|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: An inconvenient truth.... or lie? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: If you folks choose to disbelieve the reportings of the WSJ, the London Times, London Telegraph and other tabloids, that's your perrogative. I've cited some stuff which you can choose to reject or accept as reliable. I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing about whether these journalists are objective or not who have reported on it. Unless the journalists also happen to be scientists, why should we trust their knowledge on the subject over that of knowledgable experts? And why does the possible fraud of a small number of scientists necessarily mean that the entire scientific community is fraudulent? Do you really expect the media tabloids to be objective on this issue? Don't you find it a little odd that out of over a thousand e-mails and documents, only a few have been presented as evidence of fraud? And usually out of context. And as a sidenote:
Buzsaw writes: BTW, I have often cited the clear implications in Biblical prophecies that global warming will happen upon the planet in the end time of the Gentile empires but according to Revelation 16, the cause will be mostly from the sun. *Sarcasm time*Surely, if the Bible was referring to anthropogenic global warming it would have simply said so: quote: *End of sarcasm* -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Hi slevesque,
slevesque writes: Ok, WTF this is not only irrelevant (the gay-hating part) but totally absurd and insulting. And Seriously, I'm surprised admins didn't react. This is retarded lol Taz can be a jerk at times. Don't feed his trollish and spiteful behaviour by responding to it.
slevesque writes: greenhouse gas who has the biggest effect right now is water vapor. But it is so complicated to simulate in models that we aren't able to do it yet, and so the biggest factor wasn't even taken into account by the GIEC. Yet they published that there was a 90% probability that anthropogenic factors were responsible. Now granted, I'm not an expert in this field at all. But I think what you're saying is that we must take water vapour into account in order to conclude whether GW is anthropogenic or not? According to wikipedia:
quote: This means that other gases (like CO2 or methane) account for at least 15% of the greenhouse effect. That's enough to cause quite a bit of change should these gases start building up in the atmosphere. Furthermore, warm air can hold more water vapour. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see what might happen to water vapour concentration when the atmosphere heats up. I agree with you in that modeling and simulating climate change is a very complex and difficult task (weather is complex, that's why meteorologists are unable to make accurate predictions more than a few days ahead). I don't think there's anyone who can predict with certainty how much climate change to expect, and how much of a role we'll play in causing it, but it is a fact that global temperatures are rising and that the levels of carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases are on the rise. This should be a cause for concern, and an indication that we are not blameless as temperatures start climbing. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Even if Jones has acted fraudulently, or hidden certain data for who knows what purposes, that doesn't mean that every climatologist in the world whose research indicates anthropogenic GW is lying. All it shows that there are rotten apples in every basket.
I have read the e-mails, however, unlike you, I'm not going to judge these e-mails based on my personal bias and limited knowledge of the context. And I don't have to. The e-mails are being investigated by IPCC, and I suspect we will know soon how much, if any, fraud is behind them. No point in reaching conclusions prematurely, eh? Let's wait until the facts roll in. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Taz writes: I merely reflect on a pattern that I have noticed, that the same people who have been bible thumping are the same people who are most outspoken about the exaggerated claims of the supposed international fraud I have also noticed how Christians in general, and especially Creationists tend to be the most skeptical (read pseudo-skeptical) of Global Warming. Anyone know why this is? Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: The agenda of promoting global warming entails promotion of global new world order which undermines nationialism *cough* Really?? Different nations cooperating to reduce emissions is a step toward a New World Order???
Buzsaw writes: It expands federal governmental control, restricts personal freedom, restricts utilization of our own vast untapped hoard of natural resources such as oil, nuclear power, coal, gas, technology etc. It serves to empower and enrich 3rd world nations, communist nations and the Muslim block of totalitarian regimes by rendering western nations dependent upon them for energy and global redistribution of wealth via carbon taxes, etc. It doesn't restrict our untapped natural resources such as wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas etc. Nuclear plants have very little emissions, and if it weren't for their scariness I'm sure we'd be getting much more of our energy from them. How exactly is it going to enrich 3rd world nations, besides the fact that they won't be ending up under water? Won't we instead be doing well to be off of "Muslim" and "communist" oil? I mean, we're empowering the Muslim bloc right now by buying their oil. Why the heck does pursuing cheaper energy solutions on our own soil mean empowering them? The problems you're talking about seem very much to be the problems we are in now, not the ones we'd be in if we took GW seriously. Getting rid of our dependence on oil will not only promote cleaner energy, but REMOVE our dependence on other nations. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Conservatives know which media to rely upon for the rest of the story. If conservatives decide to rely on media and conservative spin, rather than data and fact they are more gullible than I thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
My point was that you should not rely on popular media AT ALL for your science. Instead of just reading blogs and listening to talk show hosts or news reporters, read the source material yourself. Read the controversial e-mails in full, read papers on Global Warming. Look at the data, is it consistent, does it make sense?
I, personally, do not prefer any newsnetwork over any other, and I dislike spin whether it is liberal or conservative. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024