TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Global Warming 'very likely' man made.
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX First, wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia get ALL they're content screened by experts. Wikipedia on the other hand only gets some content screened by experts for errors. Wikipedia also tends to lack correct citations so that one can trace down the facts. Now i cant believe that after reading 'Collapse' you can still make those silly arguments about natives, and about global warming being a myth. I also find inconsistent with your view on global warming the fact that you own an al gore book when al gore is one of the preeminent proponents of human caused global warming. Now, if yo really care to do some research, and or sway any of use with your arguments, maybe try citing from those books you own or finding a link to more reliable information. Sadly the information you give us from those books, if any, is influenced by your interpretation, so unless you give us direct quotations it means null. I've also read collapse and guns, germs and steel, and i've seen the al gore documentary and i sincerely do not understand how you can deny global warming being man made after being exposed to the information in those books. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Since you dont like encyclopedias, I also obtain a massive load of my information and knowledge from books, I have a collection: Al Gore - Earth In The Balance |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Thanks, Shakka. That video is AWESOME (and its not sarcasm). I have outmost respect for Bushmen. Even the video says: Bushmen are so content, no crimes, no laws, no police, no judges, no rulers, ... |
| quote: |
| They have no sense of ownership at all. Nothing can be owned. They use mostly wood and bone, no concrete. |
| quote: |
| I was so pissed off, and still am when Botswana government forced these people off their land, fucking bastards. Most of them have been forced to move into cities, learn languages, school, force against their will. |
| quote: |
BTW, awesome disco music is playing!!!!!  |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by metalgearsolid Al Gore-the biggest fucking hypocrite. Imagine how many fucking trees had to be cut down for printing his book-and the oil it took to transport his book from nation to nation. Like I'll every believe what a fucking drunk/hypocrite ever has to say. |
Or then lets not publish any books, lets not build homes.
Lets rent a horse and transport banned-hemp-paper books across the oceans, from country to country! By the time the book reaches Japan, Amazon rainforests will be gone probably! 
You see, there are alternative methods for paper, like hemp. But hemp is banned in many countries.
u didn't mention the oil it takes and the coal and the manpower and the concreate for the roads...etc etc.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by metalgearsolid u didn't mention the oil it takes and the coal and the manpower and the concreate for the roads...etc etc. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka No problem--that movie is a classic! Sure I respect them, but does that honestly make their way of life better than mine? I have accepted some societal "evils" in exchange for some near-galactic improvements in living standard to have them. I mean that is an obvious trade-off to begin with. Peaceful and/or non-agressive as it is, are you fucking kidding me? That was for a family of 20-30 bushmen. Now propose a serious and sincere logistical strategy that will accomplish Bushman killing ritual standards on all farms, factories, fisheries, etc., or any other major food industry on a truly national scale. Living like a bushman is akin to denying evolution. They represent the past...the waaay past. Yeah, I have a problem with that. Yeah, I guess it sucks for them. One of them oughta become a lawyer and sue the government. hehe. I didn't notice. |
Another important thing to add - right now we might think we have a better, more efficient, advanced lifestyle and society. Bushmen and natives think theirs is better. Lets not force our ways was on them, let them live peacefully, and only time will tell which way will ultimately outlast the other one ;-) Cause I have a feeling that in the case of Bushmen, which lived content and efficient for over 20,000 years, will continue to do so, while we we undergo severe calamities that will shake up our lifestyles and we will settle for less ;-) all that spports, tv, media junk will have to discarded because survival will be the primary goal. And THEN we will look at them and try to learn the basic skills of survival. Quite frankly, if the lights went out tomorrow, we wouldnt be able to survive for long in the wild because we dont have any skills, other than skills at watching TV, playing cards and spinning records. And Kalahari Indians are in adequate numbers enough to be able to support themselves. While we are living in risky times, sucking out the resources, giving nothing useful to Earth in return but garbage.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Two reasons: historic records and ice core samples. Any expert will either use these facts to prove the exagerration of global warming, or, in the case of your so-called experts, they'll just mumble and shift away from the point. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX OK, hit me with them experts. Show me the interpretation of the nice pictures you have shown us by those so called experts. I don't have time right now, but ill show you real research papers from real experts rebutting your 'opinion'. So far you have shown us no source from an expert or a respected journal in the field, or even a widely acclaimed book. So please stop talking like your point of view is the end all of all arguments, you haven't shown one bit of credible data. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium I have shown lots of credible data, unless you think history is lying. Or that joined Russian, French, American scientists taking ice core samples in Greenland and Antarctica whose results match historical data, have faked it? Thats a conspiracy theory to me. So far the entire campaign on global warming has been backed by very little evidence. I cant believe people like you are just discarding historic record as irrelevant lies. LOL |
Magnetonium:
I had a few questions for you to answer but you can ignore them. Especially after you've made that "drastic changes" post.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX Im asking a simple request, links to those reports by those Russian, French and American scientists. Nothing more. Every time i ask, you come ignore it and build some vague argument. Give us the link to the data and the reports, and no wikipedia doesn't cut it in my books as i have already stated it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 Magnetonium: I had a few questions for you to answer but you can ignore them. Especially after you've made that "drastic changes" post. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium You should ask the questions anyway. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 I've agreed with you on other threads, but not this one. But you're not answering the question: If the earth would be better off with less people would you take a bullet for it? You were talking about destiny. You are going to die one day. How about taking one for the team now? There are homeless and hungry people in this world should you try to feed them or kill them? Or is it more important for a tree to grow than a baby? If you had a can of dog food as your only source of nutrition between you and your dog, would you chose your dogs' life over your own? Everyone is fine with the death penalty until it is them one day at the gallows wondering just what were they thinking. |
| quote: |
| To let you know in advance, I am powerless if you also join in the action and say that Wikipedia is not a good resource. I cant type up paragraphs from books while doing homework, so I used Wikipedia. |
| quote: |
| In "The W�RD", (Stephen) Colbert defines "Wikiality" (a portmanteau of "Wikipedia" and "reality") as "truth by consensus" (rather than fact), modeled after the approval-by-consensus format of Wikipedia. He praises Wikipedia for following his philosophy of "truthiness", that intuition and consensus is a better reflection of reality than fact. As he states, "if enough people believe something", it must be true. He also calls on people to edit Wikipedia so it says certain things, for instance, that the elephant population had tripled in six months. As a result, many of the topics Colbert mentioned, as well as numerous Colbert-related topics, were temporarily protected. |
| quote: |
| During the interview segment with Linda Hirshman, Colbert claimed that latchkey kids all grew up to be crazy, implying that he read it on Wikipedia. Hirshman then said that if Wikipedia didn't state such a thing before, it most likely soon would. |
quote: Originally posted by ogvh5150
To paraphrase the old saying; if you get 100 monkeys on 100 computers, eventually they come up with wikipedia.
It would be more helpful if you can use a university or collegiate site.
See two posts up (my posts) for a link to a scholar report on this issue, referenced well including some Ph.D's. The truth is, there are Ph.Ds on both side of the issue. So what?
quote:
If the earth would be better off with less people would you take a bullet for it? You were talking about destiny. You are going to die one day. How about taking one for the team now?
I wouldn't take a bullet. Why? Because first of all, this is not going to happen. And the issue is not LESS people, because people, our civilization especially do damage anyways, like the globally attributed extinction of horses in North America due to humans, according to some experts in book LAST HOURS OF ANCIENT SUNLIGHT. There's strong evidence that humans caused the extinction of mammoth as well. But thats of course debatable. I think overall humans are bad. if it meant that 99.9% of humans perished, leaving with permanently less than 500 million in total and stay that way, and if the damage to Earth done by us is restored, its well worth sacrifice, to take the bullet. That way I would know that something positive has been achieved.
The reason taking the bullet is worthless right now is because I know, I am certain that most of humans will be wiped out sometime in the future for any number of reasons: disease, climate change affecting food supplies/production, war, possibly nuclear annihilation with all the WMD's all of us have especially the western world, destruction of environment. For me our current advancements for most part are meaningless. Watching TV 4 hours a day is a stupid accomplishment, when there's so much to learn, explore, love ... Its stagnant. People spend boring lives in their "boxes" (homes), doing daily repetitive chores, not caring or not doing anything about the important issues, surrounded and enchanted by our lifestyle that goes against nature and naturall ways in so many aspects ...
quote:
There are homeless and hungry people in this world should you try to feed them or kill them?
Most people in developed world cant afford or dont want or dont have time for more than one child. Thats why our population is naturally dropping. While in Africa, Asia, people live in terrible poor conditions, barely enough to survive ... earning a dollar a day in most parts, and yet decide to have 5,6,8,10 children. Where's the logic? Why create the conditions for the children's suffering? Why should we be blamed for that? If you help one child, and then the family has even more children (as their population is booming), how much of a difference will your donation do? Education is much more important, invest in buying condoms for these people and invest in their education system would save many more children from suffering.
quote:
Or is it more important for a tree to grow than a baby?
All life is important. I cant make a decision here, both deserve to live. Tree is life, child is life. I hate when people think that trees are insignificant. Well, they say, cut down one tree no big deal. Equal logic is kill one child it wont make much difference either. Tree, however, is more important to the child and its surroundings than a baby because tree provides life, home, support for other life. Baby, when grows up, takes advantage of tree's resources, often in a terrible negative way. If trees are gone, this will destroy us. On the other hand, with or without a child means nothing to the tree. The tree does what is has evolved to do. The child in the long run is more damaging than a tree.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium I wouldn't take a bullet. Why? Because first of all, this is not going to happen. And the issue is not LESS people, because people, our civilization especially do damage anyways, like the globally attributed extinction of horses in North America due to humans, according to some experts in book LAST HOURS OF ANCIENT SUNLIGHT. There's strong evidence that humans caused the extinction of mammoth as well. But thats of course debatable. I think overall humans are bad. if it meant that 99.9% of humans perished, leaving with permanently less than 500 million in total and stay that way, and if the damage to Earth done by us is restored, its well worth sacrifice, to take the bullet. That way I would know that something positive has been achieved. |
| quote: |
| hom Hartmann (b. May 7, 1951) is an American broadcaster, three-time Project Censored Award Winning New York Times bestselling author, and former psychotherapist. He is a lay scholar of the history and textual analysis of the United States Constitution, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), electronic voting fraud, and environmental issues such as global warming. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX I love it how the other of your favourite book on the environment is a psychotherapist. Look im even using wikipedia! Now you're telling us that most of your ideas of environmental change come from this guy who has absolutely no training in the field? And then you wonder why people here have trouble taking you seriously. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Does Al Gore has training in the field? Thom Hartmann did a lot of research, travel, studies in the matter. He's one of the experts I respect a lot in this issue. And he's got other expertise as well, his ADD books are interesting read. Also I enjoy his book WHAT WOULD JEFFERSON DO? A Return To Democracy. Hartmann is not the only author I read, I have nearly 100 non-fiction books in my collection at the moment. Carl Sagan, Al Gore, David Suzuki, Jared Diamond are my other favourite authors to read that I can think of at the moment who talk about environment issues. Carl Sagan inspired me the most, Thom Hartmann was the second and most powerful push for me. So what that Thom Hartmann has expertise in more than one field? How does that make him biased? Thats stupid ... excuses. That only shows how smart he is. I have enormous respect for Thom Hartmann. And he is actually supporting global warming!!! I just took his information to the next level from history, ice core samples, the true result of CO2 increases |
. Oh man, it was fun.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX I find it funny most of you're favourite authors support global warming . Oh man, it was fun. |
Yep...just adding more fuel to the fire...
| quote: |
| An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months� time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases. The small print explains �very likely� as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain�s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works. Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported. Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter�s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Ad�lie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean. So one awkward question you can ask, when you�re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is �Why is east Antarctica getting colder?� It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you�re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it�s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999. That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming. The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm. What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report. Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun�s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism. He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun�s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier. The only trouble with Svensmark�s idea � apart from its being politically incorrect � was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005. In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year. Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark�s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it �A new theory of climate change�. Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out. The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark�s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature�s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars. |
To whoever its using Wikipedia to use as reliable data its scary..
Id go to Peer-review scientific articles. They may be very complex in language but you get a better idea there. I dont know why some people want their word against most if not all of the scintific community.
blah I still dont know what is it that people don't understand about human behaviors effect on climate change.
I will just say, and it's probably already been said...Global Warming is not man made. It's just being accelerated by humans. It would have happened anyways, because the Earth's climate does heat up and cool...climate change does happen and there's no stopping it. We can just lessen the effects of it by cutting back our greenhouse gas emissions, being more energy efficient and clean. But we can't stop the climate change. Basically, it would have happened probably closer to 2030 or 2040, but due to our involvement, we've made it come sooner. So I don't agree it's "man made".
I do agree that humans can and do have an affect on the environment. My "beef" is that we will never conclusively prove human provoked global warming, so we need to stop acting so incredulous towards those who doubt its existence. Now, should we piss on the environment and continue with the way we treat it? Hell no. However, we need to realize that no matter what "data" or "facts" we cite, we can never know for sure that we are the definitive cause of climate change.
But hell, flame away. Run around like chicken little all you want...I could give a rat's ass. Post your graphs and data, but in the end it's all for naught.
This is seriously getting to the point of being worse than religion. The mentality of human-induced global warming believers is becoming; "If you don't believe what I believe, you're wrong and stupid, regardless of why you believe differently and your reasons for it."
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.