary "carbon footprint" becomes "neutral", the critics will hound him.

Ultimately, if your gripes is that the science hasn't proven that humans are behind global warming, then I'm sure that will be played out and eventually become known to the public.  But the theory (gathering steam for the last thirty years) is only gaining more credence, not less.

It's gaining more popularity - not evidence, and I don't care what the public comes to believe.  Popularization is the archenemy to truth in most cases.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #155 on: April 08, 2007, 02:08:15 am »

Quote
You made the claim - I answered.  If you kept up with the discussion you would have understood the answer. 
   

The answer being, while you claim to have once been a believer in global warming,  now you are not, which makes clear that you have a bias. Nothing hard to understand about that.

Quote
There you go again...  I'm assuming nothing and I acutually do understand the complexity...

That's what you say, and yet I see no proof of that.

Quote
Apparently you don't see the significance of deuterium

Because there isn't any.  I have read a lot of global warming papers and not one has cited it as a major factor.

Quote
- it was a test to see if you would bother researching or just dismiss it out-of-hand.  You've made my point; thanks.
 

Actually, I did research it.  Had I found something of value, I would have added something to the discussion about it.  You have, yourself, several times, dismissed my point about the complex relationship between CO2 and temps, though, once again, proving that you are not objective.  In your own verbiage, thanks for proving my point, thanks. 

Quote
You do know what a "Red Herring" means - don't you?  Well - let's assume that you do.  You are insinuating that I am inserting evidence or commentary to refute or switch the discussion.  Since I remained on topic both times, we can eliminate the "direction change" - leaving only the "refutation".

Actually, you are trying to switch the discussion, Merlin.  When you aren't bringing up things that don't even remotely apply (Flat Earth Theory, for instance), you are bringing things up that science is not supporting as a factor (deuterium).  Then, when none of that works, you either attempt to insult the person you are debating or talk down to them, all weak tactics.

Quote
So, all we need to do is go back through the thread and find out where I used humor to make fun of AL or other people and compare it with the many times I have used humor for other reasons...  Like - to make people laugh, even at my own expense.


Very little of that, very much joking at Gore's expense, though, as I remember.


Quote
Quote from: Jason on April 07, 2007, 05:17:48 pm
You are welcome to post whatever you want in this thread, I assume, just as Bee, Brandon, Allison or whoever are also free to post whatever they like.  What I dont understand is why you even want to puit contraints on the other posters.  I don't see anyone advocating putting constraints on you - meaning you can have a scientitic discussion as well as discuss the movie and all the latest GW news as well.

You too have a future in politics - you avoided answering that question completely.  You even went so far as to try and cast dispersions about my motives!  Transparent - but well done.  That now make three of you who are unwilling to demonstrate your GW/GCC knowledge and understanding in a format that is limited to only knowledge the poster possesses and not their ability to cut & paste bone.


Again, you want to set new parameters for the debate, seemingly excluding graphs, global warming news, reports, and opinion while you (wanting to retain your ability to make jokes), would no doubt continue to make light of Gore and the people you are debating to your heart's content.  You are actually the one being transparent here, Merlin.  If you want to bring up some scientific points here, Merlin, by all means, go ahead, no one is stopping you.  You certainly didn't have that type of discussion in the other forum, so I don't know why you are so insistent upon only having it here.

As for the rest of us demonstrating global warming knowledge, by that I imagine you mean, be supportive of your view of the data.  If that happens to be your criteria, than I imagine you will, of course, be disappointed, irregardless.

Quote
Quote from: Jason on April 07, 2007, 05:17:48 pm
You were the one that claimed that words like "Big Oil" and "Hoax" were meant to create a more emotional debate, so I couldn't imagine why you were "lost" when I gave you the reasons why I elaborated why they should be a part of the discussion.  I suppose that I'm lost as to why you are lost.

No you aren't, now your just being evasive and argumentative. 


Hardly, I thought I gave a pretty fair explanation.

Quote
And wouldn't it be a hoot if the newspapers read, "Though not a 'Hoax' as the skeptics of the 21st claimed, the gradual warming of the Earth due to gravitational and magnetosphere variations appears to be finally coming to an end."

Yes, especially as neither has even been cited as a cause.

I'm going to skip the Gore stuff cause I frankly think it's silly to keep debating his electric bills.

Quote
Quote from: Jason on April 07, 2007, 05:17:48 pm
Ultimately, if your gripes is that the science hasn't proven that humans are behind global warming, then I'm sure that will be played out and eventually become known to the public.  But the theory (gathering steam for the last thirty years) is only gaining more credence, not less.

It's gaining more popularity - not evidence, and I don't care what the public comes to believe.  Popularization is the archenemy to truth in most cases.
 
 

It's gaining more popularity because of the movie.  The recent scientific data has only enhanced the central theory.  The data would be even more dire were it not constantly being edited by bureaucrats.






Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #156 on: April 08, 2007, 02:55:17 am »

Quote
Wrong again.  I never said any such thing.  What I said, and have said consistently is that, "The proof for that assertion does not exist."  Keep the facts straight - it's easier to remember them that way.  I do not, nor have I insulted you or anyone else who disagrees with me.  That's just purely an emotional response to being told you aren't consistent.  I forgive your silliness.

You crack me up, Merlin. I imagine that, to you, "silliness, " is not an insult, too?  The hypocrisy is so shameless here that one can cut it with a knife.

The proof certainly exists that the world is warming up.  Here is another graph that shows the CO2/temperature Vosktok Ice core correlation (CO2, again, being the part in blue):



You mentioned four other time periods where CO2 lagged, it did not follow,  All that proved was that CO2 was not the instigator of those warming trends. Warming trends take about 5000 years to complete.  As I said, there is a lag time when it comes to CO2, and even though it may not have been the instigator, it certainly did function as an amplifier to the warming taking place, most likey being responsible for 5/6 of even those warming trends. As I said, the relationship between CO2 and temps is complex.

Quote
Wrong again.  I have, in here and elsewhere, admitted many errors.  I make them.  The difference between us has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with experience.  The most obvious side effect to more experience (on my behalf) is that I do not engage in discussions that I do not know a hell of a lot about; take note of the few threads I do participate in.


If you are suggesting that I am not acquainted with this subject, you are entitled to your opinion (mistaken though it is). From the way it looks to me, you are simply of the opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with your own point of view doesn't know what they are talking about which is, you'll excuse me, a completely self-centered, narcissistic point of view.

And you can have it, too. The day I have to belittle someone's intelligence during a debate is the day I will know I am in the wrong. 


Quote
In this case, I participate in two formal scientific/academic forums - both of which are the primary reason for why I am completely up-to-date on the latest information.  They are also the reason why I was able to read the IPCC report long before it was issued and how I know that the models, simulations and predictions are all incorrect.  This is also how I know that the retrodictions invalidate the theory. 


We only have your word that they are incorrect.  Since you have made clear that you have a certain bias on the subject, I am not even certain we can trust your interpretation of the data.  In any event, if the case for global warming were getting weaker, we would actually be seeing hints of that with each new report being released.  It's not there, if anything, the predictions are getting more dire. The lack of scientific disagreement in the press (for, at least the last ten years now) speaks volumes. 

Quote
The evidence that is being spoon-fed to the public certainly does.  But you are mistaken to think that there are more scientists moving toward it than away...  This goes back to the discussion earlier - you aren't seeing what you don't want to see.

There isn't any evidence of that either. 

Quote
All-in-all, you admit that you do not understand a bit of this and you further acknowledge just how complicated this is.  That's a good start. 


And I never said that either, I said the relationship between CO2 and temps is complicated, I have always said that, at the old forum and at this one.  Again, you seem to think that climate works only in a linear progression, with either one factor affectiing temps and only one, and that is simply not the case.  I'm really getting a bit tired of explaining this.

Quote
On the other hand, if we artificially kick start the process by "mysteriously" increasing carbon (replicating mankind's influence) we have to achieve levels of carbon a hundred times higher than current levels in order to net a temp increase of 1oC.  Unfortunately, carbon levels a hundred times higher than today would change our entire existence.  This model also predicts that the world's oceans would have dissipated that heat immediately.  Like I said - the models don't work.

Yes, they do work, the oceans have risen in degrees (causing coral reef to be dying off), you keep ignoring the lag time, you're using only a small sampling of years.  Believe what you want, though, it's apparently a free country. If you believe there are errors in the new data and that scientists are lining up to follow the skeptic position, my advice would be to stop talking about it and make yourselves known to the press. You are certainly not doing any good talking among yourselves.
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #157 on: April 08, 2007, 03:00:15 am »

Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #158 on: April 08, 2007, 03:01:17 am »

Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #159 on: April 08, 2007, 03:02:15 am »

Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #160 on: April 08, 2007, 03:03:12 am »

Report Spam   Logged
Metatron
Full Member
***
Posts: 2


« Reply #161 on: April 08, 2007, 10:58:37 am »

Politics Waters Down IPCC Climate Disaster Report

Written by: Elaine McKewon



Some scientists who helped produce the latest report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have said that the science was watered down to appease government representatives involved in approving the final draft of the report.

 

Even in its softened version, Friday’s report forecasts scenarios over the coming decades that many find unthinkable: three billion people without adequate water supply, agriculture and forests decimated around the globe, melted glaciers and ice sheets, one-third of the world’s species driven to extinction and major global regions ravaged by floods, violent storms and storm surges. The report also forecasts an unprecedented environmental refugee crisis as major populations get displaced. 

The report confirmed that the hardest-hit nations will be poor developing countries who lack the resources to adapt to climate change, not the industrialized economies who have produced the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions that led to the crisis. Poor regions within wealthy countries may also be left more vulnerable to climate change. The future of New Orleans, which was nearly destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, may well depend upon federal assistance to construct Category 5 levees and restore the marshlands along Louisiana’s southern coastline.

Owing to the gravity of the findings, and the urgent need for governments to take action, some scientists have found the political mitigation unacceptable.

“The science got hijacked by the political bureaucrats at the late stage of the game,” said John Walsh, professor of climate change and chief scientist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ International Arctic Research Center, who co-authored the report’s chapter on polar regions and vowed never to help produce another IPCC report.

The IPCC reports are consensus documents written by the world’s leading climate scientists, yet every effort is made to convince governments around the world to adopt the reports prior to their release. This political reconciliation process has resulted in a softening of some of the scientific findings as drafts are finalized.

Yet other scientists argue that the right balance was struck between science and politics, and that getting governments on-side before the document’s release bolsters the ability of the report to get policy makers to take action to combat climate change. 

Joel Smith, former deputy of the US Environmental Protection Agency told the PBS NewsHour, “The report is actually adopted by the governments that participated in this meeting line by line. So they get to work with us on the science. So they can’t just simply say, ‘It is a report of the scientists,’ and walk away from it. They have bought into it.”

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, agreed with Mr Smith that the political process led to a more effective result. He also emphasized that scientists retained the right of veto.

“It's informative,” said Professor Oppenheimer on NewsHour. “It lays out for governments, what are the vulnerabilities? Where are there going to be changes that they have to get prepared to be ready to adapt to? Where are there changes to society, like in agriculture or health, that are so threatening, that they ought to cut emissions in order to avoid those sorts of changes?”

In May, the next report of the IPCC will recommend policies and economic measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

While the scientific community is all but universally united behind the IPCC consensus, there will almost certainly be further political wrangling before the recommendations are implemented in some countries, including the United States. 

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and now its ranking Republican, told Fox News, “The IPCC process more closely resembles a Democrat or Republican Party convention platform battle over the specific wording of an issue plank, not a scientific process.” He added, “the latest IPCC summary will surely spawn another round of media alarmism and hype.” Senator Inhofe once famously labeled climate change “the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”.

Yet the new head of the environment committee, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), hit back: “This powerful report confirms the very real dangers that global warming poses for us all.” Senator Boxer has held six hearings on climate change since taking over the helm in January and has now invited the Bush administration to respond to last week’s US Supreme Court decision that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. It is not yet clear how the Bush administration will respond.

The Bush administration, which has been accused of routinely censoring climate change reports produced by US government scientists, has so far maintained that it will not cap greenhouse gas emissions and will not participate in the Kyoto Protocol. President Bush walked away from the protocol in 2001, saying that it would “wreck” the US economy and was unfair because it did not impose stringent enough controls on developing countries.

Meanwhile, the House Science and Technology Committee will also hold a hearing on April 17 to review the IPCC’s findings. Committee chair Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) said the report packed a “powerful and sobering message” and that governments need to act now to reduce the vulnerability of their most at-risk communities.

“For the first time, the world’s top scientists are able to confidently attribute changes in a wide variety of ecosystems in all parts of the world to human-induced global warming,” said Mr Gordon in a statement. “We can neutralize some of the impact by better adapting our society to these changes. We should identify our vulnerable communities and begin working to reduce these vulnerabilities.”




I think someone predicted that this was going to happen, even in the face of global support for the theory, they still decided to "edit its content".  I think we scientists should get to walk into the UN and begin throwing out all of the meaningless laws from the rulings just like how they throw all of the science out of the decisions.  Bastards...

Report Spam   Logged
Metatron
Full Member
***
Posts: 2


« Reply #162 on: April 08, 2007, 12:43:45 pm »

Guys,

I don't the patience of Brooke or the resolve of Merl, so I'm just going to pick and choose what I feel like commenting on.  Jason, most of your last replies make you look like an angry teenager and it's you who is acting the fool.  You should listen (read) more and make an attempt to understand something very important:  An issue this complex can not be taught to you by the press.  They don't understand it any better than you, so how can they teach you anything other than the emotional (hysterical) viewpoint?  That aspect is the only thing the press can share since the science is too boring to translate into a news story.  By default, the media will never have correct information available.  Contributors like Tom, Brooke, Zaphod, I Am and Merl are very good about stripping the problem down to its core, exposing the hype and making it easy to understand.  You should pay more attention to that.  My political science professor used to reiterate that,  "Hysteria and hype are clothing, so getting to the truth is like making love - you have to get her (him) naked first."

First and foremost, I think it's obvious that Merl's trying to explain the complexity of the process to you without rubbing your noses in the obviousness of some of it.  Since I really don't care, I'll go right ahead and do it.

Deuterium concentrations in the ice core samples are no more a Red Herring than temperature variations are, and to say that they are means that you have absolutely no grasp in the process or a desire to look at it.  And, to say that 'I did research it and found nothing' is either BS or means that you misspelled something.  Just Googling deuterium in vostok ice core returns 19,100 hits, the first of which explains why it is important to understand.  You are lucky, I would have made it harder on you by asking you to explain the significance of all the measurements of deuterium concentrations, oxygen isotope compositions, isotopic composition of O2 and N2, N20 levels and isotopic composition, sodium ion concentrations, CO2 and methane levels, and 14C concentrations.  Deuterium or 2H is different from regular hydrogen in that it has picked up a neutron.  It occurs naturally as 2H2 or D2, but it also is a side-effect to another process that causes it to bond to oxygen and create heavy water D2O.  That's what he was probably trying to draw your attention to.  Once you understand why it happens you'll get an idea of why the measurements and graphs don't say what you think they say.  Simple chemistry that can be explained at Wikipedia if you like. 

You also missed the part where he pointed out the lag in measurement.  The graph you keep showing does not represent the lag (or the precision problem), but the text he included (and the links) explain it very well.  I think it's obvious that neither of you are interested in questioning the data so I don't see why you don't just come right out and say it.  Instead, you make jokes, pick at him and tell him he's all messed up.  Your tactics really do look juvenile to those of us who have a basic grasp of chemistry and didn't mind reading the information he referenced.  You should try looking at the data for once.  At the very least it will make you a better informed supporter.

I don't share his level of skepticism but I do think the data is more questionable than the experts would have us believe.  I think man may be to blame for aspects of global warming, but I don't know if we are to blame.  The issues with the evidence makes me nervous, but not enough to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Report Spam   Logged
Proteus
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 107



« Reply #163 on: April 08, 2007, 03:04:18 pm »

Same old Merl, each time he begins losing an argument (and, coincidentally, his "poise" as well), he begins to call out the old ball and chain (Meta) for back-up.  I imagine, if things begin to get really heated, we shall be seeing "Shep" here as well.

Quote
Guys,

I don't the patience of Brooke or the resolve of Merl, so I'm just going to pick and choose what I feel like commenting on.  Jason, most of your last replies make you look like an angry teenager and it's you who is acting the fool.


Says who, yourself?  Being Merl's wife, Meta, that doesn't actually make you the most impartial observer now, does it?  Anyone who has read any of this can see that the young man has always been calm, even respectful at times, whereas, Merl has consistently played the part of an ass. Must be pleasant being outclassed by a college student.


Quote
First and foremost, I think it's obvious that Merl's trying to explain the complexity of the process to you without rubbing your noses in the obviousness of some of it.  Since I really don't care, I'll go right ahead and do it.

To explain the complexity of the process, one has to have a grasp of it first and, near as I can tell anyway, this is simply another line of his bull (i.e., "I've decided the theories behind global warming has no merit, therefore everyone else should come to that conclusion as well").  Neither of you has actually managed to rub anyone's nose in anything, you are forever rescuing one another, though, it seems.

Quote
You are lucky, I would have made it harder on you by asking you to explain the significance of all the measurements of deuterium concentrations, oxygen isotope compositions, isotopic composition of O2 and N2, N20 levels and isotopic composition, sodium ion concentrations, CO2 and methane levels, and 14C concentrations. 

And that has exactly what to do with any of this, Meta (or is is Merl this time)? Even if deuterium is a contributor to the effect of global warming, CO2 and methane are still considered to be the overall causes. Of course, other elements effect climate, the reason greenhouse gases get the most blame is because they trap heat in the atmosphere and warm the earth.  The more greenhouse gases are trapped, the more the earth is warmed. Strip away all the other factors people factor into this - solar variations, lag times, even storms  and that is still what you have.  It has been proven time and again over time, and it is proving itself again right now.


Quote
I think it's obvious that neither of you are interested in questioning the data so I don't see why you don't just come right out and say it.
 

You mean, it's obvious that none of them share his skepticsm.  Why doesn't Merl just come right out and admit it, he's a global warming skeptic?

Quote
Instead, you make jokes, pick at him and tell him he's all messed up.


Except that if you read back over the last page, hubbie Merl is the one making all the jokes and telling people they are all messed up, Meta.  The college students look more mature than he does!

Quote
Your tactics really do look juvenile to those of us who have a basic grasp of chemistry and didn't mind reading the information he referenced.

Juvenile?  Excuse me, isn't he the one insulting people and calling in his wife for back-up?  How juvenile is that?

Quote
You should try looking at the data for once.  At the very least it will make you a better informed supporter.

You don't know that any of us have or have not looked at the data, and you don't even know if any of us have seen more data than either of you.  Glad to hear that you are not quite the global warming skeptic that he has become, Meta, perhaps, in that case, you would also like to debate Merl..?
Report Spam   Logged
Majeston
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 447



WWW
« Reply #164 on: April 08, 2007, 04:32:18 pm »

Same old Proteus.


Really friend,  what is it with you? 


The only time you enter any conversation is to begin a fight or join in one.


You never add anything worthwhile to the conversation,  you simply like to fight and argue.


Why not bring something tangible to the conversation instead of something about who

might or might not be related to Merlin?  IIRC  Merlin has already stated that Metatron

was not his wife.  Even if she was what has that to do with anything?

Quote
You don't know that any of us have or have not looked at the data, and you don't even know if any of us have seen more data than either of you.

Proteus instead of using such a silly ploy just produce your data and research.  It seems likely that you have none and more likely

just an off the cuff opinion and a personal agenda of dislike for Merlin that has carried over for several years now.  It's a common

tactic of an inadaquate inferior to always attempt to try to destroy that and whom he fears or that which is superior

to him.

The process of GW and it's causes are quite complex and it is very obvious that no-one really knows what degree man's

contribution really has on it.   Climatic changes on a global scale OTOH have been proven to occur in varying cycles

and degrees since the planet formed and will most likely continue until the planet ends.   Theorizing who or who

is not Merlin's wife will have very little impact on GW.  These are the tools and techniques of someone who has

nothing better to do than strap on a suicide belt and blow himself up in the local university because he has  nothing

better to offer.


No need to reply to this Proteus,  I'm not here to join this discussion or continue this silly game of tit-for-tat. 



.

Report Spam   Logged

"melody has power a whole world to transform."
Forever, music will remain the universal language of men, angels, and spirits.
Harmony is the speech of Havona.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper44.html
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 | Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy