Eve of the Apocalypse: Twilight

Just because Al Gore actively supports anthropogenic global warming does not mean it does not exist. The wiki article on global warming controversies is actually one of the best summaries I've found that gives a reasonably objective view of what's going on (and discusses in-depth lots of the common arguments against anthropogenic global warming)

This page and this page (click on the links for more details on their views and some of counter-criticisms by other scientists of them) are a good indication of the scientific support behind some models of global warming.

Everyone who has studied weather with any amount of comprehension understands that the climate naturally goes through cycles of heating and cooling this is not new.

If you look at the scientific consensus in the above (or the scientific majority perhaps as some might say) most people who study climate and related specialties with global warming agree that anthropogenic global warming is the most likely cause for recent warming (there's tons of links in there). Common criticisms like "well we've had record lows in the world, global warming doesn't exist!" are so of misrepresentations of an actual model of global warming. Though they differ, most share the idea that global warming leads to more extreme weather especially in-land (where record lows of cold have been recorded), and they also predict harsher summers and more powerful storms.

To me it seems like you focus more on the sensationalism and hysteria generated by some media who take advantage of global warming as opposed to the scientific fact supporting the global warming hypothesis. Most scientists who are in fields studying global warming are estranged from media and many of them have misgivings about some of the things being wrongfully said by so-called global warming "aid" organizations or news networks (largely playing off a chance at more money as opposed to making and dissemenating useful, truthful knowledge).

The other side of the coin.

Just because Al Gore actively supports anthropogenic global warming does not mean it does not exist.

Why do you always start a sentence with "Just because..."

This is like the fourth time now...you seem rather obsessed with the idea that everyone can always be right. They can't. Someone is wrong. Global warming either occurs directing because we are poor stewards of the environment (as the argument goes), or a bunch of nutty tree-huggers decided to pull one hell of a ruse to push their agenda through and this is all nonsense after all.

And just because we don't actively support anthropogenic global warming doesn't mean it does exist. If you can provide accurate and objective material supporting the claims for global warming, and not typical environmentalist propaganda, then we may be heartened to listen.

I hope you remember what you've written today, not for vindictive reasons of course but simply as a lesson for the future you to not believe in consensus of so called "Scientists". As time passes and this "anthropogenic global warming" is shown to be the farce it is (although too much money and pride is already invested in it so don't expect to hear a public apology or admission from those promoting it) I just hope you will take it to heart not to be taken in by the sensationalism of silly concepts.

P.S. Using big words doesn't make your position correct! Leave that to the pseudo-scientists

By that token, Dark, provide accurate and objective materials supporting the claims that it doesn't exist (or, isn't caused by humans).

I really shouldn't have to prove anything, I'm not the one making the claims here. I am merely refusing to believe in fanatical myths that have zero truth behind them. Rather, it is you who should be searching for the actual facts to prove to me it does exist.

And I actually gave two good examples in my previous post. If you didn't read them, please do.

Actually, seeing as I believe nothing in particular on the subject, I'd be hard-pressed to gather the necessary drive to convince someone else of either view. I'm simply suggesting that you make the same effort to convince others of your viewpoint that you expect of them.
You provided examples of what? If you mean accurate and objective materials, I've never seen you post a single accurate and objective source on these forums... or any source at all, for that matter, even when asked to.

When you are a Scientist, of any facet, it is customary (and required if you want to be taken seriously)to provide accurate, and ...scientific proofs that can backup your claims.

You provided examples of what? If you mean accurate and objective materials, I've never seen you post a single accurate and objective source on these forums... or any source at all, for that matter, even when asked to.

Not true. Reread what I posted. And you can stop the personal attacks

Oh, well that... has nothing to do with anything that was just said?

Your claim is that pumping noxious chemicals into the air is not having any significant effect. The other side claims that pumping noxious chemicals into the air is having a significant effect. Seems to me that both are hypotheses that require proving. In fact, of the two, the second one, at face value, looks a lot more plausible.

Personal attacks? Stating a fact is a personal attack? Well, if the mods agree, then so be it. I'm betting not, though.

We had record lows this last winter throughout the Midwest..and were I live, a very good year in terms of snowfall, so

If you would have been keeping up with the news stations you would have noticed the Midwest had record low temperatures this last winter. And here at my home....like I said, we had a heavy winter. Your move.

Personal attacks? Stating a fact is a personal attack? Well, if the mods agree, then so be it. I'm betting not, though.

WHAT fact? Humor me, here, please.

And seeing as how one mod failed to control your blatantly anti-religious links, I may have to agree with you. I don't mind you posting that, but that fact that it didn't get trimmed, yet stuff I posted, did--and it was far more tame--concerns me.

Why the hell would I be keeping up with news? Anyway, you didn't tell me to go fishing 4 posts (of yours) back. You said your previous post.

As for your "accurate and objective materials" in the form of a weather report... what do you think that proves? Record lows are actually a point on the side of those claiming that global warming is real. It also completely fails to contend with the possibility that it's man-made. Global warming supposedly wreaks havok with the weather, causing both highs and lows to become more extreme. Even I know that, and I've done pretty much no research on it.

My anti-religious post was facetious and specifically stated not to click on it if you thought you might be offended. It was posted mostly for the benefit of the atheists and agnostics in the crowd.

The fact was simple, you have not provided evidence for any of your claims that I have seen, even when asked. That is not an insult, it is a statement of an observation. If you don't like it, perhaps you should start providing said evidence?

It's called global-warming, not global-cycling. Meaning the earth is steadily increasing in heat, thus melting the polar caps, etc.

Why the hell would I be keeping up with news? Anyway, you didn't tell me to go fishing 4 posts (of yours) back. You said your previous post.

..........

My anti-religious post was facetious and specifically stated not to click on it if you thought you might be offended. It was posted mostly for the benefit of the atheists and agnostics in the crowd.

NO DUH!
That's my whole point, it was naturally controversial, and to a higher degree, overly offensive, which has been the mods argument the WHOLE time: not to post offensive material. You just proved my point with your post.

Well, just to put a possible scenario out there... what do you think happens if significant cold areas, say... ice caps, suddenly started drifting away from the poles? Something that might happen if, say, they melted.

I'm glad I could prove your point by disproving it.

As I see it there are different solutions to this problem:

1) We agree that nobody of us has enough knowledge to be sure that his theory on climate change is right and thus everything is a matter of whom you believe more.

2) We return to the real topic of this thread without answering the climate question.

3) We start ignoring DN as he obviously does not like to contribute to the discussion by proving his points and wont change his mind anyway and agree that science is right.

I'm done arguing with you. It is clear you have zero factual proof and relay on Animal Planet to fuel your beliefs.

3) We start ignoring DN as he obviously does not like to contribute to the discussion by proving his points and wont change his mind anyway and agree that science is right.

....Again, what science? That has been the whole argument: is there any science behind this claims?

Which beliefs would those be? The ones I stated that I don't have?

Is there any science behind your claims?

So, back to the point: America is dying. It'll stop being a world power in the next 30 years. And when that happens, everyone who's been thirsting for revenge (me included!) will have their moment.

I donno, I been trying to figure that out as well. I (along with Yak, Kalrithus, and others) simply asked for actual science to be provided, then I was labeled a non-believer of science by Dekar simply because I didn't buy into this whole silly notion. Then you jump in, claim you have no personal opinion, yet counter or argue against everything I said...What do you expect me to believe? Don't you think it's a little suspicious?

On a side note, I apologize if I fueled any animosity here. I still think we can have an intelligent conversation on this crucial topic, so peace all.

Is there any science behind your claims?

Listen carefully:

I am not making any claims, I am only refusing to believe in this until scientific proof can be found.

Let's just believe whatever we like despite what the majority of scientists think and industrialized countries treat as a legitimate policy item. Hey, ignoring warning signs worked well in the past right? You know? The .com bubble? The housing bubble? The oil bubble? Read Roger Lowenstein's book 'Buffett' for more examples back to the great depression.

Let's ignore the possibility of peak oil and global warming. So we can... save a tiny bit of money and keep doing shit stupidly?

Is anyone arguing that we should use more gas, we should pollute rampantly, and we should send more money for oil overseas to the countries where the dictators and terrorists live?

The question is whether 3 billion dollars (the cost of 10 Raptors) for hoopties was a good investment.

Replace "ignore" with "paranoid" maybe.

Dark_Nemesis wrote:I donno, I been trying to figure that out as well. I (along with Yak, Kalrithus, and others) simply asked for actual science to be provided, then I was labeled a non-believer of science by Dekar simply because I didn't buy into this whole silly notion. Then you jump in, claim you have no personal opinion, yet counter or argue against everything I said...What do you expect me to believe? Don't you think it's a little suspicious?

All I did was ask for the same, actual science to be provided for either side. I argued against you because you refused to put up any actual evidence of the claim that you are(n't) making.

Dark_Nemesis wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:Is there any science behind your claims?

Listen carefully:

I am not making any claims, I am only refusing to believe in this until scientific proof can be found.

Ford Prefect wrote: Your claim is that pumping noxious chemicals into the air is not having any significant effect. The other side claims that pumping noxious chemicals into the air is having a significant effect. Seems to me that both are hypotheses that require proving. In fact, of the two, the second one, at face value, looks a lot more plausible.

I extend the same challenge to Lanthis: prove it.

By the way, telling me that my beliefs are fueled by animal planet... that's not offensive? I think that between the two of us, the one doing the reporting should be me. Should I? Should I? Nah, because I don't really care what you think.

Also, I think this has gotten far out of hand, perhaps a mod can cut out the portion where it became a significant derail and make it into a new thread?

Dark_Nemesis wrote: Which is why you just got done slamming the GOP for ruining the American economy. Understand ya
And yes you can blame one party or the other, though I agree some polices overlap. But if a Republican congress passes a bill, and that bill fails to work, then it is Republican's to blame. It is called taking responsibility for ones actions.

[Edit] I'm saying Obama will ruin the economy in the way he's headed.

I didn't intend to "slam the GOP for ruining the American economy", you take things too personally. All I'm saying is people can't pretend that when Obama took office all of these economic issues magically appeared (also not saying that you are, I don't know you well enough for there to be no confusion between us in this discussion, it just seems most people I've argued this point against before have thought that or at least have tailored their argument in that way).

As for the "Republican congress passing a bill" metaphor, I'd say that there could be Democrats who voted for the bill as well, but in all honesty there's such a dividing line between parties these days that that would be highly improbable. I'm also not trying to shirk responsibilities for prior actions or anything, I just suppose when I posted my last post I was being a bit fanciful and pretending our government worked the way it's supposed to. My bad .


As for Global Warming, I'll quickly sum up why I believe what I do, since this thread isn't about that. Of course I believe in natural global warming, however I feel evidence supports that this particular warming is moving faster than in the past and that this acceleration is caused by the emission of fossil fuels.


Btw, did DN just use "paranoia" as a verb? That hurts on many levels.

Paranoia, paranoid, take it any way you want.

I could start picking through your posts word by word if that is the way you feel about it.

Dark_Nemesis wrote:Paranoia, paranoid, take it any way you want.

I could start picking through your posts word by word if that is the way you feel about it.

Feel free, I'd rather know about my grammatical errors and word misuse anyway.

EVERYONE misuses words and spells incorrectly, everyone. Now you can start picking through those peoples' posts if you want, but complaining about a single word is rather paltry imo, and to do that as a tool of attack is unnecessary and immature.