Climate Change (2 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

Is it not the same far-right conservative energy-hungry nutjobs who spit in the face of GW evidence who also blatantly deny the evidence for evolution?

Seriously...I never imagined that the world would split into those who rationally accept the life-work of the majority of peer-reviewed, evidenced based scientists or those who just go...hmm I DON"T BELIEVE it nur-nur

If i ever could advocate capital punishment...

A lot of the time, although a lot of the people I argue with re: CC are Catholic, and so believe (conditionally) in evolution.

 

[Cookie182]

A lot of the time, although a lot of the people I argue with re: CC are Catholic, and so believe (conditionally) in evolution.

Oh no doubt there is exceptions, but there is definitely a correlation! Its almost kool for unintelligent kids these days to blatantly deny facts, as though its a perfectly rational practice.

On this note, they made a point on Q&A last thursday night in regards to the right-wing journalists always being the CC deniers.

 

[Kwayera]

Oh no doubt there is exceptions, but there is definitely a correlation! Its almost kool for unintelligent kids these days to blatantly deny facts, as though its a perfectly rational practice.

On this note, they made a point on Q&A last thursday night in regards to the right-wing journalists always being the CC deniers.

Ugh, don't get me started.

Being a Young Lib, I'm quite used to being derided for my ideas regarding climate change. *sigh*

 

[DavidBenGurion]

no come on kway - i wanna get you started. tell me more, because im genuinely interested to hear what you have to say

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Your point was that "show me some science you have done proving anthropogenic climate change", (which is the only way I'd be able to do it "without appealing to any scientific/academic consensus/reports") which obviously I can't do as I am not a climate scientist. However, that does not preclude me from reading and understanding what other scientists have done, which I am perfectly equipped to do.

So unless I misunderstood you because you haven't bothered to explain yourself properly, you've done me a disservice by setting a Herculean task.

Your intellectual capitulation is dissapointing...(and you're yet to explain your use of the word 'confabulation')
You totally misrepresented my argument..All I asked was for you to present data/evidence that supports a scientific claim...this can originate from any scientist/organisation, but you cannot merely appeal to a scientific authority (in the rhetorical sense). My support and acceptance of anthropogenic GW does not rely on logical fallacies or evasionary tactics, I think its caprious and doing the legitimate scientific body of knowledge a disservice when others employ them (even if well intentioned).
btw why are you a Young Lib?
**Note to all those other randoms..I am not a 'skeptic'..

 

[hectic_lowie]

i cant believe loller was permanently banned after creating such great threads. quite an injustice.

 

[Kwayera]

Your intellectual capitulation is dissapointing...(and you're yet to explain your use of the word 'confabulation')
You totally misrepresented my argument..All I asked was for you to present data/evidence that supports a scientific claim...this can originate from any scientist/organisation, but you cannot merely appeal to a scientific authority (in the rhetorical sense). My support and acceptance of anthropogenic GW does not rely on logical fallacies or evasionary tactics, I think its caprious and doing the legitimate scientific body of knowledge a disservice when others employ them (even if well intentioned).
btw why are you a Young Lib?
**Note to all those other randoms..I am not a 'skeptic'..

You want me to cite chapter and verse (or in this case, paper and journal)?

Also, clearly you don't understand what I mean when I refer to the IPCC is in this context. I would not invoke the IPCC as a "scientific authority", but rather in its capacity as a framework, or a collection of individual research by scientists or scientific bodies which build the narrative of ACC.

 

[mavisgibbons]

Unfortunate News For Polar Bears From Obama | The Vibe - The World According to SocialVibe

I am so eternally glad that the Climate Change theories bring me material such as that. I enjoy laughing at it extensively.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

You want me to cite chapter and verse (or in this case, paper and journal)?

Also, clearly you don't understand what I mean when I refer to the IPCC is in this context. I would not invoke the IPCC as a "scientific authority", but rather in its capacity as a framework, or a collection of individual research by scientists or scientific bodies which build the narrative of ACC.

yes..thats exactly what I want you to do

 

[Kwayera]

yes..thats exactly what I want you to do

I don't understand the point of this exercise, but sure, whatever. Selected at random. Have at ye.

Battle, M., et al., 1996: Atmospheric gas concentrations over the past century measured in air from fi rn at South Pole. Nature, 383, 231–235.
Bender, M., et al., 1996: Variability in the O-2/N-2 ratio of southern hemisphere air, 1991-1994: Implications for the carbon cycle. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 1, 9–21.
Berger, A., M.F. Loutre, and H. Gallée, 1998: Sensitivity of the LLN climate model to the astronomical and CO2 forcings over the last 200 kyr. Clim. Dyn., 14, 615–629.
Berner, W., H. Oeschger, and B. Stauffer, 1980: Information on the CO2 cycle from ice core studies. Radiocarbon, 22, 227–235.Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 87, 1–12.
Chamberlain, T.C., 1906: On a possible reversal of deep-sea circulation and its influence on geologic climates. J. Geol., 14, 371–372.
Hegerl, G.C., et al., 2000: Optimal detection and attribution of climate change: Sensitivity of results to climate model differences. Clim. Dyn., 16, 737–754.
Jacob, D.J., et al., 1997: Evaluation and intercomparison of global atmospheric transport models using 222Rn and other short-lived tracers. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 5953–5970.
Johnsen, S.J., et al., 1992: Irregular glacial interstadials recorded in a new Greenland ice core. Nature, 359, 311–313.
Neftel, A., E. Moor, H. Oeschger, and B. Stauffer, 1985: Evidence from polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past 2 centuries. Nature, 315, 45–47.
Santer, B.D., et al., 1995: Towards the detection and attribution of an anthropogenic effect on climate. Clim. Dyn., 12, 77–100.
Tett, S.F.B., et al, 1999: Causes of twentieth century temperature change. Nature, 399, 569–572.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

do have links to downloadable versions?

 

[Kwayera]

do have links to downloadable versions?

No, they're published journals. You have to pay for access, or go via your university's journal subscription service.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Ill take 'unsure' to mean skeptic also...

Whether it's happening or not (probably is) and whether mankind is to blame are questions a lowly law student couldnt hope to be satisfied of. In the meantime, I have nothing against controlling and limiting the pollution/activities that clearly have an immediate impact on the environment and the people who depend on it

My opinion of you, Iron, has rocketed several notches. I'm not so Narcissistic to assume that this would mean a great deal to you, but it does make me realise that some of the assumptions I made about you were unfair.

 

[Dazza01]

Four billion years ago, when the Sun was at its lowest luminosity and heat, the Earth was a boiling pot of magma.

One billion years ago, when the Sun was about 15% less luminous and hot than now, but hotter than 3 billion years before, the 'Snowball Earth' event occured.

Now this just shows us that the Earth's weather is completely and utterly unpredictable and, ultimately, up to Earth itself to pick whether we get hotter or colder. Sure, we can help aid the warming, but whoever says that the weather is purely based on mans shortcomings to evade GG's (Greenhouse Gase's) is taking a very tedious argument on.

Just my opinion.

 

[zombie omie jay]

Four billion years ago, when the Sun was at its lowest luminosity and heat, the Earth was a boiling pot of magma.

One billion years ago, when the Sun was about 15% less luminous and hot than now, but hotter than 3 billion years before, the 'Snowball Earth' event occured.

Now this just shows us that the Earth's weather is completely and utterly unpredictable and, ultimately, up to Earth itself to pick whether we get hotter or colder. Sure, we can help aid the warming, but whoever says that the weather is purely based on mans shortcomings to evade GG's (Greenhouse Gase's) is taking a very tedious argument on.

Just my opinion.

um okay

lol the fact that earth was hotter 3 billion years ago has nothing to do with weather

never post in this thread again please
or atleast read up on the formation of earth so you have a slight idea of what you just said

 

[Kwayera]

It's not a tedious argument. Take a look at the science.

And by the way, there's a very good reason why the Earth was a "boiling pot of magma" 4 billion years ago - it had only just formed/coalesced.

EDIT: b10

 

[Dazza01]

I know the facts behind it and I choose to ignore it as most Climate Change advocates have to edit their infomation more times than I can count.

 

[zombie omie jay]

lol i was just about to say i was too harsh
but come on

 

[Kwayera]

I know the facts behind it and I choose to ignore it as most Climate Change advocates have to edit their infomation more times than I can count.

What you're saying is "I look at all this evidence and facts and choose to ignore it anyway".

Which means you're on par with Flat Earthers and creationists.

 

[Dazza01]

What you're saying is "I look at all this evidence and facts and choose to ignore it anyway".

Which means you're on par with Flat Earthers and creationists.

That is what I said, and science has proven many a useful thing, but that does not mean science is correct on this occasion also.

And as for creationism vs evolution - no matter how much science you fuel evolution with, it is all 50/50.