Global Warming Sources: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Global Warming Sources » Global Warming Sources

Global Warming Sources
Arguments, videos, documentaries, pictures, and other data listed here.

Page: 1 2 3

Global Warming Sources

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 06/02/07 - 07:08 PM: Subject: Global Warming Sources	#1
The global warming debate (or global climate change, as they call it now) continues across the world, even here on PhilosophyForums. For the benefit of everyone on this website, a create this thread where everyone can list any documentaries (The Inconvenient Truth, The Great Global Warming Swindle, etc.), articles, and online videos that contribute to either side of the debate. They will be listed to this thread, as well as a short description and any reasons for or against them. Feel free to contribute. Edit: As of 6/5/07, I am also including sections for both global cooling and global dimming. Man-Made Global Warming as of 6/9/07 -The Incovenient Truth by Al Gore http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=348371&fr= This video by the former Vice President of the United States is the primary documentary on Man-Made Global Warming, and has become extremely popular among supporters of the theory. -Climate Change Royal Society http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 A guide to facts and fictions about climate change Royal Society (2005) -EPA's Climate Change Site http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ The Environmental Protection Agency. -Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming The wikipedia entry on global warming. -The Global Warming International Center (GWIC) http://globalwarming.net/ This is the international body disseminating information on global warming science and policy, serving both governamental, non-governamental organizations, and industries in more than 145 countries. It sponsors unbiased research supporting the understanding of global warming and its mitigation. Natural Global Warming as of 6/3/07 -The Great Global Warming Swindle http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=233253135... One of the major critisms of the theory of Man-Made Global Warming. This is one of the primary sets of arguments for Natural Global Warming. Global Cooling as of 6/9/07 -Russian Scientist predicts Global Cooling http://www.physorg.com/news75818795.html -Global Warming can cause Global Cooling http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html -Scientists predict solar downturn, Global Cooling - http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/200 - http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/... http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg192... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newswee... Global Dimming as of 6/5/07 Global Dimming, BBC: Horizon, 2005 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=395208797... Wikipedia: Global Dimming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/global_dimming Edited by Mr.Anonymous on 06/09/07 - 11:13 AM
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 06/03/07 - 08:28 AM:	#2
I needed to find the link you gave me for the "Great Global Warming Swindle", and I still need to find a link to "The Inconvenient Truth" (even though I find that the documentary is strangly convenient for many people). I'll see if there's a homepage for the documentary and book. In the meantime, thanks for the new sources. Keep 'em rolling, for both sides.
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

Landlady
curious skeptic

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 09, 2007
Location: USA
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 473

Posted 06/04/07 - 11:26 PM:	#3
Global Dimming, BBC, 2005 Mega Freeze, History Channel, 2006. Too Hot Not To Handle, HBO's Earth Day Special, 2006. Are We Changing Planet Earth?, 2-part BBC Documentary with David Attenborough, 2006. Can We Save Planet Earth?, BBC Documentary with David Attenborough (part 2), 2006. Edited by Landlady on 09/10/07 - 10:43 PM. Reason: Added a link
_____________________ There is time to laugh and there is time not to laugh, and this is not one of them. - Insp. Clouseau. From the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all. But whether or not one can live with one's passions, whether or not one can accept their law, which is to burn the heart they simultaneously exalt--that is the whole question. – Camus.

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 06/05/07 - 12:13 AM:	#4
Mr.Anonymous wrote: I needed to find the link you gave me for the "Great Global Warming Swindle" G G W S http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=233253135... And let's not forget to add GLOBAL COOLING. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/... http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg192... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newswee... Gramm Edited by Gramm on 06/05/07 - 12:30 AM
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 06/05/07 - 06:32 PM:	#5
It's good to see that there are no scientic sources being ofered for global cooling or global cooling. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly given the usual suspects), there is not alot of scientific source for anything here. It's important to remember that there really are climate scientists, not simply economists and general researchers who used to work for the tobacco companies. A good place to start is here: http://www.realclimate.org/
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 06/05/07 - 06:59 PM:	#6
You know, Kwalish, I can't think of any other forum member who has done more to damage the credebility of the Global Warming is Real argument than you. Perseus, by comparison, is someone I respect because he is willing to do the hard stuff...(you know...research)...but your lack of even the most patently basic knowledge on matters concerning GW would be laughable, if it weren't so pathetic. But hey, don't let it stop you from posting more sites with an pro global warming agenda. Gramm Edited by Paul on 06/07/07 - 12:28 AM. Reason: removed flames
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 06/05/07 - 07:39 PM:	#7
Right. Just because I call your crap the way it is, I've never done any research on the issue. So far, what you've "got on me" is that McKitrick wasn't actually paid directly by oil companies, he merely receives academic support from a think tank that does research on their behalf. His work would not receive academic attention except for the support and promotion that he gets on the issue from organizations like this. My point in these threads was, and is, that all your bluster is always supported by people with an all-too-obvious agenda. The only science you cite are not physical scientists. Don't you think this is a problem?
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 06/05/07 - 09:21 PM:	#8
These articles make for very interesting reading. Some scientists think Global Cooling is on its way....(and sooner than you think) "Russian Scientist predicts Global Cooling". http://www.physorg.com/news75818795.html While others think that ... "Global Warming can cause Global Cooling" as presented here...(it's also called .. having a bet each way).. http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html Then there are those that wonder why Global temperatures aren't going up. "There is a problem with Global Warming : it stopped in 1998." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml... And others who are looking at the relationship between Solar outputs and past cooling periods...such as the Mini Ice age of the 1700's. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/0406... While other scientists are examing the relationship between "Cosmic rays & Global Warming" "Scientists predict solar downturn, Global Cooling" http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/200... http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html Gramm Edited by Paul on 06/07/07 - 12:18 AM. Reason: removed flames
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 06/05/07 - 11:24 PM:	#9
Gramm wrote: Its more than that Kwalish and you know it. Your disengenuous track record speaks for itself. In the past, you have presented nothing but spurious disimformation, as well revealed yourself to be blindingly ignorant in relation to Co2 records. What are you talking about? Is this because I didn't answer your questions about the actual science? Other people were adressing the actual science. And as if that weren't bad enough, you willingly perpetuate lies in order to promote your Antrhopogenic Global Warming credentials; but the plain fact of the matter is that your way out of your depth. All you contribute is snide and disparaging comments about individuals who are not supporters of Anthropogenic Global Warming. If these people are legitimately liars or poor academics, then this is something that we should take into account. Since few, if any, of the people who read this board can do the science, they will have to judge sources. Your sources, like Spencer, seem to have some serious flaws in evaluating science. But it's time we called a spade a spade. Fact of the matter, you have another agenda in relation to this issue, and it ties in directly with your political ideology. Given that your a self confessed Marxist and anti-Capitalist-Anti-Western-Anti-Christian to boot, it's hardly surprising to see that you've jumped on this band wagon. Ah, that's it. Because I actually know something about Marx's philosophy, Capitalism, and Christian arguements, you label me a Marxist, an anti-Capitalist, and an anti-Christian. I'm not exactly sure why it would matter if I were all these things. (Indeed, if I were, I might be promoting a global catastrophe, or rather, I would be promoting the things that would lead to the catastrophe.) Actually studying the nature of the science, and how people have attempted to get around actually doing science, that has lead me to my position here. In case you missed the whole purpose of this thread; it was set up as a resource for both sides of the argument.. you know...its a big word..."Impartial"... Hey, you charged in here with your knickers in a twist. If you only want to offer non-scientific sources, then that's fine. It might be important for people to realize which "sources" are scientific and which are not. More sources: Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/57... NASA Earth Observatory Reference (Iffy, as they seem to be on a leash.) http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWa... Chris Mooney's Blog (links to books, topics) http://www.scienceblogs.com/intersection/ Climate Science Watch http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/ A source for the Frank Luntz Memo for politicians and lobbyists for Global Warming discussion: http://www.luntzspeak.com/memo.html
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 06/06/07 - 08:17 PM:	#10
Nice to see you incorporating the sources I've provided. Forget about the debate. Either the world community will do something about the actual science, in which case you're losers, or they'll do nothing and we're all losers.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 06/07/07 - 02:16 AM:	#11
Weather Expert : People Not To Blame For Global Warming http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_138155503.... GLOBAL WARMING DECEPTION : PART 1 http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-5-31/55920.html Mann's Hockey Stick wrong ? http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/hockey_stick/ho... Dr McKitrick's CLIMATE AUDIT. http://www.climateaudit.org/ Top NASA official questions Global Warming http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=322... Global Warming Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contr... Global Warming Lies http://globalwarminglies.com/ RISING OCEANS & SINKING ISLANDS ? The Truth about Tuvalu Islands. http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/200661814... Carteret Islands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carteret_Islands Falling Sea Level Upsets Theory of Global Warming http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/sea_level... Artic Sea Levels Falling http://www.iceagenow.com/Arctic_Sea_Level_Falling... Gramm
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 06/07/07 - 06:44 PM:	#12
I found this on one of Gramm's sources. I had to put it up : Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars. Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand. Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years. Eat meat raw - Wether your using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide. Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite. Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity. Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide. Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year your not here! Overall, this confirms my suspicions at the theory of man-made global warming is really the philosophy of anti-humanism.
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 516

Posted 06/07/07 - 07:28 PM:	#13
Mr.Anonymous wrote: I found this on one of Gramm's sources. I had to put it up : Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars. Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand. Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years. Eat meat raw - Wether your using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide. Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite. Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity. Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide. Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year your not here! Overall, this confirms my suspicions at the theory of man-made global warming is really the philosophy of anti-humanism. you say global warming is convenient to believe? and that its anti human? The oil companies donâ€™t want to believe it, air travel doesnâ€™t want to know, the automobile companies have no time for it, and the consuming public begin to believe it only because we see the effects of the weather changing around us today. Its not really such a convenient belief. Second; its anti human? well yes, if the theory is correct we can continue burning fossil fuels - but will of course destroy human life. It would only be human life though, animal and insect life have lived in hotter, and more impossible environments than we will produce. Life, will go on - but not human life. In this respect global warming has been wrongly billed, as a problem for the environment, truthfully it is a problem for us. Believing in the decrease of global warming is pro humanity, disbelief is anti. If we cut down on carbon emissions, what comparative harm do we do to the environment compared to the harm which will result from changing the chemistry of the planet?

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 06/07/07 - 09:08 PM:	#14
Mr.Anonymous wrote: I found this on one of Gramm's sources. I had to put it up I'm glad you found it funny. I've yet to see any Global Warming advocate with a sense of humour over this issue. Their all so G'dammed serious. (as our friend Makarismos in the post above me, has so amply demonstrated) It's actually a wonder that comedians haven't started taking the piss out of them Gramm
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 06/08/07 - 02:23 PM:	#15
Makarismos wrote: you say global warming is convenient to believe? Yes I do, since any sort of hysteria or societal religion is definately convenient for society. and that its anti human? It, like many environment religions, assumes that we are evil creatures who have gone against nature and are destroying the planet. In the philosophy of Eco-Socialism (my name for the whole thing), humans are horrible, evil creatures. Personally, I hate humanity myself, but for a completely different reason: each time one individual figures out how to make a better world and fix all our problems, the masses either denounce him/her or pollute his/her ideas with their own selfishness or false-selflessness. The oil companies donâ€™t want to believe it, air travel doesnâ€™t want to know, the automobile companies have no time for it, Why should they accept something that makes them look like the spawn of the devil? and the consuming public begin to believe it only because we see the effects of the weather changing around us today. But what reason do we have to even start to think that the weather problems have been caused by us? Why can't we just accept the fact that this sort of thing happens in nature all the time? And even if it hasn't up until now, it's not like nature is bound by an exact pattern that's set in stone. Its not really such a convenient belief. Mass hysteria, public emotion sessions, it's very convenient. Second; its anti human? well yes, if the theory is correct we can continue burning fossil fuels - but will of course destroy human life. 1) That's assuming that burning fossil fuels is the cause. 2) If it is the cause, then it's about time that we stopped being dependent on our environment for our very existance. It would only be human life though, animal and insect life have lived in hotter, and more impossible environments than we will produce. Life, will go on - but not human life. In this respect global warming has been wrongly billed, as a problem for the environment, truthfully it is a problem for us. So first Eco-Socialists go around saying how horrible humans are, then they want to save the human race? Believing in the decrease of global warming is pro humanity, disbelief is anti. Believing in the end of the world is illusion, disbelief is intelligence. If we cut down on carbon emissions, what comparative harm do we do to the environment compared to the harm which will result from changing the chemistry of the planet? Then we should just go ahead and die, since that would be the best way of solving the whole carbon emission problem. We wouldn't work in coal and oil plants, we would drive cars, etc.,etc.. But then again, the alternative, which the whole Eco-Socialism movement aims to achieve, is to return to the African village life. After all, no nukes, no world wars, no evil dictators, no gluttony, no health care, no literature, no science (which is what this whole things is supposedly based on, but not really), no education, no internet (which means no Philosophy Forums), no TV, no space exploration, no honor, no patriotism, no wealth, and, to the horror of the average person, no pregancy protection. Gramm wrote: I'm glad you found it funny. Thank you. I've yet to see any Global Warming advocate with a sense of humour over this issue. Why would religious hysterics have a sense of humor? Their all so G'dammed serious. (as our friend Makarismos in the post above me, has so amply demonstrated) A reaction to their religion being disproved/in danger. It's actually a wonder that comedians haven't started taking the piss out of them They'd get sued by the EPA. Oh, and one thing: Someone is probably going to accuse me of being a hypocrite because I denounce the Global Warming religion, yet I myself am religious. Well allow me to say something before that happens: Many people are religious because it conforms to their life-style and beliefs. I am the exact opposite. I'm religious because it often disproves my beliefs and forces me to change my life-style to something that's less convenient, but a whole lot more pleasing to my conscience.
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 06/08/07 - 03:26 PM:	#16
Gramm wrote: Weather Expert : People Not To Blame For Global Warming http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_138155503.... News report relying on the word of Dr. William Gray, who has appeared in a video news release crafted by TCS Daily Science Roundtable, formerly owned by a Republican lobbying group, DCI Group, and proud recipient of a 95,000 US$ grany by the ExxonMobile corporation for "climate change support". http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/... GLOBAL WARMING DECEPTION : PART 1 http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-5-31/55920.html A column on the subject. Brings up the standard myth about global cooling. Did anyone in the scientific community believe in global cooling? No. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ Mann's Hockey Stick wrong ? http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/hockey_stick/ho... Forget the actual climate scientists, this page has a quote from Fred Singer! You might remember him from his testimony that cigarettes are completely harmless and not addictive. He worked for the same PR company back then, too. Dr McKitrick's CLIMATE AUDIT. http://www.climateaudit.org/ A, McKitrick, former (?) employee of the mineral exploration field: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98%2F#5672... Note, it's not necessarily that McKitrick and people like him do not actually believe their research. It's that their research cannot see the light of day without significant support from certain sectors. Top NASA official questions Global Warming http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=322... Great source. A guy who is an administrator decides to disagree on ideological grounds from the scientists hired to actually do the scientific work. I wholeheartedly endorse this source. Global Warming Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contr... When in need of a dubious source, wikipedia is always there to help! Global Warming Lies http://globalwarminglies.com/ Yes, that site is filled with global warming lies. Who is this clown? Is he a scientist? She/he doesn't say. One finds a lot of fun stuff there like, "it's the sun!" Why must these deniers make claims that climatologists have already gone over with a fine-toothed comb? Of course they've considered the impact of the sun. RISING OCEANS & SINKING ISLANDS ? The Truth about Tuvalu Islands. http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/200661814... Interesting link. It seems to be an attempt to spoof the domain name of an actul climatologist website. No list of members. Seems like yet another echo chamber for the same basic misunderstandings, misstatements, and outright lies. Seriously, why take the trouble to spoof the name of a legitimate organization of scientists? Carteret Islands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carteret_Islands Wikipedia. Yawn. Falling Sea Level Upsets Theory of Global Warming http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/sea_level... Wow. Check out the rest of their articles. A real fun one attacking the Big Bang theory... without a single equation or measurement. Some support for Hannes Alfven, sure sign of trouble in the ability to evaluate science department. My favourite article is, "DETECTION OF A SATELLITE ORBITING THE NUCLEUS of COMET HALEBOPP." Great source. Artic Sea Levels Falling http://www.iceagenow.com/Arctic_Sea_Level_Falling... Who is this guy? Scientist? Why should we believe anything he has to say? Just because someone says, "Sea levels are falling," this does not mean that we have to believe it. Is there a single scientific paper to support this guy's claim? Oh, wait, he cites a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A from authors D. J. Wingham, A. Shepherd, A. Muir, and G. J. Marshall. The results of this paper, he claims, are that, "Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the real-world data suggests just the opposite effect." However, the authors of the paper make no such claim. Indeed, they believe the overall position of the IPCC and don't seem to believe that their research negates actual observations of sea level rise.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 516

Posted 06/08/07 - 03:49 PM:	#17
Gramm wrote: as our friend Makarismos in the post above me, has so amply demonstrated) Yeah cheers. Mass hysteria? well ok then, scientist are the mob ruthlessly leading us on to the evils of not driving our cars, and the terrible experience of depriving us of our beloved gadgets. you guys seem to be claiming there is some kind of conspiracy, leading us all to use less oil - why the hell would you need such a conspiracy? we use so much of the stuff we donâ€™t need a conspiracy - it will run out! Then we will have to find alternative energyâ€™s anyway. anyway I cant be bothered to argue, its not a matter of philosophy but of science and research: I donâ€™t care for believing your crazy opinions just because you got some dodgy links; instead, and for now, ill trust the scientists. If they start making claims that must be false due to contradiction, then ill use philosophy to see whay, until them they seems to have rather a body of evidence. Laters (p.s i donâ€™t have a religion my A, but from what I can gather you do, get praying for the gulf stream ) ----------------------------- some links----------------------------------- http://www.climatehotmap.org/ http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6275 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934 http://www.istl.org/01-fall/internet.html I would add the thought that money = power, and powerful people do not like to see their source of money disappear. Oil is important for the US (see what happened when the euro started being used in oil transactions http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dolla...). also humans have changed the globe substantially, why would we have no effect on the atmosphere? we burn allot of stuff, there are millions of us; would you claim we do no damage, or just that global warming as is generally accepted is incorrect?? Edited by Makarismos on 06/08/07 - 05:04 PM

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 06/09/07 - 02:18 AM:	#18
Makarismos wrote: Anyway I cant be bothered to argue, its not a matter of philosophy but of science and research: I donâ€™t care for believing your crazy opinions just because you got some dodgy links; instead, and for now, ill trust the scientists. At the end of the day, what you think, bothers me ..not a single jot... That said, I happen to find it as laughable as it is predictably pathetic, to see the lengths AGW advocates go to casting nasturtiums in relation to scientists who don't follow the "Party line". Mark my words... I'll make three predictions which will really give some diehard AGW supporters the Shts. 1. AGW will be found to have been a big lie that will ultimately destroy the reputation of the UN. Nevertheless..... 2. Capitalism will quickly turn both AGW and Carbon Trading into big money making adventures and then shove it down the throats of Loony lefties like Kwalish. In due course, we'll see Loony Lefties demonstrating in the streets claiming that Carbon Trading is a tool of "Capitalist Oppression". 3. Global Cooling is well and truly on its way. So you better rug up or move to a much warmer country. Other than that, you better pray the the Gulf Stream doesn't stop, because you'll be freezing your proverbials off in Florida. Gramm * Anthropogenic Global Warming. Edited by Gramm on 06/09/07 - 02:33 AM
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 527

Posted 06/09/07 - 03:29 AM:	#19
Gramm wrote: Capitalism will quickly turn both AGW and Carbon Trading into big money making adventures I thought they already had! Sorry you will have to join the lines up. I'm afraid landlady's method of using the insert symbol doesn't seem to work on my computer. I have written to Admin about this. http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/ objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6385&Method=Full http://business.guardian.co.uk/ story/0,,2093816,00.html Edited by perseus on 06/09/07 - 03:40 AM
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 06/09/07 - 04:46 AM:	#20
That people can make money at carbon trading... is the point of carbon trading. Sigh.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 527

Posted 06/09/07 - 06:06 AM:	#21
The point of carbon trading was to place a price on the emissions of GHG, so in conjunction with a stringent cap, the cooperate world would be forced to reduce emissions by the most economic means possible. For example if it cost $10/tonne to bury it in the ground, it is not worthwhile to refine biodiesel at $100/ tonne. That companies and individuals have made money out of it without the resultant pressure to actually reduce carbon is a failure of the system. The problem is if half the world doesn't trade carbon, and it is difficult to keep a check on those that do, and governments are lobbied to ask for non stringent limits. Hence the system is open to abuse and the price has collapsed. That financial institutions may have really knew this all along, I can well believe.
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 06/09/07 - 11:01 AM:	#22
Kwalish Kid - You constantly denounce the background of any of the sources provided, rather than the actual data. Not only does this provide no useful material to the debate, but it shows a flaw in your thought system (which, incidently, is common to many supporters of the theory of man-made global warming), which is that you cannot actually look at any contadictory data, but instead must attack the people who are simply bringing something to the table. As someone (who incidently is a believer in man-made global warming) once said to me, skeptism is one of the most beneficial things to science. If a "scientific" theory is not open to contradiction and skeptism, then it cannot truely be scientific, but rather a religious belief only with the disguise of science. Makarismos- 1) As I've said before, this is not a conspiracy (a conspiracy involves secret ploting and such). This is a societial religion that has developed over time, and its churches have finally appeared, like the EPA and the IPCC. And in truth, man-made global warming is one of many societial religions that have the notion of making human beings look bad, and cute little animals and pleasant-looking plant life societial idols. This behavior traces back to our early childhood when be saw cute cartoon shows with people in the shape of cute animals, and was imbeded into our minds. 2) Of course we're going to run out of oil. I'm for a replacement fuel to use instead of oil (mostly because I'd like for us to starve Iran's treasury to death), but I don't want to see the oil companies suffer simply because of the latest End of the World belief. They just want to make some money in the free market (it may not be entirely free, but it's the closest we've been able to get to one), and the world has this strange adversion to that. 3) It's our gadgets, or should I say properly, our technology, that makes us great, that makes us powerful. The Green religion is counter to progress, counter to the best interests of our species. It's technology that can give humans the chance to shed its humanity (its flawedness), and ascend to the stars. We are on the verge of the space civilization, the cyber age, and it's this worship of "Mother Earth" that stands in our way. I simply do not see how becoming more dependent on nature is desirable. Independence from nature, immunity from plagues, diseases, and natural disasters, freedom from it all. Of course, freedom does also mean responsibility, so becoming independent from nature will not mean destroying it. And granted, we have damaged our environment in some ways (i.e. nuclear waste being pilled up in Siberia), but it's not like we have cause a massive disruption of the world's climate. Frankly, I'm annoyed that we have the arrogance to claim to know how the world's climate works. Can we predict the wheather? And on a similar note, can we predict hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanic activity? Sure, we have some small prediction method for the wheather, but we have no coherent knowlegde of the entire system. We only know what is likely to happen once the wheather pattern in question has begun to manifest. It seems that humanity practices either false humility or true arrogance rather than true humility and intelligence. 4) I frankly do not see how it is wrong for an oil company to make money simply because it's an oil company and it's in Iraq. Or even if it's an oil company. This whole myth about our troops dying so that Haliburton can have oil is bullsh*t. Our troops are dying trying to stop a civil war (and even though I used to support the Iraq War, I'd rather have our troops in Afganistan fighting the Taliban rather than delaying the inevitable split of Iraq like the inevitable split of Yugoslavia), while it's Haliburton's employees dying to secure the oil. If Haliburton wants to go get it's workers killed, let 'em.
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 06/09/07 - 11:36 AM:	#23
Mr.Anonymous wrote: Kwalish Kid - You constantly denounce the background of any of the sources provided, rather than the actual data. Not only does this provide no useful material to the debate, but it shows a flaw in your thought system (which, incidently, is common to many supporters of the theory of man-made global warming), which is that you cannot actually look at any contadictory data, but instead must attack the people who are simply bringing something to the table. As someone (who incidently is a believer in man-made global warming) once said to me, skeptism is one of the most beneficial things to science. If a "scientific" theory is not open to contradiction and skeptism, then it cannot truely be scientific, but rather a religious belief only with the disguise of science. The problem is not that I cannot look at contradictory data, but that, in this debate, nobody here can look at the data, contradictory or not. Unfortunately, most people are at the mercy of experts in the field. Thus it is important to look at who is and who is not an expert. For example, most people wouldn't find people who believe that aliens were behind Comet Hale-Bopp (like those at www.tmgnow.com) to be reliable experts. You seem to be accepting the claim that actual climatologists are not skeptical and that they do not make the most basic steps in scientific reasoning. I urge you to question your sources and reasoning around this claim. 1) As I've said before, this is not a conspiracy (a conspiracy involves secret ploting and such). This is a societial religion that has developed over time, and its churches have finally appeared, like the EPA and the IPCC. And in truth, man-made global warming is one of many societial religions that have the notion of making human beings look bad, and cute little animals and pleasant-looking plant life societial idols. This behavior traces back to our early childhood when be saw cute cartoon shows with people in the shape of cute animals, and was imbeded into our minds. Unfortuantely, you pretty much have to accept that there is some conspiracy going on. For it is either the case that there is no scientific merit to the case of the global warming deniers (and those who suppport global cooling) or there is a conspiracy to ban them from the scientific journals. And granted, we have damaged our environment in some ways (i.e. nuclear waste being pilled up in Siberia), but it's not like we have cause a massive disruption of the world's climate. Actually, the science says that it is exactly like that. Frankly, I'm annoyed that we have the arrogance to claim to know how the world's climate works. Are you saying that your ability to accept a scientific claim comes down to how annoying the conclusion is? This is why I try to get people to look at their sources for information. We cannot simply look to the sources that we like, but to sources that have some credibility on the matter of interest. 4) I frankly do not see how it is wrong for an oil company to make money simply because it's an oil company and it's in Iraq. Or even if it's an oil company. This whole myth about our troops dying so that Haliburton can have oil is bullsh*t. Well, you do realize that the only benchmark for troop withdrawl so far adopted by the US government is that the Iraq government privatize its oil industry? However, this is besides the point. Global warming is not about profit making. Indeed, it is ultimately about economic interest.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 06/10/07 - 08:57 AM:	#24
Kwalish Kid wrote: The problem is not that I cannot look at contradictory data, but that, in this debate, nobody here can look at the data, contradictory or not. Unfortunately, most people are at the mercy of experts in the field. Thus it is important to look at who is and who is not an expert. For example, most people wouldn't find people who believe that aliens were behind Comet Hale-Bopp (like those at www.tmgnow.com) to be reliable experts. You seem to be accepting the claim that actual climatologists are not skeptical and that they do not make the most basic steps in scientific reasoning. I urge you to question your sources and reasoning around this claim. My reasoning is simple: there are many more new "scientists" that have entered the field of climatology. Why? Because there is money to be made just from supporting the global warming hysteria. Sources? The Great Global Warming Swindle,Penn & Teller's Bullsht*, and a little of my own personal observations. Further more, these new "scientists" have very little in the way of experience or skill, yet they get all the necessary qualifications just by saying the right things. Unfortuantely, you pretty much have to accept that there is some conspiracy going on. For it is either the case that there is no scientific merit to the case of the global warming deniers (and those who suppport global cooling) or there is a conspiracy to ban them from the scientific journals. There is no conspiracy to ban them. Many scientific journalists are expected to do so, or lose their jobs. Not to mention that plenty of these journalists are so weak minded that they are happy to follow the suit. Actually, the science says that it is exactly like that. There you people go again, talking like there is no room for contradiction. This is exactly why I started having doubts about the theory of man-made global warming in the first place: people talking as if they're right and everyone else is wrong. Well, my friend, this is exactly why what you support is not science, but a religion with the appearance of a scientific theory. It can only be science if people are allowed to have a go at contradicting and/or disproving it. Are you saying that your ability to accept a scientific claim comes down to how annoying the conclusion is? This is why I try to get people to look at their sources for information. We cannot simply look to the sources that we like, but to sources that have some credibility on the matter of interest. I never said anything of the sort. You're putting words in my mouth. And if you people to look at their sources, look at your own, only without the notion that since they are a major organization, they must be right. Major pharametic groups advertise plenty of pills and other drugs to solve people's illnesses, yet if you look at alternative medicine, there are plenty of natural herbs and such that do the same thing, only with out a bunch of negative symptoms as result. Do scientists lie? Yes, because they are human, because they are greedy. We have only begun this idea that scientists would never lie to us because we became tired of religious superstition, but think for a moment: where did the superstition come from? Humans. And what species do the scientists belong to? Human. I may be a firm believer in the greatness and usefulness of science, but I don't blindly follow every word a scientist says. I give his/her theory a long, long time for somebody to come along and try to smash it, and if it survives, I will accept it as truth until proven otherwise. Well, you do realize that the only benchmark for troop withdrawl so far adopted by the US government is that the Iraq government privatize its oil industry? The benchmark they have for withdrawl is that Bush does not wish to see Iraq have a civil war. Nor do I, but I don't see what good we can do there any more. We could be better deployed in Afghanistan right now. Hal can take it's risks. Besides, we finished what we came to Iraq to do: take out Hussien and give Iraq a shot at freedom. If they don't want freedom, fine. However, this is besides the point. Global warming is not about profit making. Indeed, it is ultimately about economic interest. Profit is one of many things that man-made global warming is about. Other things include hysteria, societial pressure, emotion, and an unconcious attempt to undo every blessing of the Industrial Revolutions, which transformed us from pathetic villagers into a glorious consumer society, which only has the problem of obessity, but people have been getting fat in history for ages. But don't mind me. After all... IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!! THE PLANET'S TEMPERATURE HAS RISEN BY TWO WHOLE DEGREES!!! JUST AS GORE PROPHECIZED!!! QUICK! BAN THE OIL COMPANIES!!! IT'S OUR LAST CHANCE!!!
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 06/10/07 - 11:12 AM:	#25
Mr.Anonymous wrote: There is no conspiracy to ban them. Many scientific journalists are expected to do so, or lose their jobs. Not to mention that plenty of these journalists are so weak minded that they are happy to follow the suit. I'm not sure you really understand how science works outside of the public eye. In the above, do you mean "journalists who cover science" or "the editors and referees of scientific journals". If you want to talk sources, then you have to talk about actual scientific journals, not press coverage. And when one talks about scientific journals, one has to admit that global warming deniers cannot get published and never have been published. So either there is a conspiracy from the start, or the science of the deniers is simply not good. Then, when one starts to look at who promotes the global warming deniers (wholly outside of the normal scientific community) one finds incentive to distort the science regardless of its merit.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "â€¦Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.