Earth has cooled, researchers say

This forum is for non aviation related topics, political debate, random thoughts, and everything else that just doesn't seem to fit in the normal forums. ALL FORUM RULES STILL APPLY.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

the_professor
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Post by the_professor »

If I wanted to read a thesis, I'd buy a book or go to the library. I doubt I'm the only one on here who scrolls through your 4 page posts. Stop wasting your time. Many of us doubt the theory, and your 10,000 word posts aren't going to change that.

There is doubt about human-induced climate change, and thousands of scientists to support the doubt.

If you want to follow the Catholic church's model of denying reality via huge edicts, that's your problem I guess.
---------- ADS -----------
 
corporate joe
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
Location: the coast

Post by corporate joe »

the_professor wrote:If I wanted to read a thesis, I'd buy a book or go to the library. I doubt I'm the only one on here who scrolls through your 4 page posts. Stop wasting your time. Many of us doubt the theory, and your 10,000 word posts aren't going to change that.

There is doubt about human-induced climate change, and thousands of scientists to support the doubt.

If you want to follow the Catholic church's model of denying reality via huge edicts, that's your problem I guess.
Again, stating your opinions as facts. Also, to claim that there are thousands of scientists supporting the doubt is a falacy, and a fraud. It's quite the opposite. As for not reading my replies, or any studies, it's quite consistent with your reasoning and explains a lot. No wonder you still don't understand with everything that's out there. How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you admit not even acknowledging the information provided.

Reasoning purely based on invented beliefs has no room in a debate. Welcome to the flat earth society, Napoleon.


PS: a picture (just for you, because you are special), of what similar types of persons have come up with to describe the earth based on their beliefs. They to like to use their home-made science and fraudulent facts to explain what the world is really like.

[img]http://www.freewebs.com/raacoz/enclosure3[1]4.jpg[/img]
---------- ADS -----------
 
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:

1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart



John Mayer
the_professor
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Post by the_professor »

corporate joe wrote:Again, stating your opinions as facts.
What are you talking about? It is a FACT, not an opinion, that there is doubt behind climate change theories.

corporate joe wrote:How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you admit not even acknowledging the information provided.
I have heard/read a nauseating amount of information, provided by you and others, supporting climate change. I choose not to read your 115th four page post on the matter, because I've heard it all before, and hearing it for the 115th time isn't going to be the deal-maker.

Credible scientists have provided ample evidence to poke many holes in your beloved theories, whether you like it or not. And just because you don't think they're credible doesn't diminish the reality of that evidence.
---------- ADS -----------
 
corporate joe
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
Location: the coast

Post by corporate joe »

the_professor wrote:
What are you talking about? It is a FACT, not an opinion, that there is doubt behind climate change theories.

You claimed that most people on this board did not believe in global warming. Not a fact. You also claimed that thousands of scientists doubt global warming. Not a fact. Actually it's quite the opposite.

the_professor wrote: I have heard/read a nauseating amount of information, provided by you and others, supporting climate change. I choose not to read your 115th four page post on the matter, because I've heard it all before, and hearing it for the 115th time isn't going to be the deal-maker.
This is true. If you confuse your beliefs with facts, than surely you confuse actual facts with belief. If after 115 times you still claim things that have been proven wrong, what does that say about you?
the_professor wrote: Credible scientists have provided ample evidence to poke many holes in your beloved theories, whether you like it or not. And just because you don't think they're credible doesn't diminish the reality of that evidence.
There has at one point in time been some doubts. Thankfully the scientific method requires the doubts to be addressed before concensus is claimed. Most of these "doubts" have all been addressed and refuted. Where there is no doubt is: that action needs to be taken. Thanks, to the amount of overwhelming evidence, action is justified, and that's the point of this whole debate. Some people have found other effects that can affect global warming, but no one can deny or refute the current effects of our actions. That's what this is all about. Our actions and the things we CAN change.

PS: science daily has some great articles about all manner of subjects including brand new studies from other fields (from agricultural experts, to oceanologists) all confirming the same thing. This is not just about climatology anymore, all other fields of science are confirming the findings.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by corporate joe on Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:

1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart



John Mayer
2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4318
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Post by 2R »

Only one thing worse than fear mongering
Long winded fear mongering :shock:
---------- ADS -----------
 
the_professor
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Post by the_professor »

corporate joe wrote:You claimed that most people on this board did not believe in global warming. Not a fact. You also claimed that thousands of scientists doubt global warming. Not a fact. Actually it's quite the opposite.
You're the one claiming to deliver indisputable evidence on climate change, and yet you can't even accurately quote me from my last post? I said "many people", not "most people". Only makes me think that you glaze the climate change "evidence" in a similar fashion, to suit your cause. Your credibility just dropped another notch.
the_professor wrote:Many of us doubt the theory, and your 10,000 word posts aren't going to change that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
corporate joe
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
Location: the coast

Post by corporate joe »

the_professor wrote:
corporate joe wrote:You claimed that most people on this board did not believe in global warming. Not a fact. You also claimed that thousands of scientists doubt global warming. Not a fact. Actually it's quite the opposite.
You're the one claiming to deliver indisputable evidence on climate change, and yet you can't even accurately quote me from my last post? I said "many people", not "most people". Only makes me think that you glaze the climate change "evidence" in a similar fashion, to suit your cause. Your credibility just dropped another notch.
the_professor wrote:Many of us doubt the theory, and your 10,000 word posts aren't going to change that.
Whether the word is "many" or "most", it remains an opinion. Even if you bring my credibility down to zero, you still have thousands of pages of data and the world's scientitst to discredit.

If you have something to add, I invite you to PM me, because this level of interaction is below the intellect of most members here, and we should spare them this petty non-sense.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:

1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart



John Mayer
User avatar
C-GGGQ
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2051
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:33 pm

Post by C-GGGQ »

so far everyone replying to this is opposed to your theories, so i think that falls under "many people doubt global warming"
---------- ADS -----------
 
corporate joe
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
Location: the coast

Post by corporate joe »

C-GGGQ wrote:so far everyone replying to this is opposed to your theories, so i think that falls under "many people doubt global warming"
Calling this "my theories" is nothing but a gross oversimplification of reality, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of anything that has been said or written. Again you prove the point I am trying to make, that the camp of denyers is a camp filled with simplistic non scientific views and beliefs, and populated with irrational ignorance. (which is quite unfortunate for those who are skeptic but not properly informed and who truly are trying to educate themselves).

Finally, trying to quantify on the number of people agreeing or disagreing is not only impossible without a census (which makes it an opinion until proven as a fact), it is also completely useless.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:

1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart



John Mayer
User avatar
cyyz
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4150
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:05 am
Location: Toronto

Post by cyyz »

corporate joe wrote:Stop wasting, start recycling, encourage your government to stop protecting elite industries and allow for a fair market so that other greener energy sources can create jobs and stimulate the economy.
Penn and Teller did a BS episode on that.

It causes more pollution to recycle, you get a garbage truck to pick up trash another one to pick up bottles another truck to pick up composite and another one to pick up boxes.

These four trucks are all creating harmful emissions.
Then no one has a recycling plant in their city so those 4 trucks now need to drive to 4 different sites far away in butt fark no where again creating more pollution.

The recycling plant, is an incinerator/melter, that's right they melt recycling into rolls, so those plants give off pollution.

The only thing worth recycling is aluminum as it is a non-renewable resource.

Trees(paper) comes from tree farms, by recycling, tree farms go out of business no new trees are planted, so by recycling you're actually creating a shortage on TREES. That's right the things that give us clean air stop being planted because you're recycling....

Nuclear Plants, again, they'd need 100 to power North America for 1000 years. The tree huggers don't want nuclear plants, so we have coal generators, guess what, coal generators are BAD.

Not Penn and Teller, but just an "opinion" but if all of North America stopped it's consumption of fuels, guess what, our 400 million people pale in comparison to China who will have 1 billion cars sucking up gas and polluting, they're economy is so strong because of their industry, so if we shut down every factory, Canada still wouldn't meet it's Kyoto promise, but apart from that you'd have China and India burning away.

When the doctor tells you you need to....
So maybe instead of jumping on that "lets go green " band wagon, we should actually become a better economical force, produce some friggin funds for proper scientists to figure out a way to reverse all our woes with technology, rockets, gasses, whatever, but not on stupid studies...

Cause when the doctor tells you something, he doesn't tell you to stop, he tells you oh we'll need to give you these pills for this problem and that problem, operate for this and that, not give me a study....

Find a cure and a real solution not a study...

China and india will continue to pollute negating every little effort(in reducing) we make so how about we build up our own economies so we can afford a cure, build bio-domes, rockets, gasses, moving the earth or what have you. To END/Eliminate the problem...
---------- ADS -----------
 
corporate joe
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
Location: the coast

Post by corporate joe »

It's about a lot more than recycling. But I don't have the courage to even start tackling this issue of what can be done and what should be done, because that is a far more complicated issue. If something as simple as getting some people to understand that global warming is real is this complicated, there is no way I even dare discussing the next steps.

Scientists ARE looking for alternatives and solutions to the problem. This is not just about observation. Obsvervation is the first step and that step is complete. Afterwards, what we need to do is to stop making it worst by pumping more CO2 in the atmosphere, and to remove the monopoly the fuel industry has on this world's economy (so may argue the monopoly extends beyond economics and trickles down into politics), so our "free market" can become free again, that way alternative sources of energy and solutions can actually have a chance of becoming competitive before being killed in the womb.

However, so much energy is wasted on proving the fact because mainly of the resistance of a select few industries and some individuals who end up hurting our economy as a whole. It is a little known fact that the millions of dollars of funding the oil industry put forth to try and prove that global warming was not real, played a big role in the amount of research done, and finally in the amount of data scientists have to back up their claims, because of all the funding the oil industry pumped into the research trying to disprove it. Today, even they don't deny it anymore.

I have said it once and I'll say it again, the first step is to stop denying.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:

1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart



John Mayer
the_professor
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Post by the_professor »

corporate joe wrote:Again you prove the point I am trying to make, that the camp of denyers is a camp filled with simplistic non scientific views and beliefs, and populated with irrational ignorance. (which is quite unfortunate for those who are skeptic but not properly informed and who truly are trying to educate themselves).
The camp of those who do not believe the theory (I will not do an injustice to the Holocaust victims and survivors by using your pathetic "denyers" term, which was previously used almost exclusively with regard to that tragedy) include reputable climatologists like Tim Ball and a host of other climate scientists.

They have legitimate data that refutes and/or contradicts the paranoia being spread by those cited by Gore, and people like you. These people are not armchair Internet quarterbacks or crackpots. They have decades of experience in their field, and certainly have a much better understanding of the evidence that you or I ever will.

Don't waste your time trying to discredit Ball and others in your follow-up post. I won't buy it, and nor will anyone else who has legitimate doubts about this. It is a free country, and we're not all required to share your opinion.

Find something else to type a 10,000 word essay about.
---------- ADS -----------
 
corporate joe
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
Location: the coast

Post by corporate joe »

Ah yes Tim Ball. He's well known in the scientific circles. Actually he's ridiculed.

"Ball's particular niche is the argument that since 1940, the world's climate has actually been cooling. The conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reached by over 2,000 climate scientists, that the world is heating up is wrong, he says, because it used "distorted records."

Undistorted records in hand, Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research ($225,000 from Exxon Mobil), and Tech Central Station (which also receives support from General Motors). He's a hot topic on the Coalblog web site, sponsored by the coal companies. "

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02 ... alWarming/


His "studies" are ancient and have been completely disproven many times. Actually to be more accurate he has never done any studies, he is only quoting out of date ones.

So, for every one "scientist" claiming global warming is a doubt there are 2000 contradicting him. The are also scientists claiming the earth is flat, but they are an isolated minority. Just as there are shady scientists that claim global warming is still a doubt, and just as they are an isolated minority. Yet the overwhelming and crushing majority holding all the most recent data and evidence is all on the side of global warming. So, what's the rational argument for ignoring thousands of scientists and their up to date studies, but believing a small shady minority who's arguments have all been proven wrong.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:

1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart



John Mayer
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Post by Hedley »

So, you're saying the truth can always be derived using the majority votes of scientists?

Using your own example, years ago all the scientists believed that the earth was flat. Using your logic of majority votes, the earth really was flat.

Hold it. The earth really isn't flat. Something's wrong with your reasoning.
---------- ADS -----------
 
corporate joe
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
Location: the coast

Post by corporate joe »

Hedley wrote:So, you're saying the truth can always be derived using the majority votes of scientists?

Using your own example, years ago all the scientists believed that the earth was flat. Using your logic of majority votes, the earth really was flat.

Hold it. The earth really isn't flat. Something's wrong with your reasoning.
No Hedley that's not my reasoning. We need to act, yet we will never have a complete and utter unanimous decision. So what do we do? Stand there and let the boat sink?

In the past, it was "belief" that made the majority think the earth was flat, not data or research. This is not an accurate comparison. The science was wrong once argument can not apply mainly because there wasn't such a methodology at the time but mostly because this is the first time in man's history that such an extensive research is done, that so much data is gathered. Do you prevent yourself from getting inside a plane, because a plane in the past has crashed? If we used that logic in science we could never discover anything new ever again, because all someone would have to say is: you were wrong before, maybe you are wrong again. If all it takes for someone to deny any findings is one scientist claiming doubt, we'd never get anywhere and get anything done. Think of it as a house of commons where one vote cancels any actions.

The majority argument serves a purpose in this case for those who can not and will not read the evidence per say to draw their own conclusions. The overwhelming majority serves to show how irrational and dangerous is it to not act. There are probably still doctors out there who claim smoking is not dangerous. Yet, we use the majority argument in that case to allow those of us who are not doctors to know who to believe.

So, on one side there is a ton of empirical data and research and on the other there is almost nothing. Who should the non-scientist believe?

Also, remember this is critical because of the consequences of being wrong. With the amount of evidence gathered, it's a stupid risk to take, there is no other way around it.

It pretty much boils down to this:

Option A) keeping going on this path, while our air gets dirtier, our rivers become polluted and RISK screwing up our species and our climate, all while allowing a few select industries to get richer (at the expense of others)

Option B) change our heading, clean up our act, our environment and our lives, and allow alternative technologies to rise and stimulate our economy, all while maintaining a balance between city comfort and woods comfort (by that I mean having the amenities in cities, while having the option to have a clean enough river to go fishing on the weekend).

Seriously, why is it such a big deal?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:

1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart



John Mayer
the_professor
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Post by the_professor »

corporate joe wrote:"Ball's particular niche is the argument that since 1940, the world's climate has actually been cooling. The conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reached by over 2,000 climate scientists, that the world is heating up is wrong, he says, because it used "distorted records."

Undistorted records in hand, Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research ($225,000 from Exxon Mobil), and Tech Central Station (which also receives support from General Motors). He's a hot topic on the Coalblog web site, sponsored by the coal companies. "
<yawn>

If Ball is part of a giant oil company conspiracy, as you suggest every time I bring up his name, then David Suzuki is part of a giant Greenpeace conspiracy. That organization is replete with communists and anarchists and G-8 haters, and would like nothing more than to see all industry wiped off the face of the earth.

So there. My guy is a puppet for the oil companies, and your guy is a puppet for the communists. Why does that make your "evidence" any more credible than that presented by the scientists I mention?
---------- ADS -----------
 
corporate joe
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
Location: the coast

Post by corporate joe »

the_professor wrote:
corporate joe wrote:"Ball's particular niche is the argument that since 1940, the world's climate has actually been cooling. The conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reached by over 2,000 climate scientists, that the world is heating up is wrong, he says, because it used "distorted records."

Undistorted records in hand, Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research ($225,000 from Exxon Mobil), and Tech Central Station (which also receives support from General Motors). He's a hot topic on the Coalblog web site, sponsored by the coal companies. "
<yawn>

If Ball is part of a giant oil company conspiracy, as you suggest every time I bring up his name, then David Suzuki is part of a giant Greenpeace conspiracy. That organization is replete with communists and anarchists and G-8 haters, and would like nothing more than to see all industry wiped off the face of the earth.

So there. My guy is a puppet for the oil companies, and your guy is a puppet for the communists. Why does that make your "evidence" any more credible than that presented by the scientists I mention?
Well, let's see. The fact the Ball is on an island isolated with proof of funding (no conspiracies, just funding).

Suzuki (where did he come from?) and all of the other scientists are on the continent.

So, one guy claiming one thing, all whilst being incapable of disproving anything that constitutes the science of global warming, and on the other hand thousands of guys with data and facts to back up their claims.

Is that a good enough reason?

PS : greenpeace communist conspiracy? Napoleon at his best!
---------- ADS -----------
 
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:

1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart



John Mayer
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Post by Rockie »

Hedley wrote:So, you're saying the truth can always be derived using the majority votes of scientists?

Using your own example, years ago all the scientists believed that the earth was flat. Using your logic of majority votes, the earth really was flat.

Hold it. The earth really isn't flat. Something's wrong with your reasoning.
Scientists didn't believe the earth was flat, the church did. And back then the church ruled the roost and anybody disagreeing was harshly dealt with. But inevitably science prevailed and we now have a round earth.

The overwhelmingly prevailing scientific opinion today is that we are contributing to global warming and that it is a very bad thing. If we do what the scientists recommend and it turns out they were wrong, we will have cleaned up the earth, ensured permanent ecological survival, greatly increased living standards all over the world and eliminated our dependence on fossil fuels.

On the other hand if we do nothing and the global warming denyers are wrong, we probably kill billions, displace billions more, ruin our planets ecology for a really really long time and maybe even threaten the survival of our species.

Let me think about this for a minute...
---------- ADS -----------
 
goates
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Canada

Post by goates »

Scientists didn't believe the earth was flat, the church did. And back then the church ruled the roost and anybody disagreeing was harshly dealt with. But inevitably science prevailed and we now have a round earth.
Even then, only a few Christians opposed the spherical Earth idea. The modern misconception that no one before Columbus thought it was spherical apparently began with an American author by the name of Washington Irving in the 1800s. From there it was taught in US schools to the point that most Americans, and Canadians too, believed Irving's story. Apparently elsewhere people find this rather amusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth (I know it's Wikipedia, but it is a decent summary...)

Now back to your regularly scheduled global warming "debate"...
---------- ADS -----------
 
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Post by xsbank »

Warming, cooling, who cares. What is wrong with this planet is it is too crowded - there is simply too many of us.

How do you generate hydrogen? You need electricity. We are still making electricity with coal. Everyone use low-energy bulbs? They contain mercury. Battery-powered cars? Batteries contain toxic components and need to be charged by another fuel source. Organic food growing practices? Might be unable to feed the third world without huge food price hikes. Wind energy? Changes the pattern of the winds and causes temperature changes due to the law of conservation of energy. Use larger fish boats to catch more fish and conserve energy? Fish caught faster than they can reproduce.

I don't happen to agree with 'global warming' and I do know how to read. I also don't happen to believe that 'scientists' have the knowledge, the understanding or the right to frighten us with their latest funding issue. Eat eggs. Don't eat eggs. Don't get fat, you'll have a heart attack. Get fat, you'll survive an attack better. Eat milk. Don't eat saturated fats. Don't drink wine. Drink red wine.

Its all pop science and dovetails nicely into the scare-of-the-week and I don't buy it. Yes, China and India are scary, but we cannot stop them. The only way to stop them is an exogenous shock like a plague or a natural disaster. Humans are greedy and all the small dicks in China want what the small dicks have here, BMWs.

Most 'scientists' can't predict the weather for 24 hours or less. My mother's weather knowledge is always right. She says "I can see Vancouver Island, it's going to rain; I can't see Vancouver Island its raining.

Scientists change their tune weekly. We cannot even control a beetle infestation here - how the f*ck can you expect our 'scientists' to stop anything bigger? Most of the changes I've made in my life that might benefit us for 'global warming' also benefit me financially - that might be a clue, although recycling only takes effort.

I'm sceptical, cynical and completely ignoring newspapers and radio and tv news and much happier, thank you. Although you can be rational, C.J., you are becoming increasingly fanatical and I think you should take a week off the newspaper and watching tv and even posting here and see if you feel less frantic.

Fanaticism is scary. See exhibit A: Taliban
---------- ADS -----------
 
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Locked

Return to “The Water Cooler”