Global Warming bullshit

[losCHUNK]

I see the same with conspiracy theorists, Alex Jones VS Fox News... polar oppsites lol, for every Al Gore there's another polar opposite but the key is to be objective, some on here are arguing it like a religion when I am really ready to be swayed. This does have an effect on people tho and if its effects aren't fully understood then this impacts on a lot more lives than our own.

[mrd]

Chalk it up to the Dunning-Kruger effect, chalk it up to faith in goodness, whatever. In the end, the people who are in the right typically don't speak up. We are where we are because of arrogance and nothing more.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Objective mind remember, how many times have you heard me slate the daily rag. Seremtan could see the merit of the article by noticing the facts like a continual rise in temperature of 1.33C as opposed to 1.7C? by the ipcc on the low end.

You don't wanna read that;s fine, already know i've swung you round the room with the methane argument

You've done nothing but ignore sourced information and make claims that you've already addressed the issues.

You've swung me around the room? Sounds like a 10 year old who's more interested in winning an argument
than he is having a truthful examination of an issue.

What's interesting is there are some good articles kicking around about the psychology of those who cannot accept the reality of climate change. Having read them and then 'talking' with you I think they might be right.

Ima call you Los Cleo from now on.

[losCHUNK]

Chalk it up to the Dunning-Kruger effect, chalk it up to faith in goodness, whatever. In the end, the people who are in the right typically don't speak up. We are where we are because of arrogance and nothing more.

We'll see, I'm actually very interested to see what Arctic ice does next season. After the record thaw out of last season, this year its making a record comeback (for the last decade). This doesn't mean it's fixed, it could be resorting to the average, IE an extreme is usually followed by a recovery and continue to decline, but if next year the same happens then to me that indicates a good sign :]

[mrd]

I think basing anything you think the planet may or may not do on year-to-year or even decade-to-decade trends is folly. Even century-to-century trends I think are mostly bullshit but we haven't been measuring for very long so that's the best we got.

[losCHUNK]

Objective mind remember, how many times have you heard me slate the daily rag. Seremtan could see the merit of the article by noticing the facts like a continual rise in temperature of 1.33C as opposed to 1.7C? by the ipcc on the low end.

You don't wanna read that;s fine, already know i've swung you round the room with the methane argument

You've done nothing but ignore sourced information and make claims that you've already addressed the issues.

You've swung me around the room? Sounds like a 10 year old who's more interested in winning an argument
than he is having a truthful examination of an issue.

What's interesting is there are some good articles kicking around about the psychology of those who cannot accept the reality of climate change. Having read them and then 'talking' with you I think they might be right.

Ima call you Los Cleo from now on.

What have I ignored ?, most of what I seen on the 1st page was mudslinging to which I replied with 1 post about the royal society redefining its position, I don't want to get into stupid arguements about who is right or wrong. I am looking at the facts / figures and no one here seems to have any problems with them.

[mrd]

I think the overarching theme should not be trying to find out who was right or wrong about global warming and the impact of fossil fuels, but rather: how can we make this better? The sun is hitting us with 1000x the energy we need to power the globe, every single day. Why even bother trying to figure out if fossil fuels are fucking us over? That is childish. Harness the clean power that is there. Thinking about stuff like this makes me really realize that most people are really just children who are stuck in their ways and can't weather the storm of a change.

[losCHUNK]

In a perfect world we would come together in unison and work out our problems collectively :/

/wakes up

spot on tho

[mrd]

I don't mean to rag on the efforts of quality discussion and such. It does have it's place. But I think people get too bogged down on trying to be right. You have to step back every now and then. The planet's fate does not hinge on whether or not some group was right, but rather on whether or not some group has the gall to fucking crush the oil industry and forge a new path.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

I think the overarching theme should not be trying to find out who was right or wrong about global warming and the impact of fossil fuels, but rather: how can we make this better? The sun is hitting us with 1000x the energy we need to power the globe, every single day. Why even bother trying to figure out if fossil fuels are fucking us over? That is childish. Harness the clean power that is there. Thinking about stuff like this makes me really realize that most people are really just children who are stuck in their ways and can't weather the storm of a change.

It really is such a no-brainer. Like most issues though money is spent on p.r. and lies to cloud perceptions.

[mrd]

It really is such a no-brainer. Like most issues though money is spent on p.r. and lies to cloud perceptions.

Those who are in power want to maintain it. You could even boil it down to such basic terms as protection of the clan/family through maintenance of wealth. Maintaining the status quo is their best option. If you listen to these people talk, they are frankly psychopathic. Anything that comes out of their mouth should immediately be tossed in the bin. To quote George Carlin, all these people care about is "a clean habitat, a clean place to live." They're spiritually and morally corrupt and mostly a lost cause. What is truly a shame is that those who have good views for the future of humanity tend to lack the go-get-'em mantra that these psychopaths possess, so we end up with this disgusting battle for supremacy that takes 50x longer than it ought to.

[losCHUNK]

I don't mean to rag on the efforts of quality discussion and such. It does have it's place. But I think people get too bogged down on trying to be right. You have to step back every now and then. The planet's fate does not hinge on whether or not some group was right, but rather on whether or not some group has the gall to fucking crush the oil industry and forge a new path.

If someone tried convincing me that global warming wasn;t happening then I'd rag on him too, it's how we learn by altering our own perceptions innit. Everything puff said about the oil industry is probably true, I know theres atleast one prof that claims to be an ecologist whos paid off. That's not really something I wanna get into though.

[Transient]

Still waiting on those articles, chunk.

[losCHUNK]

What articles ?, I thought you was going to tell me how methane is x20 more potent than Co2 as a greenhouse gas ?

More to the point, how that figure has been calculated and how they compensated for the difference in molecules. Cos I can't find shit that says they did.

[Transient]

Stop nitpicking. The whole point of the thread is that you believe humans aren't the cause of global warming, right? Prove it.

[losCHUNK]

The whole point of this thread is to point out exaggerated media crap taken as gospel from 'reputable' sources, when did I say we aren't responsible ?, I am not saying we are either btw . Just that data gathered doesn;t stack up with data predicted and have told you where you can find any of this information if you wish to do so.

and it's not nitpicking if you can blow up my battleship, if you can prove that then I'm stuck with arguing the amounts in the atmosphere again.

I did write a decent reply, to which you gave me a response similar to that on the 1st page

[Transient]

The only 'data' that doesn't stack up is data from non-reputable sources. Like the Dr. Flood you referenced a while back to prove a point about methane, a guy with no credentials in climatology and no peer reviewed papers. How can that be considered as a data point?

I said it before and I'll say it again:

By looking at independent studies performed by climate scientists, I can form my own opinion that climate change caused by humans is a real and present danger. When I look at these studies, I make sure that they are peer reviewed by other climatologists and that their findings aren't disputed by the scientific community. I also make sure that the expert who wrote the article doesn't have any ties to conflicting organisations or companies, and that they're qualified to write a paper on the subject to begin with. Lastly, I don't rely on a single article, graph, chart or finding to form an opinion, nor do I rely on a single news source to find that information.

If you want to convince me to take another look at climate change, then show me some articles. Show me that they are peer reviewed and that the authors are unbiased. I will read the article before forming an opinion.

[losCHUNK]

Then you are not being objective, which is what I am bringing to the table.

I've told puff why the figures don't stack up with the IPCC predictions as mentioned on the 1st page, even with all the credentials its brought to the table. It is a fact that they failed with their climate prediction, a prediction used by the UN that's governing everything from crops to oil worldwide based on this report. This isn;t hard to understand.

And If you was that interested you'd find out for yourself instead of having criteria for information, that's nitpicking, dismissing a report that seems to be accurate because of a lack of credentials is not objective, that;s even when overlooking the fact that the IPCC report does use figures that compared 1 ton of methane to 1 ton of Co2. It'd be like someone telling you the sky is blue but you don't believe him cos he isn't a weatherman. Again if you was slightly interested in the truth instead of your own opinion you would look.

It's just 1 thing to disprove. If you don;t then the way I see it no information I bring to the table will sway your mind cos you have already made it up with a high horse.

[Transient]

Holy shitballs, dude, your grasp of reality is seriously flawed. I thought there was a sliver of a chance of getting through to you, but I see now that you are totally drinking the kool-aid and are beyond hope. People in this thread have been offering up all kinds of information for you and you're completely ignoring it in favor of grasping at straws that reinforce your opinion.

[losCHUNK]

What information ?, I have responded to everything that's been put at me and have said where any information can be found if not provided. I stepped out of a renewed methane discussion cos its already been done and everything seems to revolve around the IPCC report, a report you didn;t give a fuck about on the 1st page that you're now blindly defending.

I placed my jaw out in the open n all and told you to take a swing, to which you bowed down.

[shaft]

Jesus Christ Marie!

[obsidian]

Speaking of Jesus Christ, Chunk sounds a whole lot like a Christian trying to argue Creationism over Evolution... quoting the one source of the Bible as evidence over the mountain of scientific data found in favour of evolution. It's the same case of wanting to believe whatever is convenient rather than whatever happens to be true. Moron alert?

[losCHUNK]

Maybe, but if that's the case then I'm arguing with a cult. I'd prefer to think of it as lone ranger fighting the good fite :P

No one can tell me the data used by the IPCC report in 07 was correct ?, and no one has told me otherwise ?, no one has really brought anything else to the table cos that IPCC report has been pretty much the subject of this thread except when I made mention of methane. I've also offered an open invite to knock me down if anyone wishes to do so

It's way too easy to throw links up that counter each other (mudslinging), not that I have dismissed any in this thread, cos I havn't. I may cite a paid off oil baron, you may cite results that have basic flaws, so why not actually look at the data instead ?, cos I have provided (or shown where they can be found) facts and figures that no one seems to take issue with ?. People seem to be missing the point that I havn't said a word about global warming not being man made, just the predicted results are way off anything that we're expecting. Like I said I'd be saying warming is stagnant otherwise.

I'm the gift that keeps on giving

[scared?]

holy fuck this red font guy is a fucking nutter...

[losCHUNK]

Still celebrating Ishtar ?