Author Topic: For all you rabid environmentalists (Read 4385 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #105 on:** June 15, 2007, 07:19:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKH
Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most.

Stanford Solar Center

ITS NOT THE SUN STUPID

Hiya H, looks to me like those graphs (there are three of them cleverly integrated) indicate temp is following sunspots more than co2.

straffo · « **Reply #106 on:** June 16, 2007, 03:12:39 AM »

You're right before 1950.

But after ?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #107 on:** June 16, 2007, 03:53:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
You're right before 1950.

But after ?

When talking climate change, the record of only 50 years is not statistically significant. Some natural swings in temperature have taken centuries, some studies now indicate that temperatures rose 16 C in only a few decades several times in the past. We are still within the normal fluctuations of this highly chaotic system.

We can have reason to suspect that we are having an effect, but that is all the more sure we can be. The only thing we can be sure of now is that we do not know. We can suspect, but that is not enough for a conviction.

straffo · « **Reply #108 on:** June 16, 2007, 04:51:36 AM »

How can you affirm it's not statistically significant ?
We don't have data before 1800.

I'm sorry but I can't make statistical analysis without data.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #109 on:** June 16, 2007, 05:14:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
How can you affirm it's not statistically significant ?
We don't have data before 1800.

I'm sorry but I can't make statistical analysis without data.

The data before 1800 comes fom tree rings, ice cores, etc.

That we do not have direct data from eons ago adds to the uncertainty of the problem. How can one be sure that current condtions are abnormal when we are uncertain of the norm?

Jackal1 · « **Reply #110 on:** June 16, 2007, 08:41:37 AM »

The climate is changing.
Ain`t that a real news flash.
Let`s see.........the best we can tell it has only done that since................well as far back as we can tell.
I suspect it will continue to do so just as it always has despite all the whining on the BBS.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #111 on:** June 16, 2007, 08:50:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jackal1
The climate is changing.
Ain`t that a real news flash.
Let`s see.........the best we can tell it has only done that since................well as far back as we can tell.
I suspect it will continue to do so just as it always has despite all the whining on the BBS.

Good thing humans are a climate-adapting species!

parker00 · « **Reply #112 on:** June 16, 2007, 09:52:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Airscrew
The Earth is estimated to be around 4 billion years old, give or take a couple of birthdays, if you asked the Earth she'd probably say 29... anyhow. So 200 years of weather observation, data collected from weather satellites for the last 50 years, data drawn from surveys for the last what (60 years or so) and then saying you understand a 4 billion year old planet and weather system is any better? I dont see it, I would say There is no where near enough collected data on Earth's weather and global cycles to make the statement that Earth is warming up due to any activity. It maybe be warming up but I dont think we really understand why...

What is particulary funny to me is using that argument to discount the intrepation of the Mars data but ignoring that argument when discussing the Earth's data

People like you and lazs proves we need a better education system. If you don't know for sure how can you turn it around and reject global warming all together?

I'm no tree hugger but I'm not a scientist either so I would think if you don't know the answer to something you wouldn't argue against it so much.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #113 on:** June 16, 2007, 10:00:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by parker00
People like you and lazs proves we need a better education system. If you don't know for sure how can you turn it around and reject global warming all together?

I'm no tree hugger but I'm not a scientist either so I would think if you don't know the answer to something you wouldn't argue against it so much.

Your point is wasted when you attack the poster and not the subject.

My opinion hasn't changed much after reviewing literally hundreds of documents on the subject over the past 5 years: Climate Change (formerly known as "Global Warming"..recently changed to "Climate Change" to protect egs since its possible that scientists are wrong) is happening. Is it cyclic? Yes. Are humans the sole reason for it? No. Do humans contribute to it? Yes, but to think we're the sole reason for it is arrogance in its finest human form. Thankfully we're an adaptive species. Some of the food chain below us may not be, but the species on this planet have changed before, and they will continue to change, evovle, become extinct and new species will evolve.

parker00 · « **Reply #114 on:** June 16, 2007, 10:13:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Your point is wasted when you attack the poster and not the subject.

My opinion hasn't changed much after reviewing literally hundreds of documents on the subject over the past 5 years: Climate Change (reduced name from "Global Warming" to protect the possibility that scientists are wrong) is happening. Is it cyclic? Yes. Are humans the sole reason for it? No. Do humans contribute to it? Yes, but to think we're the sole reason for it is arrogance in its finest human form.

That's ok, wouldn't a made difference anyways. I just wanted to point out that for no one really knowing what causes it for sure it's just as stupid to say it's not us as it is to say it is us with any certainty.

lazs2 · « **Reply #115 on:** June 16, 2007, 10:18:22 AM »

look hand wringers... call me stupid... call me a witch and a blasphemer of your new religion/politic..

Point is... people on these boards are not stupid.. you aren't making your case.

and why is that? well.. I say it is that you have no case...no real hard facts.. if you did they would have come out by now. but it is more than that...

it is your dishonesty.. the "it's too important to tell the truth about" attitude that is obvious. This is the real problem with the left.. which oddly ... seem to be the ones in the man made warming camp.

Take those two things and apply em to the new chart... the one no one ever seen until.. until the nay sayer ubeliever traitor scientists said... "hey, it just may be that it's....."

ITS THE SUN STUPID

At this point the true believers suddenly study the sun and know all about it..

yesterday they didn't even know or admit (ignrorance or dishonesty) about the sun doing anything.. they said yesterday that the suns "brightness" had not changed for eons... now...

today.. they admit what? it is 25%? 50%? I got a better idea.. why not admit that they either never looked before (ignorance) or ignored the data (dishonesty)

They claim they know enough to make everyone change their lifestyle but convieniently have ignored or lied about 25-100% of the real problem.

Why should we trust these guys when the more we learn the more we see they are not telling the truth or that they don't know as much as they claim.

And how bout those answers? WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO?

lazs

parker00 · « **Reply #116 on:** June 16, 2007, 11:09:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
look hand wringers... call me stupid... call me a witch and a blasphemer of your new religion/politic..

Point is... people on these boards are not stupid.. you aren't making your case.

and why is that? well.. I say it is that you have no case...no real hard facts.. if you did they would have come out by now. but it is more than that...

it is your dishonesty.. the "it's too important to tell the truth about" attitude that is obvious. This is the real problem with the left.. which oddly ... seem to be the ones in the man made warming camp.

Take those two things and apply em to the new chart... the one no one ever seen until.. until the nay sayer ubeliever traitor scientists said... "hey, it just may be that it's....."

ITS THE SUN STUPID

At this point the true believers suddenly study the sun and know all about it..

yesterday they didn't even know or admit (ignrorance or dishonesty) about the sun doing anything.. they said yesterday that the suns "brightness" had not changed for eons... now...

today.. they admit what? it is 25%? 50%? I got a better idea.. why not admit that they either never looked before (ignorance) or ignored the data (dishonesty)

They claim they know enough to make everyone change their lifestyle but convieniently have ignored or lied about 25-100% of the real problem.

Why should we trust these guys when the more we learn the more we see they are not telling the truth or that they don't know as much as they claim.

And how bout those answers? WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO?

lazs

There was no smoking gun or hard facts that supported us going to war with Iraq yet to this day you still support it don't you? You just have to look at the evidence that is given and come up with your own conclusions and if you would stop only using evidence that says it's not happening then you might get the entire story. Look at all your post you have ever written and its obvious you don't even listen to what the left has say so how can you say you get the full story? I'm not saying the left is right or wrong but 99% of the time you have to take what the left says and then compare it to what the right says and the truth is usually in the middle because they both stretch the truth to support their cause.

lazs2 · « **Reply #117 on:** June 16, 2007, 11:19:32 AM »

well... now we are getting desperate aren't we?

just what are my views on iraq in your opinion?

Even if they were wrong... how would that make me not praying to your man made global warming religion not a good thing? Would I have to be right 100% of the time on every subject in order to be right about one so little understood and so emotion filled and dishonest as man made global warming?

This just seems so typical of the left. all nicey nice and hippy trippy until someone doesn't agree and then... a scorned woman looks tame compared to their hissy fits.

lazs

parker00 · « **Reply #118 on:** June 16, 2007, 11:32:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
well... now we are getting desperate aren't we?

just what are my views on iraq in your opinion?

Even if they were wrong... how would that make me not praying to your man made global warming religion not a good thing? Would I have to be right 100% of the time on every subject in order to be right about one so little understood and so emotion filled and dishonest as man made global warming?

This just seems so typical of the left. all nicey nice and hippy trippy until someone doesn't agree and then... a scorned woman looks tame compared to their hissy fits.

lazs

Who just threw the hissy fit? Talking about praying to some new religion or playing nicey nice? Just like I said before, dismiss everything someone says if it doesn't fit your argument.

What I'm trying to say and point out is that it is stupid to believe in something so strongly that you can't even begin to prove one way or the other yet you make comments like:

"Would I have to be right 100% of the time on every subject in order to be right about one so little understood and so emotion filled and dishonest as man made global warming?"

lazs2 · « **Reply #119 on:** June 16, 2007, 11:44:38 AM »

are you saying that man made global warming is very well understood? that there is no agenda? How do you explain that they never even brought up the sun until it was too big an elephant in the room to hide anymore?

dishonest things like "the suns brightness has not changed to any significant amount in eons" Now they admit that it "might" be 25% of the warming... sheesh.. it is most likely 99% of the warming.

lazs