|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 10:36:59 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Perhaps many people subscribe to Al Gores position and websites that disagree with him bring him up in order to bring up counter arguments to his position. There is nothing wrong with doing this.
I know better. They discredit him personally, sometimes without directly addressing his arguments at all.
quote:
Even if some do, that doesn't mean all conservative sites do.
The ones that do are guilty of ad hominem: a fallacious form of argument.
quote:
There is also nothing wrong with mentioning that Al Gore does not have a relevant degree in the field if this is true.
There is when they don't apply the same standard to the critics of global warming. Most of them aren't experts, either.
quote:
No, I am asking you to be fair to the conservative position. What you said was, "Conservative websites disagree with Al Gore; therefore, they need not deal with the scientific merits of global warming. Instead they seek only to discredit Al Gore." and I am telling you that it is not fair to make such stereotypes.
And I told you that I am not fair and impartial. I don't see very many other fair and impartial GW critics on this thread, either. Why single me out?
quote:
Just because someone presents an argument does not mean the argument is correct. Asserting the correctness of ones arguments in the manner you did (ie: with this "you're wrong because I'm right" attitude) does not make for good argumentation.
I didn't think you could admit it, and once again I was right.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 11:04:30 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
And if you are so intellectually dishonest as to not be able to realize that an engineer who is schooled in the sciences and most often by necessity is quite adept at reading scientific papers and studies and INTERPRETTING DATA is more apt to have a better understanding of global warming studies and data than would your average Joe then you are not at all concerned with the truth, only in being right.
I am not "intellectually dishonest" just because I can effectively counter your arguments. I personally believe that being right never requires an apology.
Engineers are not automatically qualified experts on global warming strictly on the basis of their engineering degree; not anymore than any other degree in unrelated fields such as medicine, microbiology, computer programming, etc. You can see that, can't you? Is that really such an outrageous concept?
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
To the degree possible I am doing what I can to be environmentally responsible (although I'm sure that some of my practices would be viewed askance!!)
Now I will answer: I do not make my personal choices based on my concern over global warming. Whether I pick paper or plastic, recycle, or refuse to drive environmentally unfriendly hybrid cars will not fix the problem.
That isn't to say that my choices don't matter. I'm just saying that the choices I would like aren't really out there. For instance, I would buy products that managed to bypass connection with deforestation, just like I buy personal products that don't test on animals. I would like bottled water companies to find a less wasteful alternative to packaging their product. I would gladly shift to alternate forms of energy if the dang oil and utility companies would quit squashing the viable alternatives.
But until such choices become available, nothing will really happen to impact the current trend-- not even if I become a hermit in a cave.
You know who has the right idea?: subcultures like the Amish. They manage to function far less dependent on modern conveniences and environmentally unfriendly practices. They are also very community-oriented. If a sizable percentage of the population adopted their methods and lifestyle, then we would see some long-range impact.
quote:
I apologize for using the term "scream" when referencing your comments. As for my use of CAPS.....not all that often but I do bold face a lot....it's done for emphasis
You also employ the chorus line of exclamation marks. But that's okay.
quote:
As for Al as I stated before when you have a history of lying then why should anyone believe what you say now?
Do what I did: don't take his word for it. Research it for yourself with an open mind.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 11:19:25 AM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 769
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
Um, no, jjp,
You are ignoring the fact that Al Gore got his information from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - you and others plain out ignore this - that is the problem.
And then he EMBELLISHES to feed his own agenda and to fatten his pockets by selling carbon credits.
quote:
Now, I posted links from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - ALL of whom and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us, and that humans play a part. THIS is a consensus. If you deny this - I will be forced to repost them.
I am getting the feeling that you, and others know this - and you don't care to address it because you are in denial.
The overstating of the facts is the problem. No one is denying that global warming happens, no one is denying that global warming does have a small part that is man made, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS however on the severity or even if it is bad and when we post data showing otherwise you will dig to find that Exxon the evil destroyer of the world put .5%of funding into the group so the data is irrelevant and you will not address that data. You also refuse to address the FACT that this type of global warming has happened in the past and ignore the fact that the past 150ish years of "warming" happened as we came out of the end of an ICE AGE. The facts do point to warming but it is neither greater than nor is it at a faster rate than what has happened in the history of the earth and that is of the utmost importance since there are some (not saying you) that want to destroy our quality of life in the name of stopping what is most probably a natural cycle.
quote:
Of course, I can't do anything about a person's refusal to acknowledge that our government and governments from ALL over the WORLD, and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us and that humans play a part in this.
global warming is happening and humans do play a part and the vast majority of studies i have seen rightly state that the anthropogenic part is a small part of the overall forcing cycle.
quote:
PS Here's a hint: if you bring up Al Gore, I will bring up the links from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - ALL of whom and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us, and that humans play a part. Because, Al Gore is saying the SAME exact thing as links from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - ALL of whom and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us, and that humans play a part. Understand?
HOW MANY ways do i have to say that yess the earth warmed as it left an ICE AGE and yes anthropogenic gases does play a part. However Al Gore consistently overstates the case and manufactures dangers that AREN'T there, that is the problem. If Al Gore bothered to stick to facts, like the FACT that in the decades since the doomsdayers called GW to our attention we have seen the horrendous rise of 0.6 degrees celcius when they predicted much worse. Or how about the fact that there IS NO CORRECT MEAN TEMPERATURE for the Earth to be.
_jjp_,
Hmmmm....you must not have bothered to look at the links that I posted, then - because they conflict with what you are saying:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is 90 percent certain that human-generated greenhouse gases account for most of the global rise in temperatures over the past half-century..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101484.html
"Recent Climate Change
Related Links
CCSP
Product 1.3 - Re-analyses of historical climate data for key atmospheric features. Implications for attribution of causes of observed change
Product 3.3 - Climate Extremes: Analysis of the Observed Changes and Variations and Prospects for the Future
Since the Industrial Revolution (around 1750), human activities have substantially added to the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels and biomass (living matter such as vegetation) has also resulted in emissions of aerosols that absorb and emit heat, and reflect light..."
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentcc.html
"An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet..."
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
"According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and other hot extremes will increase."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q11
"A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.
...
Agreement on global warming
Delegates from more than 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to draft the agreement that became known as the Kyoto Protocol. That agreement calls for decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases.: ..."
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
Notice that these are ALL quotes from OUR government and their scientists, AND the INTERNATIONAL IPCC - and notice how the EPA states that there was "An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. " and that "Since the Industrial Revolution (around 1750), human activities have substantially added to the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
Notice how the NOAA quotes the IPCC, "the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and other hot extremes will increase."
Notice when NASA states: "Causes of global warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming."
And, you complain about suppression? What about when our government suppresses scientists?!:
"NASA and Global Warming
Aired: Friday, February 03, 2006 10-11AM ET
By host Tom Ashbrook:
The lead story on page one of the New York Times last Sunday read: top NASA climate scientist says the Bush administration is trying to stop him from speaking out on global warming.
The scientist is James E. Hansen - NASA's number one climate watcher, who says he's been muzzled on a dire threat facing the planet. ..."
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/02/20060203_a_main.asp
"The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html
Or how about the FACT that 18 states (you know, over a THIRD of the country) is sueing the EPA because they think our country should be doing MORE to thwart human-caused global-warming:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Eighteen states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday for failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks, one year after the Supreme Court ruled that the agency had the power to do so
The suit seeks EPA's response to the high court's April 2, 2007, ruling, a landmark decision seen as a sharp defeat for the Bush administration's policy on climate change.
While acknowledging the reality of human-caused global warming, the administration has opposed across-the-board limits on carbon emissions that make the problem worse...."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN0233569420080402
So, no, _jjp_, the links I provide from GOVERNMENTAL scientists from OUR country and INTERNATIONAL countries say that humans play a significant part in global warming; that it already has caused an increased or 1 - 1.7 degrees F; that it will increase the global temperature dramatically in the future (best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100); NASA's chief climatalogist has come forward stating the Bush Admin tried to prevent him from speaking out on human-caused global warming; 18/50 states are suing the EPA to do more about human-caused global warming...please DO let me know if you need to see more, as there is PLENTY more where these come from.
Again, I posted this directly from the governmental sources and they all back what Al Gore is saying. Again, if you refuse to see this, it is either because you are so biased that you are in denial, or you simply refuse to read the links - and I canot do anything about this - it's your problem, certainly not mine.
Peace and God bless,
BTW, here's a little more info on what Exon-Mobile does:
"Specifically, the UCS report shows that between 1998 and 2005, Exxon-Mobil funneled
close to $16 million to a network of 43 ideological and advocacy groups that seek to
manufacture uncertainty about the strong scientific consensus on global warming. These
groups promote spokespeople who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings or
cherry-pick facts in an attempt to mislead the media and public into thinking there is
vigorous debate in the mainstream scientific community about climate change. Among
the ExxonMobil-funded groups are established conservative and anti-regulation think
tanks and organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute. There are also a
myriad of smaller, lesser known groups, including the Heartland Institute ($560,000), the
Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy ($763,500), and Frontiers of Freedom
($1,000,200)...."
http://gop.science.house.gov/hearings/oversight07/March%2028/McCarthy.pdf
< Message edited by Lizahana -- 5/11/2008 11:29:41 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 1:02:10 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 769
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
I wish someone would comment about products I and others find useful being taken off the shelf, because of the green thing. Is this fair in your opinion?
lightshineon,
I am not sure about the products you speak of - can you post a list of them? Did they, by chance, pull them off the shelves because the chemicals can be harmful to kids? I mean, can't you research this yourself via the internet? I don't mean to be mean or disrespectful in any way, but, it's pretty easy to research this type of thing on the internet.
Peace and God bless,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 4:49:55 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 79
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
And if you are so intellectually dishonest as to not be able to realize that an engineer who is schooled in the sciences and most often by necessity is quite adept at reading scientific papers and studies and INTERPRETTING DATA is more apt to have a better understanding of global warming studies and data than would your average Joe then you are not at all concerned with the truth, only in being right.
I am not "intellectually dishonest" just because I can effectively counter your arguments. I personally believe that being right never requires an apology.
Engineers are not automatically qualified experts on global warming strictly on the basis of their engineering degree; not anymore than any other degree in unrelated fields such as medicine, microbiology, computer programming, etc. You can see that, can't you? Is that really such an outrageous concept?
Once again you are arguing against a point i didn't even make and refusing to acknowledge what i actually said. I never said that engineers were experts on global warming but i did lay out FACTS that show how an engineer is more well equipped to understand the studies and data presented in a global warming study and be able to make their own decisions based on the RAW DATA and not the press releases. You keep setting up straw men, you have launched your own adhominems, and drug your red herrings all over the thread and you flaunt that your position is the the only right one but if your position is so strong then why must you take off on these tangents of falacious arguements to make your point. Why do you refuse to address what we actually say instead of resorting to these tactics? Can you deny that one who is trained in thermodynamics and fluids would be more able to decipher the data from a thermodynamic study of the climate?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 4:55:28 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 79
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
Hmmmm....you must not have bothered to look at the links that I posted, then - because they conflict with what you are saying:
I have read as many actual data studies as i can on the subject and I refuse to be drug in by the "statistics" in the press releasesquote:
"A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.
I thought there was a consensus not just majority rule
quote:
"An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. "
So what you are telling me is that with direct measurement they give us numbers with a range that is 70% of the low number yet i am supposed to go live in a cave based off of models created by these people who can't decide the meaning of their direct measurements to with in 70%?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 5:41:42 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 769
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
Hmmmm....you must not have bothered to look at the links that I posted, then - because they conflict with what you are saying:
quote:
I have read as many actual data studies as i can on the subject and I refuse to be drug in by the "statistics" in the press releases
Anyone can PLAINLY see that I posted DIRECTLY from the EPA, NOAA, NASA, IPCC - these are straight from their mouths, not 'press releases'. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
quote:
"A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.
quote:
I thought there was a consensus not just majority rule
Here's the word of day:
con·sen·sus Audio Help /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-sen-suhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -sus·es. 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus
quote:
"An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. "
quote:
So what you are telling me is that with direct measurement they give us numbers with a range that is 70% of the low number yet i am supposed to go live in a cave based off of models created by these people who can't decide the meaning of their direct measurements to with in 70%?
"An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. " - means that this already happened - hence the use of the 'ed' at the end of occur (you know, english simple past tense verb).
What the NOAA and IPCC are saying is:
""According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and other hot extremes will increase."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q11
And no one is asking you to live in a cave - all the IPCC, UN, EPA, NOAA, NASA, 18/50 state governments in America, at least 113 countries around the globe want to do is work together for a common good for once by trying your best to: reduce the amount of gas you use, recycle, reuse the best you can and put pressure on governments to comply with stricter air regulations (as in how 18/50 US state governments are suing the EPA to comply with the stricter air regulations on pollutants that exacerbate global warming).
Again, I don't see the big deal - my grandparents recycled during the wars with no questions asked. And most importantly, in Genesis 2:15, God commands us to be good stewards of His creation: "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."
Peace and God bless,
< Message edited by Lizahana -- 5/11/2008 5:48:13 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 5:42:29 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 79
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
NASA's data showing a cyclical nature to the climate.
quote:
The U.S. mean temperature has now reached a level comparable to that of the 1930s, while the global temperature is now far above the levels earlier in the century. The successive periods of global warming (1900-1940), cooling (1940-1965), and warming (1965-2000) in the 20th century show distinctive patterns of temperature change suggestive of roles for both climate forcings and dynamical variability. The U.S. was warm in 2000 but cooler than the warmest years in the 1930s and 1990s. Global temperature was moderately high in 2000 despite a lingering La Niña in the Pacific Ocean.
< Message edited by _jjp_ -- 5/11/2008 5:53:42 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 5:50:20 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 769
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
NASA's data showing a cyclical nature to the climate.
quote:
The U.S. mean temperature has now reached a level comparable to that of the 1930s, while the global temperature is now far above the levels earlier in the century. The successive periods of global warming (1900-1940), cooling (1940-1965), and warming (1965-2000) in the 20th century show distinctive patterns of temperature change suggestive of roles for both climate forcings and dynamical variability. The U.S. was warm in 2000 but cooler than the warmest years in the 1930s and 1990s. Global temperature was moderately high in 2000 despite a lingering La Niña in the Pacific Ocean.
1998-2005
And?
From the same abstract:
"Over the full century, warming is remarkably widespread and rather uniform. As shown in Plate 7, the
warming is about 0.4°C in the tropics, 0.6°C at middle latitudes, and 0.5°C on global average for the 100 years. In
the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, the warming is about twice as large in the cool season as in the warm season."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
Gotta run - be back later ;)
Peace and God bless,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 5:59:25 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 79
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
Again, I don't see the big deal - my grandparents recycled during the wars with no questions asked. And most importantly, in Genesis 2:15, God commands us to be good stewards of His creation: "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."
Peace and God bless,
OK first off you didn't address that the range of warming that they are telling us DID happen has a variance of 70% In my business if I gave a 70% uncertainty I would be fired without a second thought. If they can't even give a number from their measured data that is more accurate than that then i find it hard to swallow their "models".
secondly, I have never argued against recycling or conserving, I argue for it so i am not sure why you continue to attempt to bludgeon me into submission. I drive 30 minutes to find a place to recycle my newspapers, I assisted in forming an agreeable way to recycle all documents in my last job without sacrificing security when before they didn't recycle any since they feared information leakage even in shredded paper. I do my best to conserve and to help others to conserve, I just don't need to be scared into doing so and as a person who does conserve I wanted to support the original push to conserve by the big names until they jumped on the bandwagon of Global warming when I can read the data myself and understand that the current warming is neither anomalous in its severity nor its rate. I am free thinking enough to know that claiming the past 153 years warming is significant without acknowledging the overall cyclical nature of the thousands of years past or acknowledging that the time period trotted out most often started at the end of a minor ice age is out right dishonesty.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 6:04:27 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 79
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
NASA's data showing a cyclical nature to the climate.
quote:
The U.S. mean temperature has now reached a level comparable to that of the 1930s, while the global temperature is now far above the levels earlier in the century. The successive periods of global warming (1900-1940), cooling (1940-1965), and warming (1965-2000) in the 20th century show distinctive patterns of temperature change suggestive of roles for both climate forcings and dynamical variability. The U.S. was warm in 2000 but cooler than the warmest years in the 1930s and 1990s. Global temperature was moderately high in 2000 despite a lingering La Niña in the Pacific Ocean.
1998-2005
And?
From the same abstract:
"Over the full century, warming is remarkably widespread and rather uniform. As shown in Plate 7, the
warming is about 0.4°C in the tropics, 0.6°C at middle latitudes, and 0.5°C on global average for the 100 years. In
the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, the warming is about twice as large in the cool season as in the warm season."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
Gotta run - be back later ;)
Peace and God bless,
Wait the last time you gave me warming "data" you told me it was 1 - 1.7 degrees, Which is it? And you don't seem to get it that the 1930s were nearly as warm as today and if anthropogenic greenhouse gases (which have a long dwell time) are to blame then there shouldn't have been a 25 year cooling period in the middle and the 30's shouldn't have been anywhere near as warm as 2005. That points to a cyclical climate which is exactly what we see occuring over the history of the earth from the vostock ice core data.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 6:26:54 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1295
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
NASA's data showing a cyclical nature to the climate.
quote:
The U.S. mean temperature has now reached a level comparable to that of the 1930s, while the global temperature is now far above the levels earlier in the century. The successive periods of global warming (1900-1940), cooling (1940-1965), and warming (1965-2000) in the 20th century show distinctive patterns of temperature change suggestive of roles for both climate forcings and dynamical variability. The U.S. was warm in 2000 but cooler than the warmest years in the 1930s and 1990s. Global temperature was moderately high in 2000 despite a lingering La Niña in the Pacific Ocean.
1998-2005
And?
From the same abstract:
"Over the full century, warming is remarkably widespread and rather uniform. As shown in Plate 7, the
warming is about 0.4°C in the tropics, 0.6°C at middle latitudes, and 0.5°C on global average for the 100 years. In
the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, the warming is about twice as large in the cool season as in the warm season."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
Gotta run - be back later ;)
Peace and God bless,
Wait the last time you gave me warming "data" you told me it was 1 - 1.7 degrees, Which is it?
The figures in post #284 used the Farenheit scale. 1 - 1.7 degrees F is equivelant to 0.56 - 0.94 degrees C.
-Dan.
_____________________________
It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 6:37:01 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
You keep setting up straw men
Such as, . . . what?
quote:
you have launched your own adhominems
Against whom?
quote:
and drug your red herrings all over the thread
Such as . . . what?
quote:
and you flaunt that your position is the the only right one
Prove me wrong if you think you can.
quote:
but if your position is so strong then why must you take off on these tangents of falacious arguements to make your point
Examples?
quote:
Can you deny that one who is trained in thermodynamics and fluids would be more able to decipher the data from a thermodynamic study of the climate?
I deny that a particular engineer is automatically more able to "decipher" the data, just on the basis of their degree.
I already state this, didn't I?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 7:16:24 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 79
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
You keep setting up straw men
Such as, . . . what?
Straw man- setting up a misrepresentation of anothers arguement
You know like when i make a fact based comment about the training of engineers and you, instead of addressing what i said, trot out the least scientific aspects of Engineering and use that to show how right you are.
quote:
quote:
you have launched your own adhominems
Against whom?
You mean like how you called into question the ability of engineers to understand global warming instead of addressing the specific points made?
quote:
quote:
and you flaunt that your position is the the only right one
Prove me wrong if you think you can.
We provided evidence that the current trends are a part of the overall cyclical nature of the climate and instead of addressing that you simply told us how only the past 153 years matter and how you are right and that is that.
quote:
quote:
Can you deny that one who is trained in thermodynamics and fluids would be more able to decipher the data from a thermodynamic study of the climate?
I deny that a particular engineer is automatically more able to "decipher" the data, just on the basis of their degree.
I already state this, didn't I?
Once again you are failing to answer the question i asked but i will address your answer anyway. Yes an engineer is more able to decipher the data than is the average person by virtue of the fact that they have been trained in the sciences which climatology is based on. Engineers not just by degree but by necessity of their jobs are called upon to decipher raw scientific data which (yes this is a shocker) makes them more able to decipher scientific data.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 7:36:13 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
You know like when i make a fact based comment about the training of engineers and you, instead of addressing what i said, trot out the least scientific aspects of Engineering and use that to show how right you are.
I am showing you that engineers are not better experts on issues outside of their field.
quote:
You mean like how you called into question the ability of engineers to understand global warming instead of addressing the specific points made?
No, ad hominem is discrediting an individual's character instead of their arguments. I have not done this.
quote:
We provided evidence that the current trends are a part of the overall cyclical nature of the climate
The "evidence" is almost consistently misinterpreted by those citing it.
Gotta run . . .
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/11/2008 7:41:30 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 79
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
I am showing you that engineers are not better experts on issues outside of their field.
And again you do it. I have never said they are experts outside their field. You still haven't answered the actual question i asked.
quote:
No, ad hominem is discrediting an individual's character instead of their arguments. I have not done this. ad hominems are not just in attacking the character but any characteristic or belief of the person
quote:
The "evidence" is almost consistently misinterpreted by those citing it.
Then address it with something other than and i quote " I am right, period"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/12/2008 9:14:48 AM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3323
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear Liz, how are you today? I thank you for reply, though, my intent was not to ask for reaserch, I know why stores have pulled some cleaning products and a paint cleaner ( spray version off of the shelf) . It is the enviroment, going green, IMHO PC, and panic. One product I named was Goof-OFF, a cleaning solevent used infrequently, but necessary if a paint spills ( work alot with kids arts and crafts). Wal-mart stopped carrying it, along with oil based paints ( Big cans for household painting) because not enviromental friendly  I can co to Home Depot, and buy Goof OFF in a can, very concentrated, pour out of can version. Children, and chemicaly sensistive people cannot be around it at all. I wear gloves and mask, with both spray and concentrate ( concentrate much stronger fumes) and room has to be well ventilated, and child or people free. This product, though smelly is so necessary for carpet, table paint spills, gum on floor. I am strange the product, smells good to me but burns brain cells, kind of like spray paint. There are other mild forms of cleaning solvents I use, stores have been taken off of shelves. I like to clean my home, and it slightly bothers me I cannot be pro-choice in this matter. So my intent with my Comment/question, was not about people reaserching this situation for me, but asking what people thought of this dictator like action, and if anyone else noticed these products being pulled, or products they use, like and are forced because of PC, and Global warming not to have access to now. Blessing Liz, Light
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
I wish someone would comment about products I and others find useful being taken off the shelf, because of the green thing. Is this fair in your opinion?
lightshineon,
I am not sure about the products you speak of - can you post a list of them? Did they, by chance, pull them off the shelves because the chemicals can be harmful to kids? I mean, can't you research this yourself via the internet? I don't mean to be mean or disrespectful in any way, but, it's pretty easy to research this type of thing on the internet.
Peace and God bless,
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/12/2008 9:40:44 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
You still haven't answered the actual question i asked.
I did. Apparently you didn't understand.
quote:
ad hominems are not just in attacking the character but any characteristic or belief of the person
I never attacked the characteristics or beliefs of engineers.
quote:
Then address it with something other than and i quote " I am right, period"
I have. Apparently you missed it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/12/2008 9:57:20 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: timf
The problem is even further complicated in that we have no historical idea of how much the radiation from the sun varies.
Not true. We do have an idea of the variations in sun radiation, even historically. Impreciseness does not equal "no idea."
quote:
We are also at a loss to measure how much received energy and generated energy reradiates back into space each day as long wave radiation.
Does this matter? What matters is what stays.
quote:
The act of humans adding directly to thermal energy by burning coal and oil does contribute thermal energy to the surface.
The point is gaseous emissions that affect the atmosphere, not thermal generation of the earth's surface. The sun ultimately warms the earth.
quote:
We also do not know if thermal energy increases clouds and reflects back solar energy such that we might even have global cooling.
This is one proposed long-range effect of global warming. It does not negate global warming.
quote:
The idea that warming is caused by carbon in the atmosphere is not very scientific.
True. It's attributed to carbon dioxide, not straight carbon.
quote:
The people who do not believe in God are the ones who see a hostile universe and feel that we need a god.
People who do not believe in God tend to not see a need for God, either.
But God is irrelevant to the empirical evidence supporting global warming.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 5/12/2008 10:17:55 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/12/2008 10:15:22 AM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 381
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
Might as well save your breath, _jjp_. He (1dblthnk02) won't listen to common sense. He apparently drank the global warming Kool Aid, along with lots of other socialist concoctions.
-Dave
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
You keep setting up straw men
Such as, . . . what?
Straw man- setting up a misrepresentation of anothers arguement
You know like when i make a fact based comment about the training of engineers and you, instead of addressing what i said, trot out the least scientific aspects of Engineering and use that to show how right you are.
quote:
quote:
you have launched your own adhominems
Against whom?
You mean like how you called in | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
does either side think being abrupt is going to win converts? A little help from the Dale Carnagie course " How To Win Friends, and Influence people" Could maybe help us on CE. 
