Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9 ... 14  Next

Does it matter? 2 km expresses the general idea of what happened after the last major bout of global warming. That's all you need.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet

   

An ice age is happening now-- the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation. It started in the Pleistocene era. Please go away and don't come back until you've at least managed to grasp the very basics of the argument, because now you've just gone and demonstrated to everyone how ignorant you are on the subject.

   

Yes it matters, because Bart has said several times that scientists aren't reliable. Therefore, he must have done the calculations himself. I'd like to see them. Or is he going to go on Michael Mann on me?

   

As was the Medieval Warm Period where you could farm in Greenland and sip on some fine English wine, I imagine.

Facts don't lie but people do. As evidenced by the actions of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, people will misrepresent or omit facts and even blatantly lie if it suits their agenda. So why should take the word of an organization created for political purposes (the IPCC) or a scientist who cares more about generous grants and prestige than their craft? Don't try to pull Al Gore and the IPCC's Nobel Peace prize out, Yasser Arafat also won that prize and look how well that turned out.

If the globe's warming up, so what? Humankind do what it does best and adapt as we had to do for countless millenia. Que sera sera and all that.

PROTIP: Using a loaded term like "denier" instantly insures that you lose the argument.

   

I suppose you could just refer the argument and argue that anyone arguing against anthropogenic global warming may omit facts or lie to suit their political agenda. Indeed, the monetary argument is just as compelling.

So then you don't trust what anyone says, and you're left with nothing.

   

Here's where I call BS to all this. Mankind hasn't made any effect what so ever on the environment until the 1800's and the advent of the modern manufacturing process and mass production. Combine with that an exponential population growth and we will effect change on the planet as a species.

Now if a volcano erupted in the 1800's and dropped the world temperature by 2 degree's triggering the next ice age we would have been unable to prevent it. Now however we can cap holes in the ocean spewing tonnes of oil into the ocean that is hundreds of meters below sea level. We may still be in a dire situation if that same volcano were to erupt today at least now we can do something about it. This whole argument is about even suggesting there is a problem to begin with.

This whole debacle of if we should do ANYTHING because the cost is so high just absurd. We have entire forests in Africa turned into desert because they chopped down all the trees for charcoal for cooking when they could have just as easily used tinfoil it's so hot down there. We have hardly one rooftop adorned with a solar panel in all of Canada and the power is free for the taking. People argue that wind farms are an eyesore and ruin their property values for Christ sakes. When is this idiocy going to end?

   

Probably never, 'cause humans suck.

   

Negative. Different and Unprecedented for Millions of Years.

   

Negatory. Simply Denying instantly makes you lose the argument. Labeling one as a Denier is merely pointing out the Truth. Sorry.

   

To be fair, solar panels are not exactly cheap from what I understand and if someone has to choose between food on their table or a spiffy new solar panel, guess what they are going to choose.

Moreover, solar panels have to be energy intense in their fabrication. First, you must mine the necessary elements, which leaves plenty of waste and pollution to extract and purify. Then you have to build it, which again takes energy and I don't think renewables are going to cut it because of their low energy density compared to fossil fuels. Then you have to ship it, which takes gasoline or diesel, and when all it said and done you spent a whole lot of energy for comparatively little you get from a solar panel.

The human race is better off trying to invest in having nuclear fusion practical, or maybe try to make energy transmission possible. I hear the sun's rays are stronger out in space. I don't need some hippie telling me I need to invest in biofuel thank you very much (which will likely cause food shortages anyway).

   

Excuse me but I have to...

When you try to label a skeptic as a "denier" on the basis that s/he does not find your argument convincing enough qualifies as a fallacy whether it be an abusive ad hominem or a loaded term.

   

Ahh, the old "I'm not a Denier, I'm a Skeptic" argument. Sorry, a Skeptic actually is open minded and doesn't just throw out Denier Talking Points endlessly.

   

BTW, on the first page somebody posted the Arctic sea Ice extent graph, and, I believe, said because sea extent dipped in the arctic in June this proved the June's temps were dramatic globally, as in never seen before.

That's wrong in soooo many ways. Let me show you a couple.

First of all, now show me your record global June heat with the Antarctic ice extent.



But let's say you're right. Let's say a radical short-term change of the ice melt in the Arctic proves a record global spurt of temperature change. OK, explain this one.



http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress. ... e_melt.png

What it's saying is the ice in July is now melting at a rate that's record slow to the JAXA record. So does that prove July will be a record cold month globally?

Hehe...what if it did though? You won't be reading about it in a hysterical global cooling article in the paper in August. I'll guarantee you that.

   

Nothing I disagree with there. My problem isn't actually the issues we will have to deal with as a result of global warming. There's certainly no stopping it at this point, so we'll simply have to deal with the consequences.

My issue is the attack on science itself by the right wing, and the use of "advocacy science" (which isn't really science at all) by the left. Actually the advocacy science is starting to bug me more these days.

   

Fail.

The use of the word denier shows the only evidence you have is an undenying faith.

We the jury find the evidence relies on faith only. Therefore, not having proved beyond all reasonable doubt, we the jury find Mr AGW guilty as charged.

   

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9 ... 14  Next