Twista, everyone agrees that the Earth is warming. Its shown based on several climate models using data we've collected from rocks, fossils, etc.

Are you seriously doubting that the earth is warming?

All people are supposed to doubt/question is what is causing it.

9/26/2006 2:12:49 PM

^^^^

ha this is funny

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 2:13 PM. Reason : !!!!!!!!]

9/26/2006 2:12:50 PM

And I'm rather sure that sitting in some university, they've got a 12,000 YO sample as well.

9/26/2006 2:13:50 PM

Quote :

"everyone agrees that the Earth is warming"

no shit

its what is causing the warming that is being disputed...is it pollution by humans? is it a natural fluctuation?

and there is not enough data to tell

9/26/2006 2:14:00 PM

No, you're disputing fundamentally how science has arrived at the conclusion. Your argument is: "OMF THEY'VE ONLY BEEN STUDYING THIS FOR 30 YEARS, THEY MUST ONLY HAVE DATA ABOUT 30 YEARS WORTH OF CLIMATE."

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 2:15 PM. Reason : not paying to remove edits]

9/26/2006 2:14:42 PM

^^
no....

there is enough data to tell that the earth is warming, this is why there is a debate.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 2:15 PM. Reason : ^^]

9/26/2006 2:15:00 PM

there is not enough data to tell WHAT IS CAUSING THE TEMPERATURE CHANGES

are you even paying attention to what i'm posting? seems to me like you think i'm a global warming naysayer which i'm not

I don't know if humans are causing the temperatures to rise or if its natural...and theres not enough data to give a clear answer

9/26/2006 2:15:25 PM

Well, geez man, if they can't tell what's causing it, how can they tell it's even happening? Especially with only 30 years worth of data...

Quote :

"Gamecat: Why are you arguing for a greater quantity of information over greater quality of it?"

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 2:17 PM. Reason : ...]

9/26/2006 2:16:06 PM

they can look at temperatures and see that they have risen

they cant just as easily tell what the causes are

how much more simply can i put it

30 years and 12,000 years arent shit compared to the whole timescale of the system

9/26/2006 2:16:59 PM

9/26/2006 2:17:50 PM

Sure they can. The degrees to which specific causes were responsible are what's in dispute...

And information can be extracted from a small sample that will tell you about the climatological makeup of the Earth at varying times. Somehow you seem to be under the impression that climatologists don't understand statistics as well as you do...

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 2:20 PM. Reason : ...]

9/26/2006 2:18:18 PM

12,000 / 4,000,000,000 * 100 = 0.0003%

gosh that 0.0003% of time in the article you based this thread on sure is a large chunk of 100%!

9/26/2006 2:18:59 PM

If you don't dispute that the earth is warming, then go back and read the 1st post again. They have a section for people who say that humans aren't causing it.

Quote :

"'Global Warming' = Bullshit Crowd Hypothetically granting that global warming isn't significantly caused by human pollution, what steps ought to be taken to secure the world's infrastructure from the encroaching sea levels forecasted by the steady increase in temperature from natural processes? "

This thread was designed so we didn't have to have a throw-down about science. Its more about social change associated with warming. /discussion of this shit.

9/26/2006 2:19:12 PM

^thats not me

THIS is me

Quote :

"'Global Warming' Might Be Bullshit Crowd Hypothetically granting that global warming is caused by natural factors and artificial pollutants, what steps ought to be taken to secure the world's infrastructure from the forecasted encroaching sea levels and climate-alterations of warming"

9/26/2006 2:19:35 PM

Quote :

"advances in technology in the last 30 years dont do anything to change the fact that science is still trying to figure out a 4 billion year flucuation trend based on 30 years of very accurate sample data"

I believe this post you made would tend to indicate that the fluctuation trend itself is being called into question.

9/26/2006 2:21:04 PM

you do understand that the Earth didnt have an atmosphere 4,000,000,000 years ago

9/26/2006 2:21:49 PM

Apparently the forces at work billions of years ago quit working the same way when humans showed up. The rules changed out from under us, establishing forever that scientific inference could never lead to scientific advancement or valid theories whatsoever.

^ Which atmosphere should we start with?

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 2:24 PM. Reason : ...]

9/26/2006 2:22:59 PM

Quote :

"Apparently the forces at work billions of years ago quit working the same way when humans showed up. "

despite your sarcasm, thats actually a dumbed-down version of people thinking global warming is definitely caused by humans and that natural fluctuations cease to even come into the conversation

9/26/2006 2:24:39 PM

^^ I dont know, im trying to google it but google sucks.

apparenlty we are on our third atmosphere.

9/26/2006 2:26:03 PM

^^ How is that? Humans can certainly provide materials in different concentrations for those forces to act upon in ways they didn't before. Natural fluctuations must be taken into account, too, but establishing covariance is still ultimately a statistical process...

9/26/2006 2:28:04 PM

Quote :

"Humans can certainly provide materials in different concentrations for those forces to act upon in ways they didn't before"

again...humans have been here anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000 years...hell take that number up if you want...it doesnt change the fact that for billions of years before humans, the earth had its cycles of temperature changes, solar variations, atmospheric changes...all things that were happening before humans exerted their own influence

9/26/2006 2:30:15 PM

Quote :

"establishing covariance is still ultimately a statistical process..."

9/26/2006 2:31:34 PM

ha I still like comparing Terrorism to Global Warming.

9/26/2006 2:33:24 PM

But shouldn't humans be responsible for what they are putting into the atmosphere?

9/26/2006 2:34:15 PM

^^^covariance, in terms of human versus natural influence on climate change, is not quantifyable, so that quote you have again posted is really not true

^^well say what you will...but in a shallow sense, they are both things that each side uses for fear...OMG FEAR THE TERRORISTS THEY WILL KILL YOU! OMG FEAR GLOBAL WARMING IT WILL KILL YOU!

9/26/2006 2:34:19 PM

^^ Not without an economic incentive. Like this guy's:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/21/branson.global.warming.ap/index.html

Quote :

"Branson pledges $3B to fight climate change NEW YORK (AP) -- British business mogul Richard Branson on Thursday pledged to invest about $3 billion over the next decade to combat global warming and promote alternative energy, saying that it was critical to protect the environment for future generations. Branson, the billionaire behind the multi-platform Virgin brand, said the money would come from 100 percent of the profits generated by his transportation sectors -- trains and airline companies. It will be invested in efforts to find renewable, sustainable energy sources in an effort to wean the world off oil and coal. (Watch as Branson puts his money where his mouth is on fighting global warming -- 2:07) The so-called "rebel billionaire" -- wearing a dress coat with no tie and denim pants -- made the announcement on the second day of the Clinton Global Initiative, an annual conference of business, political and nonprofit leaders hosted by former President Clinton. "Our generation has inherited an incredibly beautiful world from our parents and they from their parents," Branson said at a news conference, with Clinton at his side. "We must not be the generation responsible for irreversibly damaging the environment. We must hand it over to our children in as near pristine a condition as we were lent it from our parents." Clinton praised Branson, calling him one of the "most interesting," "creative" and "genuinely committed" people he had ever known. ..."

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: covariance, in terms of human versus natural influence on climate change, is not quantifyable, so that quote you have again posted is really not true"

Utter nonsense, like the rest of your "reasoning" on this matter.

The forces at work in our universe are presumably universal, and presumably have been operating eternally in the same manner according to the philosophical underpinnings of science. And yet, within only a few hundred years of "data" (as you'd define it), humans were able to approximate how those forces interact within different environments with profound accuracy.

Often, the conclusions of science that have yielded such accuracy suggest the covariance of actors and forces to yield results. How were they able to quantify their own data to establish covariance?

What is it about climate change and the human versus natural influences that isn't quantifiable? Are you the Webster of what is and isn't quantifiable according to scientific inquiry?

You're argument seems to have shifted from statistics, which every science recognizes, to actor-observer difference.

The methodology of psychology, even behaviorist psychology, is riddled with recognitions of this concept already. As are sociology, political science, and geology. The hard sciences like physics aren't even free from it. Einstein and Heisenberg are two solid examples of that fact.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 2:46 PM. Reason : ...]

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 2:46 PM. Reason : ...]

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 2:56 PM. Reason : ...]

9/26/2006 2:35:41 PM

^yeah, the Virgin guy was on CBS the other night talking about this.

the president of Shell has also expressed concern over this matter and stated that he sees it as important international political issue, so apparently not all people benefitting from fossil fuels are looking to deny and block awareness and reform.

9/26/2006 3:18:33 PM

Is Warren Buffet putting anything towards this?

9/26/2006 3:19:34 PM

^^^so how come when I claim its not quantifyable, you say its utter nonsense, but you have yet to quantify any of the covariance?

What isn't quantifyable is the amount of human influence and the amount of natural influence on the temperature changes...of course if you disagree, feel free to post one single reference that quantifies the human vs. natural impacts on global climate change

9/26/2006 4:51:15 PM

Quote :

"The American people have dealt with changing weather conditions for over 10,000 years, why should now be any different?"

9/26/2006 5:07:16 PM

Quote :

"Gamecat: They've always reacted to changes, not responding to them proactively."

^^ Probably because I'm not claiming to have been a scientist conducting research into the matter.

And what about those things makes them a priori unquantifiable in your enlightened view?

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ...]

9/26/2006 5:52:42 PM

still waiting for a single solitary example of quantified human vs natural influence on global climate change...

9/26/2006 6:22:27 PM

youre breathing co2 out.

9/26/2006 6:28:56 PM

^^people drive cars that use oil, that would otherwise not be emitting a lot of C02 into the atmosphere

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 6:29 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2006 6:29:17 PM

^,^^ either of you know what quantifiable means?

9/26/2006 6:29:49 PM

yes. i know my rate of respiration.

9/26/2006 6:35:13 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: still waiting for a single solitary example of quantified human vs natural influence on global climate change..."

=

TreeTwista10: Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence

Keep waitin', bub. I don't have to drop a book of physics on you to prove that gravity's effects are quantifiable, or that the position and velocity of electrons covary.

9/26/2006 11:22:22 PM

every decade, you see multiple time magazine covers talking about the grave dangers of global warming, look it up.

every decade, we're supposedly that much closer to having the oceans overrun us.

this has been going on since the 40s or 50s. Nothing much has changed, look at the graphs.

Its a scam, and those responsible should have hell to pay.

9/27/2006 12:54:40 AM

You paradoxically state that nothing much has changed, and then that it's a scam.

If nothing much has changed, what has the climatologists' fooled? How could they mistake something as simple as a change in temperature? Or is it that temperatures change for incredibly complex reasons, a degree of which are human related, and that their understanding of both that degree and the rate of temperature change to expect have been based on slightly but not completely flawed assumptions?

9/27/2006 1:22:56 AM

^^ probably thinks that our level of understanding about meteorology was the same in the 40s-50s as it is today.

9/27/2006 2:08:07 AM

yeah, nowadays meteorologists ALWAYS correctly forecast the weather...they completely understand it and never call for rain when theres no rain or vice versa

9/27/2006 9:54:47 AM

I'd wager that voodoo queens aren't hitting at about 70% either. And that science doesn't (or shouldn't) make the infallability claim that it tries to establish. Hard science, even meteorology, works far more within the realms of probability than certainty, though.

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 10:54 AM. Reason : ...]

9/27/2006 10:53:44 AM

well, the conclusive proof is in the realm that humans are not the cause for the warming of the planet, rather it is a natural phenomenon.

if you are right, what do you suggest we do? tie the hands of industry further than they already are tied?

9/27/2006 11:04:11 AM

Quote :

"Hard science, even meteorology, works far more within the realms of probability than certainty, though."

then why are so many people 'certain' that humans are causing global temperature increases

9/27/2006 11:06:32 AM

Because 'certainty' stems more from emotionally-reinforced belief, than hard analysis over whether or not that belief has logical or rational merit.

9/27/2006 11:08:37 AM

very large convection ovens

9/27/2006 11:09:26 AM

even though you're literally scared to tell me what you majored in Gamecat, apparently it wasnt science

9/27/2006 11:11:29 AM

Yep. I'm literally scared of telling you. You're like a terrorist to me. Or car crashes.

9/27/2006 11:12:22 AM

Quote :

"In simple terms, the guilty do have something to hide."

9/27/2006 11:12:49 AM

Quote :

"Ladies and gentleman, start your engines! Let the latest TreeTwista10 trollfest BEGIN!"

9/27/2006 11:14:41 AM