Grist for the mill--Climate Change Shenanigans

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Now, is your mind changed?

Is my mind changed completely? No. But I give credit to the information provided by machinehead and accept there is widespread agreement among the science community.

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about that and I will consider the objective arguments regarding climate change with an open mind.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek Is my mind changed completely? No. But I give credit to the information provided by machinehead and accept there is widespread agreement among the science community. I'm willing to admit I was wrong about that and I will consider the objective arguments regarding climate change with an open mind.

So, your basis for assuming you were RIGHT on something had nothing to do with research but everything to do with laziness? This is why I would not provide the info. for you. If you were bothered enough about it, you would have proven or disproven it yourself in the length of time that spanned between posts. Instead, you waited until two people brought the info. forward then conceded you were "wrong on this one" without ever knowing why you thought you were right in the first place. Like I said, time wasted.

[machinehead]

Now now SpiritWarrior, the field is yours - no need to shoot the wounded.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior So, your basis for assuming you were RIGHT on something had nothing to do with research but everything to do with laziness? This is why I would not provide the info. for you. If you were bothered enough about it, you would have proven or disproven it yourself in the length of time that spanned between posts. Instead, you waited until two people brought the info. forward then conceded you were "wrong on this one" without ever knowing why you thought you were right in the first place. Like I said, time wasted.

I've participated in several discussions on this topic over the last two years, reading statistics and data provided by both sides. For me, the arguments against mankind's responsibility for climate change, coupled with the various cries of doom and gloom I've heard over the past 40 years, were more compelling than yet another alarmist argument claiming mankind is responsible for various natural occurrences. There has also been much speculation about just how much agreement existed within the scientific community. So the basis for my belief was far more than this single discussion.

You provided a sweeping claim that all science academies agreed universally. I asked you to support that claim and you chose not to, but machinehead did. So I give credit where credit is due and viewed the data provided objectively.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek You provided a sweeping claim that all science academies agreed universally. I asked you to support that claim and you chose not to, but machinehead did. So I give credit where credit is due and viewed the data provided objectively.

My point is, if this info. is new territory to you, then you can't have been participating all that much..? This is a large staple in the entire argument. One which puts to rest many, many counterarguments. The fact that you are acting like you never heard this info. before - that the free world has reached a general consensus on global warming - is both puzzling and "alarming" to me. It begs more questions than it answers.

Such as, exactly what debates have you been watching for two years? Where are you getting your info. from? What legitimate sources leave such a huge detail out? How can you have witnessed the arguments of both sides without seeing this very important side at least once? These things seem odd to those who take you at your word and I would imagine downright suspicous to those who do not.

Btw, I cited and supported the reference to that "claim" as you call it, and it is and would be an easy thing to track it down - simply clicking the linked citation after the sentence in wikipedia. I chose not to, to illustrate a point, which was then proven. Just clarifying how easy it is to do, is all.

[SecretMaster]

Aaaaand now the thread falls apart.

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior And also, what purpose would a conspiracy theory like this serve? Even if it was one, it would still mean cleaner skies, less asthma, cleaner waters etc. Would certainly help as far as eye candy of our planet is concerned. My theory is that lobbyists are responsible for enetertaining this notion that it is not real. Well, first it wasn't real - then they conceded it was real but that we're not responsible for it at all. It's hard to bash something that science has unanimously agreed upon.

Is this sarcasm? I truly hope so, since even the Global Warming scientists can't seem to decide what's going on. I haven't read the emails, and I won't. What I will point out is that it went from Global Warming to Climate Change. So they can't even decide what's going to happen. The Day After Tomorrow, the climate change scenario movie(?) has the end of the Northern half of the planet being an Ice Age. Yep, that's pretty warm. So tell me, how am I supposed to take them seriously when they can't even make up their minds what's going to happen? Since, if the Ice Age scenario plays out somewhat close to the movie, my current home will be under a polar Ice Cap that's supposed to be melting. I live in Kansas.

By all means, conserve energy, and do what you can to protect the environment, but since CO2 levels are lower now than they were 10k years ago, please don't spout about our greenhouse gasses being the direct cause. Unless, of course, mankind had achieved similar levels of technology then and wiped themselves out?

Just another little tidbit, at one point in time, this planet was a molten ball. I'd say the climate made some significant changes since then. How many Ice Ages are known historically? How many of those were also man made, since that seems to be the consensus of the GW/CC crowd. "If man wasn't here, it wouldn't be happening", except that it has happened before, and may well happen again. This fact gets ignored by GW/CC fanatics, since it doesn't fit their model.

[SpiritWarrior]

Is what sarcasm? Unless you quoted the wrong paragraph or person, I see nothing referenced there that you mention. What emails? When did I mention greenhouse gases? This is not sarcasm - I am actually at a loss to what this is in reference to - that I actually said.

[Cloudbringer]

Ladies and gentlemen, let's be civil and go back to the discussion, leaving all personal irritations and insinuations out of the mix in future, mmmmkay?

[SecretMaster]

Originally Posted by robertthebard Is this sarcasm? I truly hope so, since even the Global Warming scientists can't seem to decide what's going on. I haven't read the emails, and I won't. What I will point out is that it went from Global Warming to Climate Change. So they can't even decide what's going to happen. The Day After Tomorrow, the climate change scenario movie(?) has the end of the Northern half of the planet being an Ice Age. Yep, that's pretty warm. So tell me, how am I supposed to take them seriously when they can't even make up their minds what's going to happen? Since, if the Ice Age scenario plays out somewhat close to the movie, my current home will be under a polar Ice Cap that's supposed to be melting. I live in Kansas.

You have a misunderstanding/interpretation of the issue. First of all, don't even begin to take "The Day After Tomorrow" as a plausible scenario that could result from climate change. It is unbelievably stupid crap such as that movie that lead people to get a very wrong impression on the issue. I understand that it is simply a movie and that people should understand that it is a movie, but it leads to horrendously misinformed and skewed views.

As far as I'm aware, the issues of Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate disruption have always been the same, the umbrella term just changes. I don't know why, I don't know who is responsible for coining these phrases but all of them I feel (with the exception of climate disruption) are relatively poor names. From a biology/ecology perspective, the issue has always been "how will disruptions and variations in the climate affect biodiversity?"

By all means, conserve energy, and do what you can to protect the environment, but since CO2 levels are lower now than they were 10k years ago, please don't spout about our greenhouse gasses being the direct cause. Unless, of course, mankind had achieved similar levels of technology then and wiped themselves out?

Where are you getting these numbers/data from? A paper was just published stating something completely different. Atmospheric CO2 levels had been oscillating between 180 and 300ppm for the last 800,000 years until only in recent times.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1008152242.htm

Just another little tidbit, at one point in time, this planet was a molten ball. I'd say the climate made some significant changes since then. How many Ice Ages are known historically? How many of those were also man made, since that seems to be the consensus of the GW/CC crowd. "If man wasn't here, it wouldn't be happening", except that it has happened before, and may well happen again. This fact gets ignored by GW/CC fanatics, since it doesn't fit their model.

It seems as if every person playing armchair scientist that I've ever talked (disputing the issue) always brings up the famous "you have to understand the climate has always been changing" line. I think any scientist, especially any scientist in this field of study is damn well aware of the fact that the geological landscape and atmospheric composition has always been changing throughout the history of the planet. It is an incredibly poor argument provided by individuals arguing against climate change.

Of course the climate and geology of this planet has been radically different in the past. The big question is whether or not what we are experiencing with changes in the climate are due to natural causes or human based causes. Ever since the 60's when Keeling published his famous "Mauna Loa Curve", there has been a significant amount of science done on the issue that all points to human activity.