User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 35

  1. #11

  2. #12
    almost half a doctor phoenix13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    1,313

    "OMG I FEEEEEEEEEL SO INTENSELY ABOUT EVERYTHING OMG OMG OMG GET ME A XANAX" -Priam (ENFP impersonation)

  3. #13
    almost half a doctor phoenix13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    1,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Since you obviously have a political agenda, and since you admit here you are not objective at all, why should we hear you while don't want to hear us?

    Why should it be one way only?

    ---

    Do you think we're that naive?

    Are you that desperate? Why?
    I never stated my opinion. As one might expect from an ENFP, I have not yet decided which side contains more truth.

    I am presenting another point of view that has substantial data behind it. The only "agenda" behind this thread is to hear intelligent responses as to why Lord C's argument is inaccurate, or unfounded, etc. Why? Because if no one can provide it, my fear that we have ended the debate prematurely is entirely appropriate.

    See if you can put aside your visceral reacions for an hour, and LISTEN TO THE LECTURE so I don't have to assume that even the cynical among us have failed to utilize their scepticism on this issue.

    "OMG I FEEEEEEEEEL SO INTENSELY ABOUT EVERYTHING OMG OMG OMG GET ME A XANAX" -Priam (ENFP impersonation)

  4. #14
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix13 View Post
    I never stated my opinion. As one might expect from an ENFP, I have not yet decided which side contains more truth.

    I am presenting another point of view that has substantial data behind it. The only "agenda" behind this thread is to hear intelligent responses as to why Lord C's argument is inaccurate, or unfounded, etc. Why? Because if no one can provide it, my fear that we have ended the debate prematurely is entirely appropriate.

    See if you can put aside your visceral reacions for an hour, and LISTEN TO THE LECTURE so I don't have to assume that even the cynical among us have failed to utilize their scepticism on this issue.
    What seriously makes me wonder is... well, does anybody remember the "little ice age" from History class?
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  5. #15
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix13 View Post
    You're aware that the record they're refering to goes back only 150 years, right? I addressed that in my first post.
    Of course, I'm talking about recent warming. Does your lecture even contest the theory that current warming rates are related to the increasing presence of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (at a level probably never before seen on the planet) due to the greenhouse effect?

  6. #16
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix13 View Post

    See if you can put aside your visceral reacions for an hour, and LISTEN TO THE LECTURE so I don't have to assume that even the cynical among us have failed to utilize their scepticism on this issue.
    Do your use your scepticism always one way?

    In University, 15 years ago, I remember my favorite subject was (indirectly) global warming, as I studied epiphytic plants of the high Himalayas, and the way they seemed to adapt to climate change. Years after years, after having been in Sikkim at least three times, I've noticed the tropical glaciers were rapidly shrinking, and I wasn't the only one to see the trend.

    In 15 years of my existence, I have read dozens, and dozens, and dozens of papers on that subject, about the CO2 cycle, how it is absorbed, how it affects plants and hence, global climate. So frankly, I'm tired to say the same things over and over and over and over again, and to people that will anyway never really listen, especially because they follow a political agenda. It's a waste of time. And besides, English is not my native language: it makes things even longer and more painful to explain.

    There is a 99% consensus amongst climatologists. How can you pretend you haven't chosen a side? Either you're:

    (a) incredibly stupid,
    (b) totally ignorant,
    (c) either you are trying to convert the average reader to your (lost) cause, to spread doubts when there is in fact almost none.
    (d) you like conspiracy theories -Ie: convince us that it's the Jews and the CIA that are responsible for the 11/09 events-

    Frankly, I don't see the purpose of this thread. Or rather, I see it, I'm not that naive.
    You may call that an argument from authority, and you would probably be right about it, but frankly, I don't care. Have you seen the huge number of threads here, that spread the same lies, the same misinformation over, and over, and over again, just for the sake of a pathetic political gain -this has nothing to do with Science-?
    Last edited by Blackmail!; 12-14-2009 at 08:26 AM.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  7. #17
    WTF is this dude saying? A Schnitzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Socionics
    B.S.
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix13 View Post
    Have you found a problem with his arguments or the studies he uses to support them, or are you just finding an excuse to avoid the effort of considering another view?

    The subtitle of this thread is "a good scientist will listen to anything once." I'm not interested in why one should not listen. (note: listening does not imply judgement)
    My point was that you were misrepresenting physicists. Young and Newton had models that worked and they were both right. Light is a particle and a wave. They both also made contributions to fluid dynamics, the field that describes weather phenomena. The basic climate science was worked out over a hundred years ago. As we see the globe is heating up and pollution is a major problem. CO2 emissions have been proven to cause climate change. The degree in which they do is unknown but you're not posing the question that way.
    Quote Originally Posted by prplchknz View Post
    sheesh humans! for realz

  8. #18
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoenix13 View Post
    Clearly, you did not watch the lecture. Before halting the debate, perhaps you could listen to it and present a criticism that is not based on faulty assumptions and requires more than 2 seconds of thought.

    You are incorrect in saying that he has no science training. The guy is a published author of scientific journal articles. In one article, he used the Stefan-Boltzman equation to predict the maximum change in temperature in response to complete erradiation of the atmosphere (and was supported in a recent study using satellite data). These things demonstrate a substantial scientific background. Science and research journals are not like regular magazines. Submitted articles are reviewed by a pannel of scientists and must meet the scientific standards of the particular journal in order to be published.

    Now, I have access to the journals (provided they're available. Many of the studies he referenced are extremely recent... which I like). I can present them after my batch of exams.
    Please share these scientific articles. I did not present any assumptions - these are widely known critiques of Monckton.
    George Monbiot: This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong | Comment is free | The Guardian

    For the past nine days my inbox has been filling up with messages labelled "Your scam exposed", "The great fraud unravels" and "How do you feel now, asshole?". They are referring to a new "scientific paper", which proves that the "climate change scare" is a tale "worthier of St John the Divine than of science".

    Published in two parts on consecutive Sundays, it runs to a total of 52 pages, containing graphs, tables and references. To my correspondents, to a good many journalists and to thousands of delighted bloggers, this paper clinches it: climate change is a hoax perpetrated by a leftwing conspiracy coordinated by the United Nations.

    So which was the august journal that published it? Science? Nature? Geophysical Research Letters? Not quite. It was the Sunday Telegraph. In keeping with most of the articles about climate change in that publication, it is a mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish. But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist.

    The author of this "research article" is Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications. But he is confident enough to maintain that - by contrast to all those charlatans and amateurs who wrote the reports produced by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - he is publishing "the truth".
    What is this substantial scientific background?
    What are these peer-reviewed articles he's written?
    Do present whenever. I'd be glad to take a look.

    A quick search on scholar.google.com revealed one article that wasn't a commentary. This is it in the American Physical Society Forum:
    APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
    Here is the statement that precedes the article:
    Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
    By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

    So, the one scientific place willing to publish his "article" posted a statement clarifying their position first which is clearly not in line with his. Nice.

    Present evidence, not opinion and present the sources directly so we can examine them for ourselves. We have enough opinions flying about here.... Thanks.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    There is a 99% consensus amongst climatologists. How can you pretend you haven't chosen a side? Either you're:

    (a) incredibly stupid,
    (b) totally ignorant,
    (c) either you are trying to convert the average reader to your (lost) cause, to spread doubts when there is in fact almost none.
    Just because someone disagree with your conclusion does not mean that they're stupid. The important point of contention isn't whether the climate is changing a bit. It's whether the destruction of mankind is imminent because of it.

  10. #20

    Default

    1 hour 35 mins of magnificent conglomerate sponsored frothing at the mouth pseudo scientific gibberish make it us as we go along..imo

    I have consulted the label on the back on my tomato sauce bottle and disagree

    Firstly let me say the earth climate varies, greatly and wildly over x no of hundreds/1000s of years to blips little ice age....without stating the obvious in orbital variations, heat sink effects, wrong interpretation of sat data - which was later corrected, therms running amok in the oceans
    fortunate, or unfortunate we are probably entering a period of global cooling - most likely due to the extended solar minimum - well out with its mean variation and thank the gods

    If you take something like mother earth add mount toba..or yellowstone and spew forth an unhealthy balance of any substance then the equilibrium is quite frankly going to be upset

    Any complex model has much variation and seeks balance

    *slipper note thats the worst climate speech i listen too and thank you for sharing it.

    i cant be bother typing lots, and adjourn for an ice lolly
    I asked it once, "What are you doing on Earth?" It said, "Listen, if you're a mushroom, you live cheap; besides, I'm telling you, this was a very nice neighborhood until the monkeys got out of control."

Similar Threads

  1. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  2. Socialism posts (moved from Global Warming.)
    By Anonymous in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-21-2008, 08:28 PM
  3. Global warming explained
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 08-20-2008, 04:30 AM
  4. Global Warming, Man made or Naturally caused (And other earth questions)
    By Didums in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 11:29 PM
  5. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO