OK, I think I understand. I dislike propagandists of whatever flavor.
An Inconvenient Truth
- Thread starter stinkyboy
- Start date
bull****. all you need is a couple rich text opinion articles posted online from questionable sources and a natural inclination towards unfounded skepticism.
that's the beauty of science. new ideas are allowed to trump old ones if sufficiently supported by the evidence.
this is contrasted with blindly stating one's doubt without offering a plausible, evidence-supported alternative, as is done by the ID proponents and doubters of global climate change.
did you just move the goal posts?
i thought your issue was those who doubt the extent to which man has contributed to climate change, but it now appears you are going after those who would doubt the climate is changing - regardless of the source
i'd join you if it were the latter
i thought your issue was those who doubt the extent to which man has contributed to climate change, but it now appears you are going after those who would doubt the climate is changing - regardless of the source
i'd join you if it were the latter
the evidence supports CO2 as a major player in climate change. man has caused a huge spike in CO2 through his activity. therefore accepting climate change as a real phenomenon requires accepting some non-negligible degree of culpability imo.
skeptics en masse: UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (senate committee on environment & public works)
yes, i realize it has inhofe's name on it; no need to poison the well
yes, i realize it has inhofe's name on it; no need to poison the well
A large portion of the outcry is that the UN study UNDERESTIMATED the effects of CO2 on climate change for political reasons. In one case, China would not sign unless the most conservative estimate of man's effects were cut literally in half, even though there is no way to make the math agree with the resulting figure. However, the committee revised the number. THat is not sound science.
Thanks to jackasses like you, people assume any disagreement in the scientific community must mean the fundamentals are wrong, when the reality is that disagreement is part of the process, and the disagreement may be the polar opposite of what skeptics wish it to be.
I don't get your point. You've just shown an example of a scientist that is a highly critical types perfectly willing to abandon ideas when proven wrong. Flies in the face of those that claim scientists are clinging to their climate theories to protect their careers/grants/etc.
I should also point out that this new theory fills a previously highlighted gap. Geologists and biologists were previously scratching their head about how life could have started so quickly in the Hadean period. This new geological explanation better supports the existing biological theories of the origins or life. It, in fact, bolsters the existing fundamental theory of life by correcting a false premise. This is science working as it should.
What exactly is a senate minority report?
That one side who happens to be all minoritized at the time or just fewer than half of any of the members?
That one side who happens to be all minoritized at the time or just fewer than half of any of the members?
Last edited:
you must've drilled somewhere else from the link; i just don't see that
i don't assume the fundamentals are wrong, i'm merely pointing out that much to algore's chagrin, the debate is hardly over.
no, my point was to use an exception to prove the rule that a scientist is not a scientist is not a scientist. so, for those to flippantly claim "the community has spoken" (as if it's from the holy see) are not allowing for inconvenient massaging of current community positions.
it would very much be as if i were to claim that studying islam would create terrorism, which skips quite a few steps to lazily arrive to a very narrow conclusion.
the results of which are also parallel in mandates, rights, legislation, and economic responses
agreeance
And this is where you keep ****ing up. What is this "the debate?" Which debate? There are literally thousands of little ones, but skeptics seems to think that every single one of them is actually the same big debate over the fundamentals. There simply isn't a debate. Al Gore is right: "The Debate" you're referring to IS over.
As for the underestimation, it's not in that link, because the media doesn't get it either. Despite their liberal bias and support of current global warming theories, NYT is shockingly not the authority on global warming.
The article is from Nature, titled "Dangerous Assumptions." Unfortunately you need to be a subscriber to access it online. The gist is that a labeled "skeptic," Pielke, puts forth that the IPCC change model utilized a scenario that underestimated China's true growth in emissions by one half of the most conservative estimates (I repeat, this is coming from someone the media understands to be a skeptic, because of his position on adaptation rather than mitigation - the "what to do about it," NOT "what is it"). Not in the article, but several of the resignations from the IPCC were over this issue and outsiders speculate that it was political pressure that convinced the IPCC to impliment this low estimate.Here are several follow up commentaries:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=23eb9666-a0c1-45ea-b5b5-01c33bb28788
http://simondonner.blogspot.com/2008/04/do-ipcc-scenarios-underestimate-future.html
Last edited:
correct if i'm wrong, but the thesis of gore's infomercial is man made carbon emissions are the most significant contribution to global warming, which is hurling us headfirst into uncharted & catastrophic territory, and that if [economically intractable] action isn't taken immediately by nearly everyone, seawaters will soon rise 20 feet uniformly, creating 100,000,000 refugees.
i believe he's rather inflexible on this, and has even uttered the phrase "the debate is over", referring to warming and its biggest cause: man-made carbon emissions.
IIRC, water vapor traps more heat, but excess water vapor is removed from the atmosphere rather efficiently and it is extremely unlikely that water vapor is the cause of global warming.
This statement would be very conservative but correct: Man-made carbon emissions are the most significant contribution from humans to global warming. It isn't like he was saying that it will happen tomorrow, but since any changes we start now will take awhile before they have an effect, it is similar to stepping off the gas in a car while you are heading towards the edge of a cliff.
This statement would be very conservative but correct: Man-made carbon emissions are the most significant contribution from humans to global warming. It isn't like he was saying that it will happen tomorrow, but since any changes we start now will take awhile before they have an effect, it is similar to stepping off the gas in a car while you are heading towards the edge of a cliff.
You're making several arguments at once, and assuming that when Gore says "the debate is over" he means on all of the above.
Debate over
Debate over
Still debate. Outsiders like Pielke argue that we can and will adapt. They are not arguing that the landscape of our earth won't change dramatically. There are also alternatives like atmospheric engineering, which would rapidly cool the earth at a relatively low up-front cost but at the long-term expense of worldwide pollution and unknown world health repercussions.
Ignoring snark, debate over.
So yes, there is debate over what to do about it. No matter how much Bill O'Reilly wishes it to be true, that is NOT debate over whether or not humans are causing this, let alone debate over it even occuring.
Sorry, but WTF is that site and how are they claiming any expertise? I see them cherry picking quotes from two people with credibility, ignoring the context (i.e. water vapor explains how C02 has a disproportionate/levered effect on warming).
No ****, water vapor has a higher greenhouse effect than C02. So does Methane. By a long shot. This is not a debate about what keeps the Earth warm; this is a debate about why the temperature is changing.
Can someone answer this?
You can imagine what searching on 'senate minority' does to teh google.
http://csccc.fcpp.org/question.php?csquestion_id=1
Your score has been registered.
Your Score: 100%
Top Score: 100%
Average Score: 76%
Congratulations! With a perfect score you and your climate knowledge are carrying the light for smart green environmentalists everywhere. You clearly base your environmental understanding on hard evidence, not ideological fashion.
so there. debate over
Your score has been registered.
Your Score: 100%
Top Score: 100%
Average Score: 76%
Congratulations! With a perfect score you and your climate knowledge are carrying the light for smart green environmentalists everywhere. You clearly base your environmental understanding on hard evidence, not ideological fashion.
so there. debate over
About as much as mothra and godzilla