Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global warming - fact or conspiracy?
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 111 (323883)
06-20-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ragged
06-20-2006 1:06 AM


Ragged, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that global warming is real. There are plenty of recorded data on the rate of recession of the arctic ice sheets and glaciers. NASA itself admits of the dramatic decreases in the total ice mass in the northern regions. We have lost some 40% or so of the northern ice cap.
What the debate is about is what is causing the effect, whether it's manmade or something else. The scientific community, for now, seems to be split on the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ragged, posted 06-20-2006 1:06 AM Ragged has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by riVeRraT, posted 06-22-2006 10:13 PM rgb has replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 111 (325353)
06-23-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by riVeRraT
06-22-2006 10:13 PM


riverrat writes
quote:
I was under the impression if the ice caps melted completely, that the oceans would rise 20feet.
I know you probably are not thinking of the flood, but just to be on the safe side, I've climbed up to the continental divide on the Rockies several times, and it's many thousand feet more than 20.
quote:
If the caps have melted 40%, where is the 8 feet of water?
The northern ice cap doesn't affect the water level much, since it floating on the water anyway. What some people might be concerned about is the amount of fresh water that is dumped into the ocean, causing the saline level of the ocean to drop... but that's another story. The ice on greenland is more of a local ecological concern because it's not much to be concerned about globally.
What people are worried about is the ice down on antarctica. Because it's a really big piece of land with ice that covers the entire continent and is several miles deep (that's a lot of water), it would be a world wide disaster at every coastal area on Earth if all that ice melt away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by riVeRraT, posted 06-22-2006 10:13 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Omnivorous, posted 06-25-2006 11:41 PM rgb has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 111 (325356)
06-23-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by deerbreh
06-23-2006 11:32 AM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
deerbreh writes
quote:
On the other hand, the global warming skeptics are often financially supported by energy companies, who have a financial incentive to keep the fossil fuel economy going.
Uh... I hate to be a doomsayer, but this really looks like an ad hominem on global warming skeptics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 11:32 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Chiroptera, posted 06-23-2006 1:47 PM rgb has replied
 Message 46 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 2:29 PM rgb has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 111 (325372)
06-23-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Chiroptera
06-23-2006 1:47 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
chiroptera writes
quote:
So, if doubts about the anthropogenic contributions to global climate change are mostly confined to industry sponsored scientists, then a suspicion about a connection is not unwarranted.
I would argue that pointing out something like "Scientific research funded by chemical companies found no reason to believe that CFCs would contribute to ozone depletion" is an ad hominem attack because we could never know for sure (in short of the chimcal companies coming out clean and telling us that they doctored the results) that the company indeed doctored the results.
Yes, there might be enough to warrent suspicion there, but such an attack to invalidate your opposition is not a noble way to do it!
I still maintain that it is an ad hominen to point out something like "Scientific research funded by tobacco companies showed no link between cigarette smoking and lung disease despite the fact that we all recognized that there is a scientifically demonstrated link."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Chiroptera, posted 06-23-2006 1:47 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ramoss, posted 06-23-2006 2:14 PM rgb has not replied
 Message 48 by Chiroptera, posted 06-23-2006 2:56 PM rgb has replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 111 (325402)
06-23-2006 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Chiroptera
06-23-2006 2:56 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
I'm not disagreeing with you on the apparent motive of special interest funded research groups. I am disagreeing on using such a fact to support your position.
Your message 48 is much better and cannot be viewed as an ad hominem because you explained how the process worked.
The original statement in question merely accused the other side of having a biased motivation, which is never fair!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Chiroptera, posted 06-23-2006 2:56 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 3:31 PM rgb has replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 111 (325453)
06-23-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by deerbreh
06-23-2006 3:31 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
deerbreh writes
quote:
Note that I was RESPONDING to a quote which used the term "shifty environmentalists" and asked the question what would motivate them to be shifty (deceptive). I then pointed out that GW skeptics are often financially supported by energy companies who are motivated by profits. That is a fact. It is not saying that the skeptics themselves have a biased motivation. There is nothing unfair about it. It only suggests that energy companies are more likely to fund individuals whose research tends to promote their economic interests. There is nothing wrong with that per se but there is also nothing "unfair" about pointing it out.
So, in other words, you were using "tu quoi" rather than ad hominem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 3:31 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 8:49 PM rgb has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024