Exactly. The wiki article that I posted was actually sourced. I'm not going to read links to articles from a paper that has shown to have a biased agenda.Originally Posted by GavinZac
Yeah, you can add anything you like - but if its not got a (reputable) source, its freely removable by anyone who disagrees.
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
Exactly. The wiki article that I posted was actually sourced. I'm not going to read links to articles from a paper that has shown to have a biased agenda.
My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method, is love. I love you Sheriff Truman.
god you are getting lazy resorting to this kind of a comment. read the credentials of those scientists and present to me a list of 400 scientists with similar credentials who say that gloabal warming is man made. You say its a fairly easy job off you go
i call you on this. do it! get me those names Scientists with credentials like the 400 scientists mentioned above. you see you wont will you? but youll make stupid lazy comments and with nothing to back them up. what a waste of time!and a fairly easy job finding 400 scientists that believe the earth is no more than 8000 years old
why just pick that arguement , continue and comment on the other 34 arguements. we look forward to your insight.Even the first point is full of weasel words and twisting. When you have sentences like "Though Gore does not say that the sea-level rise will occur in the near future, the judge found that, in the context, it was clear that this is what he had meant, since he showed expensive graphical representations of the effect of his imagined 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise on existing populations, and he quantified the numbers who would be displaced by the sea-level rise" you know people are grasping at straws. He used pictures and an absolute minimum estimation of the population in future times (hint: population goes up in the long run), so this means he's talking of The Day After Tomorrow?
I have no wish to experience another Loose Change.
jockser, I've picked one of your links at random. I've no intention of spending all day reading the others, as you've a tendency to meet a rebuttal of something with twenty new links of similar quality.
The link I picked, using the uber-scientific "eeney-meeney-miney-moe method"
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=332289
This is a newspaper article by a journalist with no science qualifications he's publicly admitting to. That's okay. What's in the article? Some peer reviewed science, perhaps? Let's take a look.
The first half of the article is given over to anecdotes about the severity of the winter this year. "OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades." So far, so good. I'm actually impressed - for a journalist, it's pretty reasonable.
Then he discusses some work by Toggweiler and Russell, which suggests that the Gulf stream depends more on some cyclical wind currents than water temperature gradients. Interesting. Then,
What? No. That's not what their result said at all. It says nothing about manmade warming. It said nothing about polar ice melt. It says that melting polar ice won't stop the Gulf stream after all. Nothing else. There's no link to the work though. Maybe they said that, but the journalist felt he could put it better. It's shoddy journalism, but it's possible. So I looked up their work, and found the relevant paper http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture06590.html (published in Nature, no less; impressive). It doesn't say anything about manmade climate change either. In fact, it basically says what I was interested in, and nothing of the rest. So, either these prominent scientists were speaking beyond the evidence, or a journalist who regularly writes opinion pieces against anthropological global warming and who has no science training is talking out of his ass. Either way, I'm not so impressed with this quarter of the article.Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
The article is rounded off by some more anecdotal stuff, including two indirect quotes from scientists.
Finally, to wash off the nasty unscientific feeling to my post, here's some science, as reported by the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm on this peer reviewed academic paper http://publishing.royalsociety.org/m...pa20071880.pdf. Just to quote from the news report,
And the bit you won't like, from a third partyDr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.
"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.
"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity" - Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.
You can't spell failure without FAI
nah just read the links before commenting. That link is included in the links i posted.Your comment was the stupid one not mine.[/QUOTE]
you mean like global warming is man made?but a lot of the articles that you've linked to (I've read a few of them) seem to be based purely on assumption.
Last edited by jockser; 19/03/2008 at 3:21 PM.
You're seriously asking me to 'prove' something which is common knowledge? Young Earth Creationists are 2-a-penny in the USA, and its even quite a burgeoning business market too.
http://www.answersingenesis.org
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
id urge you to read them over the next week and then decide on whether global warming is man made.
Qouting someone from the UN's IPCC is like me quoting George Bush to prove there were WMD in Iraq. How manny Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary?
Read what 400 earth and weather scientists say about the IPCC
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport
e.g.
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."
OK here is my point. In my opinion and of others in here is that the debate on " global warming is man made " is not over. Right? It may be proven in the future that this indeed is fact and all scientists agree. But these guys have gone full steam ahead with new carbon taxes on everything and charges that effect all of us even though there is no consensus. Thats what ****es me off.
thats your proof of 400 scientists with credentials??? ok i see
Last edited by dahamsta; 19/03/2008 at 3:52 PM.
Do you see though, regardless of climate change, that a civilisation like our own should no longer be reliant upon non-renewable power sources? Irrespective of whether you believe the earth was created in 6000BC or that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere has no effect on the earth, simple economics should point out that building markets upon scarcity is fairly silly in the long run.
Continuing with the bizarre anti-environmentalism/pro-israel axis, unsuprisingly "Science and Policy" turns out to be a particularly right wing group in a particularly right wing country.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/wo...ing_8_14_2007/
Last edited by dahamsta; 19/03/2008 at 3:52 PM.
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
agree 100%
my arguement is on all these new taxes due to man made global warming which is not a concensus in the scientific community
Well the only reason politicians have embrace Global Warming from Bush to Brown to Bertie is that it finally gives the means to tax the weather.
The Canadian provience of Quebec already has a carbon tax to fight global warming. However look at the current news from there:
Quebec children get holiday as snow piles on roofs
Reuters - Tuesday, March 18
MONTREAL - Several dozen schools were expected to remain shut this week in
the Canadian province of Quebec over fears their roofs may collapse under
the weight of near record amounts of snow, officials said on Monday.Four
people have been killed in the mainly French-speaking Canadian province of
7.6 million after roofs collapsed under the weight of accumulated snow,
though none of the incidents involved schools.
To date, some 350 centimetres of snow has fallen in the Montreal area,
approaching a record level of 383 centimetres set in 1971.
How can Quebec continue to justify taxation measures related to global warming when their school children are in danger from being crushed by record snows.
According to Al Gore we should of been feeling the first noticeable effects of a "balmy Northern winters in 2008".
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks