Yeah, the neighbouring town around here deserves a good washout... :D

As with a lot of Global Warming Science, on either side, it's posted on the internet, it must be true. I don't need proof, I just need to know that someone, somewhere, said so. Like Al Gore, I don't need to consider all the facts, such as the source of the article I linked to, I just need to know that the story is there for all to see. This is the same logic used regularly, even in this discussion. Don't question, just believe, if you question...Therefore, I still have no answer as to why it's ok to use melting ice to prove it, but not ok to use not melting ice to disprove it. In this case, opposite doesn't mean opposite?

<font color=skyblue>Excuse me for interrupting the flow but I really have to say this. I think most of you can agree that I, more than anybody else on this website has reason to have never wanted Neb back with us on IW, yet I was one of the moderators that voted for him to return in the Mod forum when the question came up. The things he said about me to other mods, Ziroc, on other websites (that he did not know I was being linked to) and basically the attitude he had towards me in the past outweighs anything any of you have suffered from Neb.

So why did I forgive him and vote for his return? Because this is now PurpleXVI, and he has earned his place back here unless he decides to break our TOS, which he has not done. However, posts such as the one I quoted are a form of harrassment and should not be tolerated.

Please forget about Purple's past and let's move on. He is very thick-headed and loves to debate against sometimes obvious points of discussion but at least he is keeping his cool (to a degree) and not actually blowing up in anger, nor is he flamebaiting anyone that I personally have seen. If another mod has received a report, I have not been told about it.

It comes down to this: If you feel that somebody is causing trouble on the forum, report them. The new forum will actually have a running tally of how many times a person is naughty and after a decided # of tallies, that person gets an automatic block from the forum! Is that not great?!! I cannot wait to get these new powers. :D </font>

<font color=plum>The only slightly ad hominem attacks I've seen thus far have come from you, <font color=purple>Purple</font>. <font color=yellow>ZFR</font> asked <font color=white>Seraph</font> why snowfall levels can be used to support global warming but not used to contradict it. Instead of addressing the question - which you have since acknowledged is a legitimate query - you accused <font color=yellow>ZFR</font> of "putting words into <font color=white>Seraph's</font> mouth". Something he/she did not do. Melting ice caps and warmer winter temperatures are a cornerstone argument used to support global warming, so it was reasonable for <font color=yellow>ZFR</font> to ask why the argument can be used for one side but not the other.

When I added my :2cent: worth, you criticized the labels I chose to use rather than address the question. You also claimed - erroneously - that I was basically stating every person on either side of the debate wholeheartedly accepts any and ALL arguments offered to support thier side. Simply stated (in American Southern grammer), I never said no such a thang. I did use generalized labels to differentiate between the two sides of the debate, but there is no implication at all in my post that either side wholeheartedly accepts all arguments offered to support their view.

As for the revelation of your former identity, that had no bearing on this response. If you're active on IW at all, then you know I'm not around much these days (for various reasons). I had no problem with you when I was active and I don't have any problem with you now. But I do suggest you follow your own advice and focus on the questions asked rather than criticising the poster or the wording used in a particular response.

As for the whole question of melting ice caps, lower snowfalls and warmer winter temperatures, that is one of the foundation arguments used by most supporters of global warming - at least the ones getting any media attention. Al Gore recieved an Academy Award for his "documentary". In the trailer of his film, he cites reduced snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro (along with comparative photos to validate his statement) as just one example of the impact global warming is having on our planet. Which brings back once again to the legitimate question <font color=yellow>ZFR</font> asked several posts ago; if snowfall (or snow on the ground) can be (and IS) used to support global warming, why can it not be used when measurements contradict global warming? That question - so far - remains unanswered.</font>

Then tell me this. Why does it work the other way round? Why do people keep saying "there has been no snow, so global warming must exist"? </font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't. As evidence it is just as meaningless.

However, as an argument point it does have an advantage:
If "lots" in "I've had lots of snow, so global warming isn't a problem" refers to an abnormal amount of snow, then it can be used to say "If you have an abnormal amount of snow then it's evidence of something abnormal in the climate". So that argument frequently isn't internally consistant.

All the more reason for us stop looking externally for answers and start looking internally. There's big bucks riding on the outcome of this debate. Enough that i'm not really willing to trust anything said by anyone who stands to be on a winning (or losing) side. Why do people need to flock to a banner for this?

Gore, for all i can see, is giving it %110 to stay in whatever race he thinks he's running. Global Warming appears to be the one big acorn in a smeggin' acorn shower and he's using it as the backbone of his argument. Why Global warming? It's the one effect of our fossil fuel munching habit that can concievably have short term, drastic consequences for a very large number of people. He wants to win this debate before he dies, after all, and to do that he needs lots of little chickens running around, shouting and pointing at the sky. Or maybe he's not got backing from whichever companies own the rights to the next big renewable energy and is just using his acorn along with his "almost was" status as a pretty clever way of selling something to the whole world and looking like a good guy at the same time. Or maybe he's the genuine article and is truely concerned about the direction we're heading and hasn't given up after losing his one big chance at doing something about it. Heh, if that's true then it's a damn shame he missed his shot. Not that i think for a second that anyone openly waving the alternative energy flag could've made it that far in the US of all places. Much less retain it once there. Nope, sorry, if he's declared himself a figurehead and is waving his name as the banner for saving the world, then it's small wonder that people don't flock to it. It's just too easy to imagine the conflicts of interest.

And in the blue corner, we have the companies that own the big, bad, CO2 spewing, energy technologies. I'm not even going to bother. I must admit that i was surprised to see people on this thread actually jump to defend an institution that stands to gain as much as fossil fuel companies do. That is until i gave it a little more thought and i reasoned: It's not the companies people are defending, just their own lifestyle that is too bothersome to change. Or their own faith in humanity's infinite wisdom which is too blind and strong to deny. Perhaps it's also impossible to acknowledge an addiction to fossil fuel without also denying that pursuits in the name of freedom and liberty weren't actually made in search of it. Perhaps still, others may just be jumping onto whatever bandwagon happens to be travelling in an opposite direction than the one carrying an eternal opponent of past battles (without looking at how far the road ahead of it travels).

In fairness to you Larry, i'll watch the doco. I'll even put in an extra special effort to ensure that i'll weigh it on its own merit with as little bias as possible. But i'll tell you now, my mind is made up. For i do not need anyone weilding the weapon of scientific fact to argue, for or against, what i believe to be true. We're not so dumb that we can't destroy this earth. We're not so special that we should. We're not so smart that we can see all the ways in which we are killing it and we're sure as shite not wise enough to deny that we are.

For what it's worth, i'm not so sure about climate change myself. Part of a greater cycle of seasons or whatever. Every conclusion we draw about our Earth is based upon what we've seen, learned and failed to disprove in the few years that we've been here. I'd like to think that we haven't been here long enough that we shouldn't do what we can to guarantee we learn a little more. We know we've got the technology and the smarts to make all sorts of changes for the better, but people and nations alike can't make it happen for their own politics and economies. Two very petty things when compared to our Earth.

[ 03-25-2007, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Sever ]

<font color=8fbc8f>My apologies Larry, for I did not quote the post in which I was referring; that might have presented it in a different context.

That really was not meant as harassment, it was meant as written. Just like some of the sayings from where you and I hail from are not sinister, but truthful understanding.</font>
[img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

Then tell me this. Why does it work the other way round? Why do people keep saying "there has been no snow, so global warming must exist"? </font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't. As evidence it is just as meaningless.

However, as an argument point it does have an advantage:
If "lots" in "I've had lots of snow, so global warming isn't a problem" refers to an abnormal amount of snow, then it can be used to say "If you have an abnormal amount of snow then it's evidence of something abnormal in the climate". So that argument frequently isn't internally consistant. </font>[/QUOTE]Precisely. I seem to recall that "global warming" was done away with before such time as i'd left high school and replaced with the much less deniable catch phrase "climate change". Was it Gore who turned back the clock?

Of course, besides the issue of Global Warming, there are several other reasons to limit the use of fossil fuels. Energy dependency, for example. As long we get our oil from countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and our gas from Russia, we'll always remain vulnerable to blackmail. For example, in 1973 The Netherlands supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War. As a result several Arabian countries stopped selling us oil, which led to an economic crisis.

Anyone else check out this film's critics? Some I found:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...7/03/swindled/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1517515.ece


Anyway...I think it is reasonable to take even a good possiblity of man-made global warming seriously and act upon it. We have only one planet and only one climate. If we screw it up there is no second-chance. Better safe than sorry is the only correct approach IMO.

[ 03-26-2007, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Ah yes, i remember those "autoloze zondagen", i was still a kid back then, and we could play football on the freeway, i really miss those days. :D

Didn't know Yom Kippur was the cause of that though.

Not to mention the lack of democracy and poor human rights records of some of those nations.

My U.S. government(The executive portion to be precise) is so deep in bed with some of those people(Saudi Arabia), they have been seen holding hands in public- literally.


I say we all get off oil and leave the middle east to their own devices. The U.S. and many E.U. Allies have meddled enough.

Snip from the first link:

What? We're told time and time again that CO2 is prominent in the Global Warming arguments, but now we're told, because the data used doesn't fit with their theory I suspect, that it's irrelevant?

Either CO2 is relevant, or it isn't. This is the problem with the debate, since both sides are really guilty of "glossing over the facts", or completely ignoring them, when they don't fit their model.

Fact: The globe has been warming for at least 20,000 years, since the last ice age, as can be evidenced by the fact that I'm not posting from a glacier.

Fact: While mankind did indeed exist in these parts during that time, it is extremely doubtful that he had anything to do with the dramatic changes that took place at the time to turn the climate around, and while I'm sure mankind does have an impact now, I'm also quite sure that proponents of either side will exaggerate that impact to suit whatever program is paying them, as has been stated before.

However, to post an article stating that what we have been led to believe is the main problem, CO2, isn't relevant drops the relevance of the first link. As I said, if CO2 is a culprit, then CO2 levels are relevant, no matter what that site would have us believe.

Why did you edit out the whole explaination from the link Robert? Was it to make your point?

I dont care to argue one way or the other. I'm convinced that man-made global warming/climate change is possible enough and will wholly agree that neither "side" has the perfect undeniable objective truth. I can also agree both sides have HUGE financial stakes in the debate.

I only caution against butchering and skewing one-side's argument for the sake of another. That is a desperate ploy and easy to see through. I don't think that was your intent, but the way you edited the link makes it seem dubious when in fact a whole explaination is provided.

I just quoted the first line that made me go "What?". Since we are told time and time again by proponents of "man is the reason it's happening" Global Warming Priests, er Scientists. They shot their credibility with that, in so far as I'm concerned. If they had concrete evidence that there are aliens in Area 51, and that the aliens are responsible, I'd be hard pressed to believe them.

I remember seeing pictures of that in my history books. Quite spectacular.

I remember seeing pictures of that in my history books. Quite spectacular. </font>[/QUOTE][img]graemlins/Funny_post.gif[/img] Just what are you trying to say?

Anyway, back to the topic, more or less, I was pointed to this article today, and what it has to say is rather interesting.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

It was meant to refute something I had said there, and here, about the natural cycle, but, I find that it rather supports it. I've been taken to task twice about quoting interesting parts, even if I provide a link, but...

Interesting rebuttal. 9% attributable to humans. 9%... That's not a very large piece of the pie, now is it? The fact is, as I have stated from the very beginning, we do contribute. However, I don't know what we are supposed to do about the other 91%. I will say, however, that when sources are submitted by proponents, they are considered reputeable. So, since this is a reputeable source, it's nice to see what happens when science is actually applied. We aren't such the bad guys after all.