Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-05-2011, 09:56 AM   #81
robertthebard
Xanathar Thieves Guild
 

Join Date: March 17, 2001
Location: Wichita, KS USA
Age: 60
Posts: 4,537
Default Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior View Post
The problem is, by the time you arrive on proof that satisifes the most skeptical, it could be too late. This is the whole premise of GCC.

Not sure what the harm is in awareness. Religion asks for much more of a personal, emotional and spiritual commitment with no proof whatsoever and yet people are acting in its name daily. Some kill because of it. Others hate. Others donate thousands and spring up cults the thing. IDK. Shit, religion seems to be an easier sell even when it has no basis in science at all. Maybe science is going about this the wrong way and should sponsor priests into the fold to spread the "good word".

Bottom line is, it really doesn't affect the facts if people still choose to naysay in the face of united science. Unlike religion, it doesn't necessitate that the masses get on board, because it has already concluded that it's happening regardless. Believe it, don't believe it - it makes no difference when you think about it. Anyone can cast doubt on a religious view because by nature religion asks for the participation of your average Joe in order to survive. Unless you're a scientist, with credentials and theories that counter the extensive work of your peers, it is nothing more than opinion and doesn't hold up in the appropriate circles.
In other words: "If we don't do something now, it could be the end of the world!!!" What part of that isn't "Gloom and Doom"? Thank you, however, for documenting what I've been saying all along.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior View Post
Deja vu?

Science is in full agreement on the issue. You're saying differently - which goes against general concesus on the issue. So the burden of proof here falls on you. I am not sure how serious you are about this, but I would encourage you to follow it through - and all the way this time. If I was in doubt, my advice would be to track down you local academies and press them on this. Then maybe track down not-so-local academies and ask them too. Call colleges, institutes, even large libraries and speak with professors of the sciences. Perhaps email the international ones and then take stock of the results. Voice your opinion and ask them if they agree with their collegues. Correspond and document it. Then come back with the names of the esteemed who represent a significant, conflicted and divisive group. Fair enough?
I asked you earlier if you had scientific journals showing this full agreement. Surely, if this is the case, you could simply provide the bookmarks. That the entire scientific community is not on the bandwagon is blatantly obvious, and yet, when called on it, you suggest that somebody else do the footwork to prove it. I say, as the prosecutor, since you are trying to sell us that mankind is responsible, burden of proof falls on you.


Quote:
That's quite a comparison. Oil companies who want more liquid-gold or scientists who want....to be scientists.
Or, as is more accurate, scientists who want the grant money to keep flowing in. In the end, what's the difference?

Quote:
They don't need to worry about a shortage in grants or funding. Again, all the major science academies around the world have universally agreed on the findings and their governments fund them most of the time because of this. No need to look for third-party unless you're kinda up & coming (They have 3rd party sponsors but they're not absolutely essential for the work). Look at the amount of funding the USA has put into this research, for example. Or, when you talk to them, ask 'em. I bet you will find there is no shortage in funds.
In MMO terms, screenshot or it didn't happen. Again, show where the scientific community is in full agreement.

Quote:
Covered in other posts (Chewy, I think?). Not gonna make this more tldr.



Well, yes not the "masses" as in everyone. It needs a mass of people in order to spring up into a cult/church. Religions need a congregation of people, a following to establish themselves. Most of them do their utmost to extract money from their followers too. The other difference is religion wants to assimilate everyone else into it, the real masses. It spends an eternity attempting to "spread the good word" on why their system is better than your system. Science doesn't need such an assimilation which is what I have been saying. It's moved onto bigger things. We may need it, but they don't.
The Universal Agreement Church of GCC? The one that can make blanket statements about GCC and be above question because the belief of the members means that no proof is required?

Quote:
As you know, covered more than once in previous discussions we've had. While it's good to see you recycling, I don't have the motivation for the amnesia thing lol. Maybe someone else does.
Again, the primary panel that's considered an expert on the topic does none of it's own research. This panel, paid by the UN, exists primarily to study the impact of mankind on GCC. This isn't an agenda? Yet, despite this agenda, everything they say is gospel? They, like the 6,000 year old earth group, start out with a premise, and then set out to prove it. They do this by taking all the published material that supports their premise, combining them into a report, and submitting it to the UN at regular intervals. Any science that is contrary to their views will, of course, be ignored.

This is what they are paid to do. Yet this is also considered acceptable science, and evidence? Why? The first few pages of this topic consist of dismissing the OP article for the very same reasons. The irony is rich indeed. I'm going to assume that the members of the panel are at least scientists, and not just politicians. I didn't see a list of who's on it in the link I provided on the previous page. Surely, however, a political organization like the UN wouldn't appoint non-scientists to this panel, would they?

Some interesting points from the article found at this link:

Quote:
Keith Shine, one of IPCC's lead authors, discussing the Policymakers' Summary, said: "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented.... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report".[9] It is not clear, in this case, whether Shine was complaining that the report had been changed to be more skeptical, or less, or something else entirely.[citation needed]
Solid-state physicist Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and former health consultant for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company publicly denounced the IPCC report, writing "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report". He opposed it in the Leipzig Declaration of S. Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project.
In turn, Seitz's comments were vigorously opposed by the presidents of the American Meteorological Society and University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, who wrote about a "systematic effort by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's climate on a global scale. Rather than carrying out a legitimate scientific debate... they are waging in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with which they disagree".[10]

S. Fred Singer disseminated a letter about Chapter 8 of the IPCC Working Group I report, asserting that:[11]
  1. Chapter 8 was altered substantially to make it conform to the Summary;
  2. Three key clauses — expressing the consensus of authors, contributors, and reviewers — should have been placed into the Summary instead of being deleted from the approved draft chapter;
Benjamin D. Santer, Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8 of 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, replied:[12]
  1. All revisions were made with the sole purpose of producing the best-possible and most clearly explained assessment of the science, and were under the full scientific control of the Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8.
  2. None of the changes were politically motivated.
Santer's position was supported by fellow IPCC authors and senior figures of the American Meteorological Society and University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.[10] In 1997, Paul Edwards and IPCC author Stephen Schneider published a paper rebutting criticisms of the IPCC report.[13]
[edit]


Ahh, I can't get this to work. The point being, all through the article, you can find that, in fact, not only is the entire scientific community not in agreement, but members of the panel aren't even in agreement with what eventually gets published.
__________________
To those we have lost; May your spirits fly free.
Good Music: Here.
Interesting read, one of my blogs.

Last edited by robertthebard; 08-05-2011 at 10:01 AM. Reason: Maybe I fixed my quote...
robertthebard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 10:39 AM   #82
John D Harris
Ninja Storm Shadow
 

Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
Default Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewbacca View Post
Of course Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Pollution by definition is stuff put into the enviroment by humans.

Given human track record with pollution it seems highly foolish to give any benefits of doubt when it comes to our emissions.

Study until we know and don't give up until we do seems prudent.
pol·lu·tion   /pəˈluʃən/ Show Spelled[puh-loo-shuhn] noun
1. the act of polluting or the state of being polluted.
2. the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment: air pollution.

pol·lu·tant   /pəˈlutnt/ Show Spelled[puh-loot-nt] noun
1. something that pollutes.
2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

pol·lute   /pəˈlut/ Show Spelled[puh-loot]
verb (used with object), -lut·ed, -lut·ing.
1. to make foul or unclean, especially with harmful chemical or waste products; dirty: to pollute the air with smoke.
2. to make morally unclean; defile.
3. to render ceremonially impure; desecrate: to pollute a house of worship.
4. Informal . to render less effective or efficient: The use of inferior equipment has polluted the company's service

by diffinition making foul, or unclean, rendering unsuitable.... man made CO2 doesn't render anything unsuitable, the numbers just aren't there. At best maybe 1% or so of the CO2 can be atributed to man. That means 99% comes from nature. Nature has a way of taking care of CO2: Plants. Plants take in CO2 seperate the Carbon from the Oxygen combine the Carbon with the water and other elements their roots suck up from the ground and make more plant matter. Higher CO2 levels the more plants that grow the more plant matterial made, the more CO2 locked up in the plants. Rotting plants give off more CO2 then anything man can even hope to ever give off. Decay is slow oxygenation of the carbon locked in the plants, burning is fast oxygenation. (chemistry and biology 101)
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working.
Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864
66:KIA 5008
67:KIA 9378
68:KIA 14594
69:KIA 9414
70:KIA 4221
71:KIA 1380
72:KIA 300

Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585
2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting

Davros 1
Much abliged Massachusetts
John D Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 10:46 AM   #83
Azred
Drow Priestess
 

Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
Ironworks Forum Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertthebard View Post
I asked you earlier if you had scientific journals showing this full agreement. Surely, if this is the case, you could simply provide the bookmarks. That the entire scientific community is not on the bandwagon is blatantly obvious, and yet, when called on it, you suggest that somebody else do the footwork to prove it. I say, as the prosecutor, since you are trying to sell us that mankind is responsible, burden of proof falls on you.
In the interest of being equitable, if I am not going to dig up and link the articles I have read concluding that no global warming/climate change is happening the he doesn't have to produce the articles claiming that it is happening.

You are correct, though, that "The Universal Agreement Church of GCC" just wants us to believe that it is happening on faith; because they believe it is true they think it must be true. However, it is a little more insidious than this--the alarmists want those of us who do not believe as they believe to act as if they are correct in spite of our disagreement that they are wrong. They want us to comply without question and then accuse us of being destructive or selfish if we do not.

__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true.

No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna.
Azred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 10:58 AM   #84
John D Harris
Ninja Storm Shadow
 

Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
Default Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Treee are not animals as they mature they take in MORE CO2, that is simple math. Has anyone ever seen a tree stump that has been cut down? Ever notice the tree rings? They don't get smaller as the tree grows they are realtively consistant. ie: let's say a tree adds 1/2 inch to the dia of the tree every year. Well simple math dictates that a young growing tree with a dia of 6 inches added less plant matter then a mature tree with a dia of 36 inches. It's a matter of volume. As trees get larger and mature they covert and take it more CO2. I got 6 big oaks in my yard, each one weight several tons, has several tons of Carbon locked into the plant matter that makes up the tree. Those oaks aren't like my Lab they don't stop growing as they mature. Each and every year they produce more leaves, add more total volume to themselves. more Carbon is locked up in the plant matter then the year before. Almost all life on this planet is carbon based life forms ( I say almost all because some of the life found at the bottom of the ocean around the Black smokers may not be carbon based)
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working.
Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864
66:KIA 5008
67:KIA 9378
68:KIA 14594
69:KIA 9414
70:KIA 4221
71:KIA 1380
72:KIA 300

Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585
2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting

Davros 1
Much abliged Massachusetts
John D Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 11:01 AM   #85
John D Harris
Ninja Storm Shadow
 

Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
Default Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azred View Post
In the interest of being equitable, if I am not going to dig up and link the articles I have read concluding that no global warming/climate change is happening the he doesn't have to produce the articles claiming that it is happening.

You are correct, though, that "The Universal Agreement Church of GCC" just wants us to believe that it is happening on faith; because they believe it is true they think it must be true. However, it is a little more insidious than this--the alarmists want those of us who do not believe as they believe to act as if they are correct in spite of our disagreement that they are wrong. They want us to comply without question and then accuse us of being destructive or selfish if we do not.

Surely Az you aren't saying the "they want to tell everybody what and how to think/do" crowd aren't telling everybody what and how to think

Say it ain't so Az say it ain't SO!!!
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working.
Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864
66:KIA 5008
67:KIA 9378
68:KIA 14594
69:KIA 9414
70:KIA 4221
71:KIA 1380
72:KIA 300

Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585
2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting

Davros 1
Much abliged Massachusetts
John D Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 12:56 PM   #86
Chewbacca
Zartan
 

Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
Question Mark Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azred View Post
So how much of a fine are you willing to pay to the government for the "pollution" you exhale on a daily basis?
None. However I shouldn't have to explain why breathing is not pollution but coal plant emission are, so I won't. Surely doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

I find semantic "gotcha" games the thread has begun to devolved into on par with shrill alarmism and magical thinking. All of these are pursuits which reap little of value other than perhaps a short-lived chuckle, but at the expense of whom?
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores!
Got Liberty?
Chewbacca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 01:25 PM   #87
Azred
Drow Priestess
 

Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
Ironworks Forum Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewbacca View Post
None. However I shouldn't have to explain why breathing is not pollution but coal plant emission are, so I won't. Surely doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
No, it doesn't...but it does make one wonder why some alarmists want to have government regulation of the carbon dioxide emitted by cows.

By the way...the new designs of "clean coal" plants surpass the current EPA emissions standards--they are, by definition, clean.
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true.

No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna.
Azred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 02:02 PM   #88
Cerek
Registered Member
Iron Throne Cult
 

Join Date: August 27, 2004
Location: North Carolina
Age: 61
Posts: 4,888
Default Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewbacca View Post
None. However I shouldn't have to explain why breathing is not pollution but coal plant emission are, so I won't. Surely doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

I find semantic "gotcha" games the thread has begun to devolved into on par with shrill alarmism and magical thinking. All of these are pursuits which reap little of value other than perhaps a short-lived chuckle, but at the expense of whom?
It isn't a matter of semantic "gotcha" games, Chewie. You're right that the gov't regulations and environmentalists are generally referring to pollutants emitted by coal-burning plants. However, John D. and Azred have both pointed out natural sources of CO2 emissions far exceed the output produced by man.

Now, I admit I did do a little bit of the "gotcha" game because you're post stated pollutants are, by definition, "stuff put into the environment by humans". Since the current GCC debate centers almost entirely on CO2 emissions, I pointed out (along with the others) that there are SEVERAL naturally occurring sources of CO2 emissions that do NOT include human output at all and that the levels of those natural emissions are greater than the output produced by humans.

And, as Azred mentioned, current coal-burning plants MEET federal emissions standards, so they are meeting the "green standards" imposed by the gov't.
__________________
Cerek the Calmth
Cerek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 02:33 PM   #89
Chewbacca
Zartan
 

Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
Light Bulb Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

http://www.skepticalscience.com/huma...termediate.htm

Quote:
The skeptic argument...
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
"The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce." (Jeff Id)
Quote:
What the science says...

The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores!
Got Liberty?
Chewbacca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 03:09 PM   #90
SpiritWarrior
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: May 31, 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,854
Sunglass Man Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertthebard View Post
In other words: "If we don't do something now, it could be the end of the world!!!" What part of that isn't "Gloom and Doom"? Thank you, however, for documenting what I've been saying all along.
I mean, if you want to look at anything negative as "Doom & Gloom" then sure, I guess? But by that logic I am assuming you'd say the same to a doctor who tells you to stop smoking or pay the consequences.

Quote:
I asked you earlier if you had scientific journals showing this full agreement. Surely, if this is the case, you could simply provide the bookmarks. That the entire scientific community is not on the bandwagon is blatantly obvious, and yet, when called on it, you suggest that somebody else do the footwork to prove it. I say, as the prosecutor, since you are trying to sell us that mankind is responsible, burden of proof falls on you.
As Azred said, it does not. Since nothing was provided to say it isn't so. I'm not the one going against common knowledge here. I've extended an open invitation for you to contact your local scientists and try the "tellling them what they believe" approrach. You question these facts not me, so do your due diligence and put the time and energy into researching it then prove me wrong. Do what I outlined to Cerek above, proving you have done so by documenting it rather than make others do the work for you. Demonstrate to us that you have more than a passing inclination to question this basic truth that is not born from ignorance then I will humor you. I think that's reasonable, don't you?

Quote:
Or, as is more accurate, scientists who want the grant money to keep flowing in. In the end, what's the difference?
Right.
Quote:
In MMO terms, screenshot or it didn't happen. Again, show where the scientific community is in full agreement.
Well, when you're on the phone with them you can ask about funding too. Not sure if they'll give you an SS tho. But chances are they're okay. Not always, I mean. Of course they have to renew funding and manage it etc. But these places continue to be around.

Quote:
The Universal Agreement Church of GCC? The one that can make blanket statements about GCC and be above question because the belief of the members means that no proof is required?
Unlike with Jesus, we actually did the studies and research. GG.

Quote:
Some interesting points from the article found at this link:

[/B]

Ahh, I can't get this to work. The point being, all through the article, you can find that, in fact, not only is the entire scientific community not in agreement, but members of the panel aren't even in agreement with what eventually gets published.
Lol, not to help you "cheat" here, but just for fun I did a preliminary search on Wikipedia while viewing your link to the site. And that just took 20 seconds. Maybe you should start there as it's right in front of ya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Look at 4, 5 and A.
__________________
Still I feel like a child when I look at the moon, maybe I grew up a little too soon...
SpiritWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Talk about global warming, eh? Link General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 19 07-16-2004 12:25 PM
Global Warming: Who's to blame? Avatar General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 31 09-03-2003 10:50 AM
News for anyone interested in Global Warming. MagiK General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 56 09-27-2002 10:17 PM
Global Warming (time to stir the pot) MagiK General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 22 05-16-2002 09:28 AM
Global Warming! Please read and answer Moridin General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 51 04-11-2001 08:01 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved