Too Hot

[nath]

And yes the militant greenpeace fanatics are idiots.

Strikes me that the extreme end of either side of any belief always are.

 

[Louster]

theory

Incidentally, this is exactly the sort of thing that creationists say when they dispute the "theory" of evolution. Do you really need the terminology explained?

 

[Tom]

Your a bit of a twat really.

Thanks, I've always known it and never denied it.

Correct you look at long term, medium term and short term trends and information. From this research and information people who study this can then try and predict possible outcomes of current scientifically recorded data. And see whether the rise in CO2, Ozone, Particulates will have an effect on the climate models and what effect.

So basically, they think they know what might happen based on computer generated models which aren't perfect because the science is in its infancy. And these people would have us spend trillions of dollars to try and prevent something that could very likely never happen, conveniently forgetting that emerging economies around the world won't give a shit about global warming anyway, they'll be too busy selling us iPod Fleas.

Its will never be perfect since the science is still quite young comparativly say to Physics and there is room for interpretation but as with all sciences obsevation when combined with scientifcally proven rules can generally indictate an accurate direction for the attained outcomes. With the majority of credited scientists agreeing that humans are affecting the climate causing it to heat up its more prudent to acutally pay attention to what they are saying.

Give me some credible evidence please. Evidence that doesn't include ground-based temperature readings, the Mann Hockey Stick (which conveniently disregards the little ice age of 1645-1715, yeah thats some study is that.....)

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

Have a read of that, if you have the patience.

Do you have a degree or doctarate in the required readings of sciences connected to the studying of earths climate or the connected sciences? no? well don't take it personally but then i don't give a shit about your personal view

Do you have a degree in anything other than "insulting on the interweb"? I doubt it. Which kind of makes your little rant there a bit pathetic really. Stick to the point.

And don't insult me by implying that I'm a sociliaist, your may think your capitalist or conservative, but like many so called "conservatives" your probably one of the majority that acutally calls himself one based on the more far right wing policies such as nationalism, populism and Xenophobia, Eveyone is a Socialist when they are poor and eveyone is a Conservative when they are rich. Why? because they have something to conserve. A basic allegiance to an alignment of thinking from usually basic people, why else would you have all those former "Tories" and Labour voting BNP. oh noes the foreign people are here! even though they are largely responsible for our increased economic growth, But then thats because the vast majority of people are stupid, anyway you can't have perfect demorcracy without perfect information which is currently impossible. You make do with what you can.

Conservatism is nothing to do with nationalism, populism, or xenophobia. Modern conservatism for me is mostly about free market economics and reducing the size of the state, making people responsible for their own lives. But thats a nice try there to link the majority of the voting public in England to those hateful 'values' at the top of this paragraph. Oh, do you actually have figures for how many Tory voters are now voting for the BNP? Because the last time I looked, the BNP were a minority party wielding practically no political influence or power whatsoever. I guess most of the Tory voters must have actually voted Tory then, what a surprise there.

Mind you, I think you're a blue blood yourself, since you feel insulted to be linked to socialism. Or perhaps you're 'New Labour', in which case you'll probably be phoning the police right now to complain that somebody is infringing your human rights by disagreeing with you.

Good for you, if you have the money hell go for it. But then you think "if the majority of scientists are right" then what is the effect this going to have on me and my children, my way of life and how will it affect my social and economic wellbeing. And sorry I had to smirk ironically when you said you laugh at the vanity of "tree hugging yoghurt knitting sandal wearing socialists" while plugging on about "your" de-catted TVR. Nice one *thumbs up* by the way im well endowed, went to public school, have a brand new car, get decent money, have loads of pretty girl friends and enjoy having one night stands with their friends and am only 22, oh wait! am i being vain and showing off? nahhhhhh

If they're right. If. Thats a very very big if, based on a few short years of guesswork and computer modelling, with a heap of left-wing dogma and downright nastiness demonstrated by the Greenpeace link a few posts above.

And theres nothing wrong with having a nice car or nice things and being proud of that. If I want to drive around in a nice car that looks good and impresses people, I'll happily do it.

Oh and linking a man's car to the size of his todger is about the lamest and stupidest joke ever. Its a joke perpetuated by people who can't see any point in having a nice car, but can see the 'value' of spending hundred's of pounds each year on the latest technological miracle bollocks skin cream. Pure envy. envy that someone else has something nice and they don't.

It makes me feel better. I'm not hiding anything, I'm proud of it. At least I'm not chewing recycled paper with skimmed goat's milk while reading The Independant, and trying to convince people I'm concerned about the environment when really I'd only be concerned with other people's business.

righttttttt....


And yes the militant greenpeace fanatics are idiots,

You got there in the end.....

 

[Tom]

Incidentally, this is exactly the sort of thing that creationists say when they dispute the "theory" of evolution. Do you really need the terminology explained?

Evolution is by no means a fact. Its simply the best theory we have to explain things.

So no thanks, I don't need it explaining. But thanks for the offer.

 

[Louster]

Oh, but you clearly do. And I'm going to make it nice and simple for you, too.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

Can you see the problem with the "zomg it's just a theory" argument, yet?

 

[Louster]

Also, if you're going to dispute anything, you ought to be disputing the predicted effects of global warming - predictive models are always going to be the most tentative and open to criticism. Disputing that humanity has had (and is having) a significant impact on global temperatures, however, is really kind of dumb. As has been said, the "prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". This was not always the case; I remember this being a very debatable issue not all that long ago. It really just isn't any more. The fact that more and more of the people that study climate change are becoming convinced of this - even the most cynical doubters of yesteryear - is enough to make me think that just maybe they know what they're talking about.

And it's pretty obvious that you're just arguing all this so that you can continue living your lifestyle without experiencing any twinges of conscience; you've basically admitted as much. You realise that with a bias as blatant as that, any argument you make about the actual matter at hand is going to be basically inadmissable? And as for the "mind your own business" thing - you realise that the only way "personal liberty" works is by ensuring what you do does not impinge upon the liberty of others? Okay? So stop fucking up the environment please.

 

[Ch3tan]

It's alright, let Tom use as much fuel as he wants, pay higher bills because he wants to take a stand by not using energy saving lightbulbs.

It's ok to not believe that we are not contributing to the planets climate change, but you always come across as an arrogant cock who puts across extreme views.

 

[Jupitus]

It's ok to not believe that we are not contributing to the planets climate change, but you always come across as an arrogant cock who puts across extreme views.

I don't think disagreeing with the global warming scare stories is necessarily an 'extreme' view, is it?

I read a book a while ago (I'll try and dig it out later) which delved into alot of the argument - premise was the book's 'hero' was actually pointing out along the way alot of the mis-information or doubts surrounding the theory. It was pretty well researched and an interesting read.

P.S. Tom IS an arrogant cock though

 

[DaGaffer]

As has been said, the "prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".

No, that's still not the case. The prevailing opinion is that some of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Opinions vary wildly over just how much, depending on who's axe is being ground at the time.

Personally, while I have no idea who's actually 'right' on the global warming debate, I'm extremely dubious about the proposed 'solutions'. CO2 reduction is generally laudable, although not necessarily because of the CO2 reduction in itself, but because it tends to go hand in hand with energy efficiency, which is actually far more of a worry than greenhouse emissions in themselves (running out of oil without an alternative is a far scarier scenario than Norfolk under water imho).

What everyone seems to forget when they talk about "CO2 emissions reduced by 20% by 2020" or whatever, is, what happens next? Are the proponents of emissions reduction seriously suggesting that the human race lives in an energy constrained world for ever? No they're not. The unspoken agenda of the greenies is energy constraint and population reduction, by whatever means necessary. The problem with this unpleasant scenario is that even if humans learn to live in an energy constrained environment with reduced population and strict CO2 controls, the emissions environment that is entirely beyond human control, such as volcanic or solar activity, can destroy all the human efforts overnight.

Rather than bankrupting ourselves through every-more draconian emissions controls, that nations like India and China ignore anyway, rendering our efforts futile, we should be investing our efforts in energy independence from oil through alternate power generation and at least as important, alternate power storage. If you can get this right, the CO2 problem goes away anyway (or it does to an extent). The greenies are looking at the wrong problem, but given their ultimate leanings this isn't that surprising; cheap clean abundant energy like fusion would be a disaster for their agenda.

 

[TdC]

we should be investing our efforts in energy independence from oil through alternate power generation and at least as important, alternate power storage.

hear hear. was just about to mention this in argument, but you've done it for me.

energy constraints? no thanks. I am convinced that we can make it without them, but we'll fuck up if there is no alternative to unfriendly 'current' methods, and we can do it: what was impossible 50 years ago is so mundane today that nobody notices any more.

 

[Tom]

It's alright, let Tom use as much fuel as he wants, pay higher bills because he wants to take a stand by not using energy saving lightbulbs.

It's ok to not believe that we are not contributing to the planets climate change, but you always come across as an arrogant cock who puts across extreme views.

Its always interesting to see which side of the debate starts the insults first.

 

[throdgrain]

Its always interesting to see which side of the debate starts the insults first.

I agree actually Tom.

 

[`mongoose]

my degree is 10 years old now so I am a little rusty but...

and there is a big but ...

The whole physical geographers academia was massively spit on the issue of global warming. Many 'studies' were little more than finger in the air exercises that came around from massive funding into research on the effects of climate change. I suspect they still will be split (barring those who are loving the millions of pounds they're getting to research something with very little premise to work on or critical validation)

There are a number of things that are crucial to bear in mind when debating any sort of climate change.

Firstly, most studies have taken place over the last 5-10 years during which we have experienced Volcanic Eruptions, Tectonic disturbances and El nino in the southern hemisphere

Secondly, our historic data for climate change is shit - it's only accurate up to around 100 years ago and is totally based on heresay and after that point. We could argue that Vines were grown successfully in England during the Roman occupation and as a result we've actually seen global cooling over the last 1000 years or so

Thirdly there is no valid model of Global Climate change, Climate change theory is still in its infancy and therefore it could be as valid as Geopolitical Theory (which held that Germany would be a super power due to it's physical position in Europe) or rational man theory - neither of which work, are effective or have any semblence of valditiy when applied to the real world.

in short - I agree with Tom. We haven't got enough data, we aren't getting enough data and the models that predict the end of the world (tm) are shit. Whilst talking about greenpeace, friends of the earth etc etc it's important to remember that they are also political parties and pressure groups in their own right. They're not some bunch of hippy tree huggers who want to change the world, they're a well organised pressure group who employ people to make the most out of their message. As a result I give them as much credence as I do any other political party. Fuck all!

I think we should be researching cleaner, sustainable fuels, we should be cleaning up on our emissions, not because of global warning but because I'd actually like to think we left the world a better place for once in a generation.

M

 

[Tom]

Regarding cleaning up emissions Mongoose, this is an interesting link:

http://reason.com/rb/rb062602.shtml

 

[`mongoose]

Aye - it's a good read Tom - particularly regarding the whole CO2 trump card argument and makes interesting reading when talking about global warming.

it doesn't, however, get away from the basic point that sooner or later we will run out of gas and coal, not to mention the fact that petrol prices are on the rise yet again.

We've got the science now to research and produce alternatively fuelled cheaper to run engines. We've got the science to bring in cheaper renewable power. That's what I'd like to see us doing. Not because of some poncey global warming end of the worldism but because it's cheaper, cleaner and renewable as a resource.

M

 

[Furr]

Thanks, I've always known it and never denied it.

Good good

So basically, they think they know what might happen based on computer generated models which aren't perfect because the science is in its infancy. And these people would have us spend trillions of dollars to try and prevent something that could very likely never happen, conveniently forgetting that emerging economies around the world won't give a shit about global warming anyway, they'll be too busy selling us iPod Fleas.

Just to clarify since not many people know this, nearly all science is still a theory. Nasa spends hundreds of millions sending probes to far flung reaches of the solar system using "theory". The Science is "relativly" new like an LCD monitor is new technology compared to the invention of the wheel. But like all science you repeat your experiments again and again, when the the results from the various studies all looking at the same thing are all saying the same thing they could be wrong due to a fundemental flaw but they can also be right on. Also what they say seems to make sense, humans are changing the chemical makeup of our atmosphere. We are increasing its greehouse gases. Green house gases = more retained heat. seems simple to me? lots of variables yes. But the simple idea is very easy to understand (if you ever got past your GCSE's)

Give me some credible evidence please. Evidence that doesn't include ground-based temperature readings, the Mann Hockey Stick (which conveniently disregards the little ice age of 1645-1715, yeah thats some study is that.....)

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

Have a read of that, if you have the patience.

Pointing out one individual research paper is never going to show anything, people can always point to a minority of papers that dispute with the majority. The little ice age is always brought up, ok how do i make this simple. No one is disputing the fact that the earth climate changes. What im trying to say is that at the research is showing that the activites of humans of the last 100 years are also now affecting the climate.

soo

(natural earth climate changes) on the one side (man made earth climate changes)

was that easier?

Do you have a degree in anything other than "insulting on the interweb"? I doubt it. Which kind of makes your little rant there a bit pathetic really. Stick to the point.

I was sticking to the point, i was pointing out that your personal view on climate change mean squat to me. I did say not to take it personally.

Conservatism is nothing to do with nationalism, populism, or xenophobia. Modern conservatism for me is mostly about free market economics and reducing the size of the state, making people responsible for their own lives.

Thats what i said, go back and read what i typed again.

But thats a nice try there to link the majority of the voting public in England to those hateful 'values' at the top of this paragraph. Oh, do you actually have figures for how many Tory voters are now voting for the BNP? Because the last time I looked, the BNP were a minority party wielding practically no political influence or power whatsoever. I guess most of the Tory voters must have actually voted Tory then, what a surprise there.

I did not say there was a massive shift to bnp, what i acutally said was

why else would you have all those former "Tories" and Labour voting BNP

Thus I was Indicating that their had been a noticable amount of voters who had gone BNP not enough to wield power but enough to continue to increase their votes at the last local and general election.

You really have to learn to read statements for what they say rather than change the interpretation of a sentence so you can form an answer. Or you just need to work on how you interprete information alltogher.

Mind you, I think you're a blue blood yourself, since you feel insulted to be linked to socialism. Or perhaps you're 'New Labour', in which case you'll probably be phoning the police right now to complain that somebody is infringing your human rights by disagreeing with you.

Isn't that what i said?

And don't insult me by implying that I'm a sociliaist

Actually i'm a paid up member of the conservative party, I actually put my money where my mouth is.

And on the subject of New Labour, Tony Blair is a Conservative who went to the otherside to win an election. Unfortunatly for him he joined Labour so alot of his policies never went thourgh or went through in a diluted form because the old Clause 4 labour backbenchers are socialist to the bone.

If they're right. If. Thats a very very big if, based on a few short years of guesswork and computer modelling, with a heap of left-wing dogma and downright nastiness demonstrated by the Greenpeace link a few posts above.

And theres nothing wrong with having a nice car or nice things and being proud of that. If I want to drive around in a nice car that looks good and impresses people, I'll happily do it.

Oh and linking a man's car to the size of his todger is about the lamest and stupidest joke ever. Its a joke perpetuated by people who can't see any point in having a nice car, but can see the 'value' of spending hundred's of pounds each year on the latest technological miracle bollocks skin cream. Pure envy. envy that someone else has something nice and they don't.

It makes me feel better. I'm not hiding anything, I'm proud of it. At least I'm not chewing recycled paper with skimmed goat's milk while reading The Independant, and trying to convince people I'm concerned about the environment when really I'd only be concerned with other people's business.

by the way im well endowed, went to public school, have a brand new car, get decent money, have loads of pretty girl friends and enjoy having one night stands with their friends and am only 22,

Actually I wasn't making a joke this is how a small section of my life pretty much is. Im happy with how things are going personally. sux to be other people.

Im not disputing having fun is bad. Maybe this was my fault and i wasn't clear enough, i did post it late. Ok we are all guilty of it. But thats how our society is. There are no financial incetives to incline us towards being "green", being enviromentally friendly is harder work that just living normally. So untill that changes nothing will. What i was also stating is the our lifestyles will have an impact of generations down the road, what that impact is depends on very much how responsible we are aybe global warming won't happen we are still using alot of non renewable fuels and materials. Some people resent being inconvienced and would rather burn the earth to the cinder for their enjoyment since they don't care about people who have to live here down the line.

Anyway petrol is eventually going to run out, so alternatives do have to be found there. Plus the chemicals it pumps out from its combustion are bad for human health anyway. Plus alternatives mean less reliance on the middles east and the less we have to do with them the happier i will be.

You got there in the end.....

 

[tris-]

tom strikes again i see.

shouldnt you turn your computer and monitor off, because the heat is going to heat your house up more than you are able to cool it.

 

[mank!]

ignoring the facts completely, i'm convinced that summers have got warmer, hotter and sunnier with less rain as i've grown up. i'd have loved summers like this when i was 13 but i don't remember it ever being like this for so long...

of course, this could just be my crap memory but i'm going to state it as fact.

FACT!

 

[GDW]

I saw white dog shite today. I havent seen that since 1976!






















FACT!

 

[Tom]

The Science is "relativly" new like an LCD monitor is new technology compared to the invention of the wheel.

Poor choice of comparison there. I can point at an LCD monitor and see that it works, just as I can a wheel. This is not something that anybody can do with the environment, because basically they don't know how.

But like all science you repeat your experiments again and again, when the the results from the various studies all looking at the same thing are all saying the same thing they could be wrong due to a fundemental flaw but they can also be right on.

Yep, you repeat your measurements to fit the problem. The issue is that nobody is sure there is a problem, it simply has not been proven, anywhere. You've admitted it yourself.

Also what they say seems to make sense, humans are changing the chemical makeup of our atmosphere. We are increasing its greehouse gases. Green house gases = more retained heat. seems simple to me? lots of variables yes. But the simple idea is very easy to understand (if you ever got past your GCSE's)

Sorry, but its either reliable science or it isn't. People used to 'bleed' patients because they thought it might help with the symptoms of their illness. After all, it seemed to make sense - drain some blood, remove a bit of the infection....

Actually, do you know what %age of the earth's atmosphere is co2, and what percentage of that is man-made? I think you'll be surprised.

Pointing out one individual research paper is never going to show anything, people can always point to a minority of papers that dispute with the majority. The little ice age is always brought up, ok how do i make this simple. No one is disputing the fact that the earth climate changes. What im trying to say is that at the research is showing that the activites of humans of the last 100 years are also now affecting the climate.

Thats not what you said just a moment ago though is it? Before you were undecided, now you're certain. In the same post as well.

soo

(natural earth climate changes) on the one side (man made earth climate changes)

was that easier?

No need to iterate that point, I've made it several times already.

You really have to learn to read statements for what they say rather than change the interpretation of a sentence so you can form an answer. Or you just need to work on how you interprete information alltogher.

How ironic, thats pretty much what the environmentalists do - mould the argument to fit their agenda.

What i was also stating is the our lifestyles will have an impact of generations down the road

Yep, praise those mill owners and industrialists of the 18th century, because without their toil and labour you'd be out in a field right now ploughing a lane behind a couple of horses.

what that impact is depends on very much how responsible we are aybe global warming won't happen we are still using alot of non renewable fuels and materials. Some people resent being inconvienced and would rather burn the earth to the cinder for their enjoyment since they don't care about people who have to live here down the line.

Its not that they don't care. Its that they don't believe the significance of the supposed 'consequences' of their actions. Personally I take that line because still, nobody can point and say 'proof'. All I see is a lot of doom-mongering and scare tactics, but no actual hard proof.

Anyway petrol is eventually going to run out, so alternatives do have to be found there. Plus the chemicals it pumps out from its combustion are bad for human health anyway. Plus alternatives mean less reliance on the middles east and the less we have to do with them the happier i will be.

Oil has been 'running out' for the last 40 years. It'll still be running out in 100 years time. Oh, and petrol is an fairly insignficant by-product of oil, there are a great many other products from oil that are more valuable.

Yeah, whatever.

 

[Tom]

tom strikes again i see.

shouldnt you turn your computer and monitor off, because the heat is going to heat your house up more than you are able to cool it.

I'm just about to purchase a heat exchanging aircon unit for my house (compressor on the external wall, fan on the internal wall), so I care not.

 

[throdgrain]

Stupid fucking arguement about nothing. Jeez.

 

[Furr]

Poor choice of comparison there. I can point at an LCD monitor and see that it works, just as I can a wheel. This is not something that anybody can do with the environment, because basically they don't know how.

Erm well i wasn't saying "this is how it works" i was making a statment about development relative to age. Another malformed interpretation of text to form an answer that does not address the orginal statement.

Yep, you repeat your measurements to fit the problem. The issue is that nobody is sure there is a problem, it simply has not been proven, anywhere. You've admitted it yourself..

No but there is a good indication that there is a problem. Such as when chenoboyl went up, the west did know that it had blown up, but the clues gave an indication that there was a problem.

Sorry, but its either reliable science or it isn't. People used to 'bleed' patients because they thought it might help with the symptoms of their illness. After all, it seemed to make sense - drain some blood, remove a bit of the infection...

People also used to offer sacrifices to the gods for rain aswell. Lame attempt to provide a stament to support your notion that scientists of today are just as misinformed as they were over an hundred years ago. But you can either be one of those who contiue the trend of the fear of scientists (mad scientist effect) and believing they have their own agenda etc or you can believe the the human race has acutally gotten to a point where our understanding of mathes, science, cause and effect are actually of a standard to help us analysis the universe around us.

Actually, do you know what %age of the earth's atmosphere is co2, and what percentage of that is man-made? I think you'll be surprised.

Tom you obviously have no idea how chemistry works espeically for compunds such as CO2, Methane, etc no matter how small the change the effect output can be dramitcally magnified this doesn't just apply to the atmosphere but all forms of chemistry You believe in a very simplistic way that for there to be change there has to be a large change in something there needs to be a corresponding large change like increasing the amount of CO2 from 0.003% to 0.020%. I would love to explain it to you, but i don't have the time to teach you how it all works.

Thats not what you said just a moment ago though is it? Before you were undecided, now you're certain. In the same post as well.

I never said I was 100% certain, once again stop making your own assumptions and read the statement.

No need to iterate that point, I've made it several times already.

Yes you have sooo tried.

How ironic, thats pretty much what the environmentalists do - mould the argument to fit their agenda.

My god what drivel is this?? what? my love for certain aspects of environmentalists is not good, but your just coming across as a complete pleb. or it could be that their arguements are fitting the argument because its correct?

Yep, praise those mill owners and industrialists of the 18th century, because without their toil and labour you'd be out in a field right now ploughing a lane behind a couple of horses.

Once again, I fail to see what point you making, acutally I know what your trying to say, but im sorry your being a retard for trying to say that i believe that we would be better off without the industrial revolution. My god, can you say "i speak crap"

Its not that they don't care. Its that they don't believe the significance of the supposed 'consequences' of their actions. Personally I take that line because still, nobody can point and say 'proof'. All I see is a lot of doom-mongering and scare tactics, but no actual hard proof.

Well there is where we disagree. But it help to have access to an enviroment where there is a glut of scientific information in unscensored form regarding the above. Sneak into you local uni and look up some of the reasearch information. Better yet find one with an enviromental study department. I know Loughborough has one.

Oil has been 'running out' for the last 40 years. It'll still be running out in 100 years time. Oh, and petrol is an fairly insignficant by-product of oil, there are a great many other products from oil that are more valuable.

Riiight, having acutal knowledge of polymers and material enginering all i can say is that your understanding of the subjects doesn't not lend well to your arguements. but *sigh* yes there will be oil around for quite a while, whether or not it will be economically viable, the right type, etc is another question.

Yeah, whatever.

Yes, i agree you are a rather lame,

Stupid fucking arguement about nothing. Jeez.

Im quite combatitive, and enjoy any sort of argument, toms probably a good fella but i don't agree with some of his views, is he wrong, am i wrong, i don't care i just enjoy all sorts of combative debate...... can't help it.

 

[Tom]

I would love to explain it to you, but i don't have the time to teach you how it all works.

your just coming across as a complete pleb.

your being a retard

"i speak crap"

Yes, i agree you are a rather lame,

Im quite combatitive, and enjoy any sort of argument, toms probably a good fella but i don't agree with some of his views, is he wrong, am i wrong, i don't care i just enjoy all sorts of combative debate...... can't help it.

Quality argument is that. Just like the environmentalists. Can't get your point across, so you buy a megaphone and shout insults.

BTW, if the quality of your language is indicative of your university education then please excuse me if I don't take you seriously. My spelling and grammar were better than that when I was 12.

 

[Tom]

Erm well i wasn't saying "this is how it works" i was making a statment about development relative to age. Another malformed interpretation of text to form an answer that does not address the orginal statement.

You'd have been more accurate if you'd called it 'faith' rather than 'science'. It doesn't change the fact that no matter how new this science is, its still not proven.

No but there is a good indication that there is a problem. Such as when chenoboyl went up, the west did know that it had blown up, but the clues gave an indication that there was a problem.

Well if you can find a naturally occuring cloud of radioactive particles anywhere else, please feel free to tell us. Unfortunately for you, nobody has yet managed to conclusively link any changes in the atmosphere to the actions of mankind.

People also used to offer sacrifices to the gods for rain aswell. Lame attempt to provide a stament to support your notion that scientists of today are just as misinformed as they were over an hundred years ago. But you can either be one of those who contiue the trend of the fear of scientists (mad scientist effect) and believing they have their own agenda etc or you can believe the the human race has acutally gotten to a point where our understanding of mathes, science, cause and effect are actually of a standard to help us analysis the universe around us.

They may have learned a few tricks, but mostly we know nothing about this world or the way it works.

Tom you obviously have no idea how chemistry works espeically for compunds such as CO2, Methane, etc no matter how small the change the effect output can be dramitcally magnified this doesn't just apply to the atmosphere but all forms of chemistry You believe in a very simplistic way that for there to be change there has to be a large change in something there needs to be a corresponding large change like increasing the amount of CO2 from 0.003% to 0.020%. I would love to explain it to you, but i don't have the time to teach you how it all works.

Go on then, how is this change magnified? Do explain, I'd love to know - if you have 'the time' that is? Explain how such changes would be in any way different to natural changes in the Earth's climate, without the influence of mankind?

I never said I was 100% certain, once again stop making your own assumptions and read the statement.

I disagree. You have several times made statements to the effect that the science is irrefutable.

My god what drivel is this?? what? my love for certain aspects of environmentalists is not good, but your just coming across as a complete pleb. or it could be that their arguements are fitting the argument because its correct?

Maybe it is. But I'm not assuming it is. I'm not taking a 'leap of faith' based on the unconfirmed suspicions of environmental groups backed by scientists who undoubtedly have an agenda, just as those backing the opposing view have their agendas. My agenda is to the truth, and so far all I've seen is a bunch of grass eating bullies trying to panic the population into reverting to a socialist lifestyle.

Once again, I fail to see what point you making, acutally I know what your trying to say, but im sorry your being a retard for trying to say that i believe that we would be better off without the industrial revolution. My god, can you say "i speak crap"

You're worried about possible consequences of our actions to future generations. I say that there won't be any, because those same clever people you love to put on a pedestal as proof the world is doomed will actually end up inventing stuff that makes our lives cleaner and better. I say that even if they didn't, nothing will happen anyway. You have yet to prove otherwise, despite everything you've posted.

Im quite combatitive, and enjoy any sort of argument, toms probably a good fella but i don't agree with some of his views, is he wrong, am i wrong, i don't care i just enjoy all sorts of combative debate...... can't help it.

You can have a good argument without resorting to name calling and insults.

 

[TdC]

You can have a good argument without resorting to name calling and insults.

indeed. goes for everyone tbh. that out of the way, I enjoy fiery rhetoric, so keep it up

 

[mank!]

I saw white dog shite today. I havent seen that since 1976!






















FACT!

conclusive proof of global warming!!!

(either that or they've started making rubbish dog food again)

 

[old.user4556]

... with lots of chalk content

 

[Vae]

Its not that they don't care. Its that they don't believe the significance of the supposed 'consequences' of their actions. Personally I take that line because still, nobody can point and say 'proof'. All I see is a lot of doom-mongering and scare tactics, but no actual hard proof.

Except that you can't prove a scientific theory only disprove it. All you can do is carry out scientific experiments to either provide supporting evidence for the theory or to disprove it. So by your standards Tom the Climate change theory can never be proven just like the theory of gravity can never be proven. All that can be done is to amass evidence supporting either of them.

 

[Furr]

hehe ok tom, i admit i did step over the mark with the name calling. we can both agree to disagree. Although i have a feeling that we both follow the same type of thinking just that in your case your have applied it to one direction that is the opposite of the direction i have taken it.

But fiery banter is how great arguments occur, and i applaud your passion and the defence you put towards what you believe. At least you have the resolve to continue saying what you believe.

I still think that the human race is developing and evolving at a rate that has now reached a point where our actions are now powerfull enough to affect the world around us. You believe that we have yet to reach a point where our actions have serious consequences. The only way to see who is right or wrong is to wait and see.

As the old adage goes, I may disagree with your what you say but i'd fight to the death for your right to say it.

btw i never said that the science was irefutable, I said that it was a good indication. And you can apply that argument to most scientific theories. Most theories can not be proved. But the results of the theories are in line with what is observed. And i agree Spelling is not my strongest point. More my grasp of numbers and equations. I believe in what is observed. I am not religious i do not believe is divine rule. Prediction based on a set of rules following observations is what i believe. And in this case the amount of data that indicates we are chaging things outweighs the data showing otherwise.