 |
reply posted on 7-9-2006 @ 10:05 PM by loam
|
 Originally posted by Muaddib
Loam, he is a scientist and has been a scientific advisor for the UN, scientists not always agree with each other
No they don't. But on this general topic the VAST majority do. Moreover, I still take exception to your assertion that Jaworowski's
credentials are comparable to even a fraction of the REAL climatologists who disagree with him.
Finally, am I supposed to be impressed by his connection to the UN?  That is hardly a big deal.  The fact that he sits on a committee (
UNSCEAR )as an appointee
of his native country, Poland, does nothing to bolster his credibility.
I also think it's funny that you think his "experience" on the effects of radiation (the only area he has ever scientifically published in) somehow
gives him a unique and superior understanding of the global warming issue.
If you need brain surgery, you don't consult a podiatrist. 
Originally posted by Muaddib
...and there were other links which I gave and corroborate what he has to say. There is a discrepancy between the data given from ice core base time
systems and leaf base time systems, and the ice core base time systems have had discrepancies with the geological climatic evidence. Not even those
scientists who claim human activity is the main cause for global warming will deny this.
Yes, well I don't have your posts as the only thing happening in my life. Adressing all of the half-backed falsehoods and spin you introduce
into this thread would represent a full time job and I just don't have that kind of time. 
BUT, at least your citation of the leaf base time systems conflict is marginally more credible than Jaworowski's. But once again, you seem
only interested in cherry picking your science.
See for example this assessment of Wagner's assertions:
Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, now that you bring up that according to some scientists in the past 800,000 years that there have been no CO2 readings like today, and knowing
that in those 800,000 years we have had "several warming and cooling events some of which have been worse than the one we are currently going
through"...what do you think that says about the effects that CO2 have on global warming?.....
Muaddib, I can't figure out if you're just confused or whether something else is in play...
Originally posted by Muaddib
It pretty much proves that CO2 does not affect climate as much as we are led to believe by some scientists, that's what it proves.
Originally posted by Muaddib
One more thing, do you think that 370-380 ppmv is the maximum amount of CO2 that has been found on the history of Earth?.... Actually the average
would be from 1,000 ppmv to over 2,000 ppmv.
300-million-year Record of CO2 Levels; Uncertainties in Climate Science
Cooler Heads Coalition
June 27, 2001
Cooler Heads Coalition????
Cooler Heads Coalition and its website globalwarming.org ( www.globalwarming.org...) were revived by Consumer Alert's National Consumer
Coalition in April 2004. The website and group were formed in May 6, 1997, "to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic,
scientific and risk analysis." Consumer Alert and National Consumer Coalition are industry friendly groups that oppose regulations on industry
and advocate "free market" consumer solutions.
Source.
But let's address the specific assertion, shall we?
300-million-years
Think about that.
Originally posted by Muaddib
The Earth goes through different periods of warming and cooling, somtimes they are rapid and worse, sometimes they take a long time and are mild in
comparison to what has happened to the Earth in ancient times.
On that we agree... BUT! Why is it you seem to think that a SINGLE mechanism is responsible for each of those changes????
[edit on 7-9-2006 by loam]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 8-9-2006 @ 08:16 AM by soficrow
|
Yea loam.
Again. Focusing on single factors in a multifactorial dynamic is a RED HERRING.
The real question is:
What can we do, as a supposedly intelligent species, to prepare for cataclysmic climate change?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-9-2006 @ 09:36 AM by loam
|
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-9-2006 @ 10:02 AM by rizla
|
Referring to the first post:
1. The Mars data only goes back to 2002. That is not long enough to make a conclusion.
2. No one understands how the jovian atmosphere works. They don't even understand how the red spot is formed.
3. Pluto. The last nail in the coffin, and I'll quote the article itself:
Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused
by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we
know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-9-2006 @ 11:33 AM by Kachina
|
During most of the Mesozoic era ( the period from 65 to 259 million years ago), CO2 levels were between 1,000 and 2,000 ppm, with
occasional peaks that reached levels higher than 2,000 ppm.
Results from the middle Miocene, a warm period about 10 million years ago, failed to show high CO2 levels. The researchers suggest that the warming
may have occurred due to "episodic methane outbursts."
The Earth goes through different periods of warming and cooling, somtimes they are rapid and worse, sometimes they take a long time and are mild in
comparison to what has happened to the Earth in ancient times.
The dinosaurs after reigning for 165 million years 'disappeared' 65 million years ago.
Is there a connection here?
What would it be?
namaste
Raphael
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 9-9-2006 @ 08:41 PM by Muaddib
|
Originally posted by loam
No they don't. But on this general topic the VAST majority do. Moreover, I still take exception to your assertion that Jaworowski's
credentials are comparable to even a fraction of the REAL climatologists who disagree with him.
How exactly do you think your opinion on who is more qualified denies the fact that there are discrepancies between ice core base systems and leaf
base system, and even with the geological climatic evidence?
How many times in the past have "a majority of scientists" in one field agreed on one thing, and later on was found out they were wrong?
You need more than your opinion to make valid the claim of a majority of "environmentalists" have about global warming...
Can you refute the discrepancies that have been noted? with scientific data please.
Originally posted by loam
Finally, am I supposed to be impressed by his connection to the UN? That is hardly a big deal. The fact that he sits on a committee (
UNSCEAR )as an appointee
of his native country, Poland, does nothing to bolster his credibility.
That his country chose him to be a representative to the UN should speak for itself. He is no "crackpot scientist".
His ice core base system research for 40 years is what gives him an understanding about global warming, and the discrepancies found in the system
which "environmentalists" keep trying to hide to bolster their agenda.
Originally posted by loam
Yes, well I don't have your posts as the only thing happening in my life. Adressing all of the half-backed falsehoods and spin you introduce
into this thread would represent a full time job and I just don't have that kind of time.
Well, if you have no time to refute the data then don't participate. Do you have any scientific data which disproves that there are discrepancies
with ice core base systems, and what the leaf base system and the climatological data shows?
Originally posted by loam
BUT, at least your citation of the leaf base time systems conflict is marginally more credible than Jaworowski's. But once again, you seem
only interested in cherry picking your science.
Why is that? because it is your opinion? How exactly does that invalidates what he has to say?
He is not the only one who says there are discrepancies with the data given by ice core samples and other samples as well as the geological data.
There is more data which shows not only a discrepancy but also that many of these "environmentalists" are for some reason not discussing and trying
to hide some facts, such as the following.
Magnetic Field Weakening in Stages, Old Ships' Logs Suggest
John Roach
for National Geographic News
May 11, 2006
Earth's magnetic field is weakening in staggered steps, a new analysis of centuries-old ships logs suggests.
............
The field last flipped about 800,000 years ago, according to the geologic record.
............
But the field might not always be in steady decline, according to a new study appearing in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science. The data show
that field strength was relatively stable between 1590 and 1840.
"It now looks as though it happens in steps rather than just one continuous fall," said David Gubbins, an earth scientist at the University of Leeds
in the United Kingdom.
Records and Math
The magnetic field protects Earth from cosmic radiation. In its absence, scientists say, Earth would be subjected to more electrical storms that
disrupt power grids and satellite communications (sun storm photos).
The Earth's magnetic field was relatively stable from 1590 and 1840. Since around the 19th century, the Earth has been warming up. Again, another
good indicator that global warming on Earth is being being affected by causes which do not have much to do with human activity. Human activity has
changed the environment in many places, as I have said several times, but that does not equal to human activity being the cause for global warming.
Of note is the fact that the Earth's magnetic field flipped last time 800,000 years ago, and it was in the 19th century that it began to decline
again. Could this be part of the reason why CO2 nowadays is the highest than in the past... 800,000 years?
Originally posted by loam
So environmentalists claim that "they believe this conclusion is not justified", without providing any evidence to back their "claims" and that is
enough evidence to dispute these discrepancies?
Originally posted by loam
Muaddib, I can't figure out if you're just confused or whether something else is in play...
I understand perfectly what you are trying to say. Many "environmentalists" claim that it is mostly CO2 which is causing global warming, but i am
presenting data which shows there are other reasons which are apparently the causes for the Earth, and the other planets in the solar system warming
up.
Some of those very possible causes, which "environmentalists do not mention for whatever motive they may have, or just because they don't know",
are the decline in the magnetic field of the Earth, which for some extrange reason coincides with the increase of CO2 800,000 years ago, and this time
around. Just like the partial reversal of the Sun's own magnetic field, which has not conpletly reversed and allows for more cosmic rays and other
exited particles to enter the solar system, particles which do affect the "entire solar system, which includes the Earth".
Wow, so laughing disproves that the effects and causes of CO2 are apparently being exagerated by "environmentalists"?
and you are providing the opinion from "environmentalists"..... i guess they are very unbiased towards "human acitivities"....
Anyways, can you disprove what that article says?... I gave several articles, not all of which are from that coalition...
Yes, think about it...it is the data given "within" 300 million years....
and why is it not possible that the main causes for warming, which are not happening only to Earth, have nothing to do with "human activity"?
[edit on 9-9-2006 by Muaddib]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-9-2006 @ 01:17 AM by bodebliss
|
Originally posted by rizla
Referring to the first post:
1. The Mars data only goes back to 2002. That is not long enough to make a conclusion.
2. No one understands how the jovian atmosphere works. They don't even understand how the red spot is formed.
3. Pluto. The last nail in the coffin, and I'll quote the article itself:
Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused
by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we
know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent
per decade since the late 1970s.
Space.Com
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-9-2006 @ 02:14 AM by jlc163
|
Originally posted by pavil
Sudden temp climate changes are not uncommon with the changes sometimes taking only a decade or so, none of the previous ones were man made either.
Anywhere not close to a shoreline:
I've lived days where the temperature dropped 10-20 degrees in an hour, and stayed for days. I've lived with snow in the summer. These dips do
happen. It's called Sioux City, Iowa weather.
I've also noticed something similar along the coast, but much longer term.
The last few times it snowed down here in Louisiana, we've had a major storm hit us within a year or two. Christmas day, the last one before
Katrina, it snowed less than an hour from the coast, south of New Orleans. We had it on the ground all day, and we built snow little snow men. Broke
a window with a snowball. I was the coldest I've been since I left the North.
It could be coincidence.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2006 @ 01:11 PM by sdrawkcab
|
Now, lets say that this "Solar System Warming" continues, basically, temperatures on other planets would change, making it a viable source of
life?
If that's so, we can be looking at evolution taking place.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-9-2006 @ 02:55 AM by bodebliss
|
The only possible Planet would be Mars and if Mars were to get as much sunshine as we do it still could not support life on the surface as it does not
have a magnetosphere and an ozone layer to keep harmful particles and bad UV rays at bay. Mars's soil should be sterile. It has a few magnetic
hotspots, but not enough to keep out the solar wind.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-9-2006 @ 06:27 AM by madjamjar
|
Taken from a newspaper today
"SUN CAN COOL US
Global warming could reverse naturally as the suns activity reduces, scientists claim.
The star constantly produces sunspots - areas of lower temperatures which affect radiated heat
Experts say the number of sunspots is going down, triggering a possible 0.2 degree C drop in the Earths temperature in a decade
It would take 50 years of greenhouse gas curbs to make the same reduction"
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-9-2006 @ 07:45 AM by loam
|
Originally posted by madjamjar
Taken from a newspaper today
"SUN CAN COOL US
Global warming could reverse naturally as the suns activity reduces, scientists claim.
The star constantly produces sunspots - areas of lower temperatures which affect radiated heat
Experts say the number of sunspots is going down, triggering a possible 0.2 degree C drop in the Earths temperature in a decade
It would take 50 years of greenhouse gas curbs to make the same reduction"
Mind providing a link?
Because according to this (also just in today from Scientific American):
No Sunshine for Global Warming Skeptics
Known variations in the sun's total energy output cannot explain recent global warming, say researchers who have reviewed the existing evidence. The
judgment, which appears in the September 14 Nature, casts doubt on the claims of some global warming skeptics who have argued that long-term changes
in solar output, or luminosity, might be driving the current climate pattern.
The evidence for human-induced global warming is neatly captured in a plot of the planet's reconstructed temperature over the last 1,000 years. The
temperature takes a dramatic upswing starting 100 years ago, creating the so-called hockey stick graph. A reasonable question is whether natural
changes such as solar activity could have caused or contributed to the upturned blade of that stick, perhaps because the sun's luminosity varies
widely over centuries or more. "The question is, were there times in the past when it was equally warm, and the answer is no," says Tom Wigley of
the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He and three colleagues compared the average of a number of temperature reconstructions based on tree
rings, ice cores and other data with models of Northern Hemisphere temperature that include different levels of solar variation, from little to a
speculatively high amount. In all cases, "what you get out looks very much like the observations" from real samples, he says. "The warming [of the
past 100 years] is greater than any in the last 1,000 years."
The consistency meshes with solar physicists' latest understanding of how the sun works, the group notes. The sun's luminosity swings up and down
by less than 0.1 percent in accord with an 11-year cycle of sunspots and faculae, bright areas of heightened output [see image above]. This cycle
accounts for most of the sun's variability. Recent simulations reinforce the idea that convection inside the sun rapidly smoothes out internal hot
spots before their concentrated heat can escape like an upwelling of magma, the researchers note. This inertia allows surface changes to have a
discernible effect and explains why no additional sources of variation have been identified so far, they say.
More...
See also:
Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says
[edit on 14-9-2006 by loam]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-9-2006 @ 02:16 AM by bodebliss
|
the answer is no," says Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He and three colleagues compared the average of a number
of temperature reconstructions based on tree rings, ice cores and other data with models of Northern Hemisphere temperature that include different
levels of solar variation, from little to a speculatively high
The answer is Tom Wigley is crazy !
You wouldn't go and base the climate of Earth on the temporary girations of climate during an Ice Epoch. Base it on the average of the downturn from
the Jurassic/Cretaceous heat monster. Base it on the last 66 million years!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-9-2006 @ 08:43 AM by Muaddib
|
Loam, the problem is that such studies as the one you provided, do not take into account "everything" that is happening at once in a larger
scale...such as the Sun's polarity not flipping completly and allowing more dust and exited particles to enter the solar system, or the Earth's own
magnetic field weakening in stages, and it has been weakening once again since the 19th century.... human activity have nothing to do with the sun's
magnetic field, nor the Earth's magnetic field. Are you, or any of the scientists you quote trying to say that "mankind can change the Earth's
core, or the Sun's core?...
You are obviously a diehard proponent that "mankind must be at fault", the evidence does not say that no matter how much you try to claim the
contrary.
I started another thread where according to a new research extreme climate changes were the main drive for civilizations. People needed to get
together and work together to be able to gather resources. In times of crisis a goup of people can better survive than just being alone.
This is not the first time, nor the last, nor has it been the worse, when climate change has occurred on Earth.
Yes, there are activities of mankind that are hurting the environment, and eventually we should be seeking a balance, but this does not mean that
mankind is the main drive for global warming when it has happened several times in the past and much worse and faster than the one we are going
through.
[edit on 15-9-2006 by Muaddib]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-9-2006 @ 12:00 PM by loam
|
Originally posted by Muaddib
Loam, the problem is that such studies as the one you provided, do not take into account "everything" that is happening at once in a larger
scale...such as the Sun's polarity not flipping completly and allowing more dust and exited particles to enter the solar system, or the Earth's own
magnetic field weakening in stages, and it has been weakening once again since the 19th century.... human activity have nothing to do with the sun's
magnetic field, nor the Earth's magnetic field. Are you, or any of the scientists you quote trying to say that "mankind can change the Earth's
core, or the Sun's core?...
What are you talking about about? Statements like "...are you, or any of the scientists you quote trying to say that 'mankind can change the
Earth's core, or the Sun's core?' is a clear example of your intellectual dishonesty and merits little or no response.
How about addressing the ACTUAL positions made, as opposed to manufacturing ones out of thin air that no one asserts?
Originally posted by Muaddib
You are obviously a diehard proponent that "mankind must be at fault", the evidence does not say that no matter how much you try to claim the
contrary.
Another example of your intellectual dishonesty...
I know you have been reading my posts long enough to know that I have NEVER said "mankind must be at fault". But unlike your
self-proclaimed certainty of the "evidence", I am not prepared to dismiss outright the likelihood that we can play a significant role in the
process. The VAST MAJORITY of the science runs against your position, and I do not suffer from your brand of hubris in a manner that forecloses upon
investigation of the issue. The only "diehard proponent" I see is you and those who would have the rest of us believe that your superior knowledge
and unique understanding of the world render meaningless all else to the contrary.
Originally posted by Muaddib
I started another thread where according to a new research extreme climate changes were the main drive for civilizations.
I saw your thread and intended to respond there. But since you raise it here, I will do so now.
First, let me say that I fail to see what relevance you think *it* has to THIS discussion. Nonetheless...
I think Nick Brooks' theory on the origins of civilization is an interesting theory,
but even he admits it is only a hypothesis that requires more corroborative field based research:
The evidence for linked environmental and social change is very strong in the central
Sahara and Egypt, where responses to aridity are evidence in local archaeological
records. While the data fit the hypothesis that social complexity was stimulated by
increased aridity in Mesopotamia, the Indus-Sarasvati region, northern China and coastal
Peru, further field-based research is required in order to link social change explicitly with
environmental change at local scales, for example as represented by individual
settlements. In particular, more high resolution palaeoenvironmental data are required
from these regions in order to establish local trajectories of environmental change that
may be related to local archaeological records.
From his actual research paper...
Frankly, I see nothing revolutionary about his hypothesis. Fundementaly, all he asserts is that climate change drove the initial development of
complex societies. Unlike what you seem to imply, he makes no representation concerning the impact of climate change on existing complex
societies, nor does he draw any equivalence between Middle Holocene climatic changes to today's climate changes or those likely indicated for the
near future.
Once again, I think you seem confused. The absurdity of your next statement demonstrates it:
Originally posted by Muaddib
This is not the first time, nor the last, nor has it been the worse, when climate change has occurred on Earth. Yes, there are activities of mankind
that are hurting the environment, and eventually we should be seeking a balance, but this does not mean that mankind is the main drive for global
warming when it has happened several times in the past and much worse and faster than the one we are going through.
There is no SINGLE and EXCLUSIVE natural mechanism for climate change. There are several- some having operated independently at times
and others having operated in collaboration- and the fact of their existence does nothing to dismiss the potential for anthropogenic mechanisms
operating independently of, or in conjunction with, any natural mechanisms.
Some may be fooled by your oversimplifications and armchair-psuedo-science, but I am not.
[edit on 15-9-2006 by loam]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-9-2006 @ 03:12 PM by soficrow
|
.
Mauddib - Surely you recognize that human activities represent a factor impacting the speed of climate change?!?
I agree that cosmic events are relevant - but disagree if you're saying that such events are the only relevant factors, or that mankind's activities
have no impact.
Everything has an effect. It's a systems thing.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-9-2006 @ 10:07 PM by Muaddib
|
Originally posted by loam
What are you talking about about? Statements like "...are you, or any of the scientists you quote trying to say that 'mankind can change the
Earth's core, or the Sun's core?' is a clear example of your intellectual dishonesty and merits little or no response.
Simply put because the magnetic field of the Earth, and the Sun do play an important role on the dynamics of the solar system. Dynamics which affect
the climate of planets such as Earth.
My point, which was simple enough and i explained it enough times, is that, i won't say all but many "environmentalists" are dismissing facts
because "they only want to blame global warming on mankind".
Originally posted by loam
How about addressing the ACTUAL positions made, as opposed to manufacturing ones out of thin air that no one asserts?
Oh, I see...so they are not "actual positions made", even though I gave "several links backing those statements I made, just because you don't
want them to be?.... indeed....
The magnetic field of Earth is weakening, mankind can't do anything to weaken it or strengthten it, the magnetic field of the Sun did not flip
completly which is allowing more interstellar dust and exited particles to enter our solar system, excited particles which are producing changes in
planets with an atmosphere and on the Sun itself.
Originally posted by loam
............................
The VAST MAJORITY of the science runs against your position, and I do not suffer from your brand of hubris in a manner that forecloses upon
investigation of the issue. The only "diehard proponent" I see is you and those who would have the rest of us believe that your superior knowledge
and unique understanding of the world render meaningless all else to the contrary.
Are you going to continue to spout nothing but rethoric so you can change the thread to what "you think should be discussed", or are you going to
stay on the topic of this thread?...
BTW, intellectual dishonesty comes from someone like yourself claiming that you "are not a diehard believer that mankind is at fault", and then
claiming that "the vast majority of the science shows that mankind is at fault", when that is not true at all. It is mostly
"environmentalists" who are trying to claim that mankind is the main cause for global warming, but several scientists from other fields, such as
astrophysicists and astronomers, are seeing that changes are happening to the entire solar system, not just Earth. Earth is in the solar system,
hence if the solar system is changing, hence the Earth is changing.
Do i know all the anwsers? no, i doubt anyone does, but I am sorry to tell you that you that there is more evidence to point to the fact that there
are other causes for global warming on Earth, and warming in the entire solar system, than "it's because of mankind, or that your claim is proven
because environmentalists say so"....
Originally posted by loam
I saw your thread and intended to respond there. But since you raise it here, I will do so now.
First, let me say that I fail to see what relevance you think *it* has to THIS discussion. Nonetheless...
It shows that in the past mankind had to stick together to make it through rough times, and we are going to have to do the same, mankind can't do
anything to stop global warming.
Originally posted by loam
Once again, I think you seem confused. The absurdity of your next statement demonstrates it:
So according to you it is absurb that the Earth has gone through global warming and global cooling several times in the past, and in some cases the
changes have been faster and worse than the one we are going through?.... You are the one confused Loam, and your rethoric is not going to change
that fact.
Originally posted by loam
There is no SINGLE and EXCLUSIVE natural mechanism for climate change.
Oh really?.... and here i thought you were trying to say that "the science proves what the environmentalists are claiming, that mankind is the
main cause for global warming...oh wait, you did say that even in the last response you made....
if anyone is "oversimplificating with pseudo science" is you, obviously you want to believe only what the environmentalists claim, yet you
have not been able to dismiss any of the data provided in this thread, you just resort to rethoric, although you are not the only one who resorts to
such tactics.
[edit on 15-9-2006 by Muaddib]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 15-9-2006 @ 10:23 PM by Muaddib
|
Originally posted by soficrow
.
Mauddib - Surely you recognize that human activities represent a factor impacting the speed of climate change?!?
I agree that cosmic events are relevant - but disagree if you're saying that such events are the only relevant factors, or that mankind's activities
have no impact.
Everything has an effect. It's a systems thing.
i used to think that human activities had some factor on climate change, but the more I read the data from several fields, and not just what some
"environmentalists" want to claim, the more I realize that although there are human activities which are not benefitial to the environment of a
region, that does not mean human activities are the main drive of global warming.
Yes, it is a "systems thing" hence if changes are happening to other planets in the solar system, and even to the sun, the Earth has to change also.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-9-2006 @ 12:20 AM by soficrow
|
Originally posted by Muaddib
Originally posted by soficrow
.
Mauddib - Surely you recognize that human activities represent a factor impacting the speed of climate change?!?
I agree that cosmic events are relevant - but disagree if you're saying that such events are the only relevant factors, or that mankind's activities
have no impact.
Everything has an effect. It's a systems thing.
i used to think that human activities had some factor on climate change, but the more I read the data from several fields, and not just what some
"environmentalists" want to claim, the more I realize that although there are human activities which are not benefitial to the environment of a
region, that does not mean human activities are the main drive of global warming.
But you do agree they are a factor, right?
Yes, it is a "systems thing" hence if changes are happening to other planets in the solar system, and even to the sun, the Earth has to change also.
I agree that events in the galaxy, not just the solar system, will impact the earth.
At the same time, human activities impact the earth's biosphere. If the biosphere also is compromised by cosmic events, then negative impacts from
human activities aren't just a double whammy, they are exponential.
btw - Current data indicate that solar increases have minimal impact on present global warming, but that pesky black hole may be extremely
important.
Are we on the same page?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-9-2006 @ 02:18 AM by loam
|
Muaddib, your response is so bizarre, I'm not really sure where to start... But what the hell, it's the weekend...
*sigh*
Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh, I see...so they are not "actual positions made", even though I gave "several links backing those statements I made, just because you don't
want them to be?.... indeed....
Then I missed those links. Show me where *I* or anyone else says "that 'mankind can change the Earth's core, or the Sun's core?'
Originally posted by Muaddib
...so you can change the thread to what "you think should be discussed", or are you going to stay on the topic of this thread?...
Rebutting the specific nonsense found in this thread *is* on topic. Sorry, but I wont roll over merely because you ask me to.
If you don't like what I have to say, then prove me wrong. I feel comfortable with the readership deciding which positions have the most
merit.
Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, intellectual dishonesty comes from someone like yourself claiming that you "are not a diehard believer that mankind is at fault"
Prove it. Find the explicit words.
Originally posted by Muaddib
...It is mostly "environmentalists" who are trying to claim that mankind is the main cause for global warming, but several scientists from other
fields, such as astrophysicists and astronomers, are seeing that changes are happening to the entire solar system, not just Earth. Earth is in the
solar system, hence if the solar system is changing, hence the Earth is changing.
I find it amusing that you find the scientific assessments of climate change on other planets far more compelling and explanatory than than the
scientific assessments made of our own planet- particularly when you assert the vast majority of scientists in this matter are simply wrong. Can you
help me understand what special brand of unimpeachable skill your cited scientists have? Are astrophysicists and astronomers simply smarter than all
the rest?
Originally posted by Muaddib
Do i know all the anwsers? no, i doubt anyone does,
Yet you have no problem emphatically asserting the impossibility of independent, or collaborative, anthropogenic causes of global warming.
Originally posted by Muaddib
but I am sorry to tell you that you that there is more evidence to point to the fact that there are other causes for global warming on Earth
Leaving aside your use of the phrase "more evidence", I think no credible scientist disputes there are natural causes of global warming. We've
actually known that for a very long time. But again, you miss the point...
I have stated it repeatedly.
The existence of natural causes does NOTHING to disprove the possibility of anthropogenic causes. Get it?
Originally posted by Muaddib
...your claim is proven because environmentalists say so"....
Nice try. Find the explicit words. Where do I say PROVEN?
Originally posted by Muaddib
It shows that in the past mankind had to stick together to make it through rough times, and we are going to have to do the same, mankind can't do
anything to stop global warming.
So your position is we should ignore the exact mechinism in play- because in your uniquely qualified judgement, we're just doomed and gonna have to
deal with it?
Might as well party till the end, huh?
No sense at looking for mitigation or preventive strategies...
I can't decide whether you're a blind optimist or a pessimist.
Originally posted by Muaddib
So according to you it is absurb that the Earth has gone through global warming and global cooling several times in the past, and in some cases the
changes have been faster and worse than the one we are going through?.... You are the one confused Loam, and your rethoric is not going to change
that fact.
You're calling me confused?
Show me where I say "it is absurd that the Earth has gone through global warming and global cooling several times in the past"...or where I
say what you say in your next sentence:
Originally posted by Muaddib
..."the science proves what the environmentalists are claiming, that mankind is the main cause for global warming...oh wait, you did say that
even in the last response you made....
Then quote it.
You can't.
Originally posted by Muaddib
...yet you have not been able to dismiss any of the data provided in this thread
I'm not dismissing any "DATA" ...just what you think it means.
Originally posted by Muaddib
...you just resort to rethoric, although you are not the only one who resorts to such tactics.
Precisely how I would describe most of the assertions you make in this thread... 
[edit on 16-9-2006 by loam]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
<< 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
|
|
Top Topics Right Now:
Active Topics Right Now:
ATS MIX Podcasts:
Newest Topics:
|
