| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b282/SnK-Arcbound/cru-darwin8.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b282/SnK-Arcbound/cru-darwin7.jpg) CO2 levels are statistically at exactly the same levels over the past 150 years. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm I could post lots of things about statistical accuracy. But I'll just leave it at Global Warming hasn't met the scientifically significant statistical relevance to be considered "true". So if you're saying it's true, you're wrong. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
It's been proven that the global temperature was higher 65 million years ago than it is now. And we're coming out of an ice age...I mean, global rise in temperature is to be expected. | ||
|
zeppelin
United States565 Posts
On July 05 2010 06:57 Gregsen wrote: How about all those so called "scientists" who made a shitload of money spreading this bullshit and claiming that they are the only ones who know how to prevent the world from ending...just like the church around 14th century.. how come scientists are accused of having conflicts of interest but industrialists are spared from this criticism | ||
|
zeppelin
United States565 Posts
On July 05 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: CO2 levels are statistically at exactly the same levels over the past 150 years. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm the conclusion of this article says: "In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades." this is not a statement about "CO2 levels", this is a statement about the percentage of CO2 we emit being absorbed in other words, the earth absorbed ~45% of our carbon emissions in 1850 and it absorbed ~45% of our carbon emissions in 2009. this means that annually the same piece of the pie is absorbed, but the pie has been getting progressively larger (because no one can argue against the fact that our CO2 emissions have increased as population, agriculture, and industrial activity have grown tremendously) this means that there is necessarily more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was at the onset of the industrial revolution so congratulations, the evidence you have cited as proof of your claim actually refuted it this is the same back of the envelope lack of even superficial understanding of the scientific method that is gradually making america into an international laughingstock so congratulations on upholding that fine tradition | ||
|
zeppelin
United States565 Posts
On July 05 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: I could post lots of things about statistical accuracy. i would love to see them, especially if they all missed the point you think they're making as embarrassingly as that sciencedaily link you provided | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
Ask an old person. These fads come and go, and none of them are ever scientifically proven. The only thing they have in common is that somebody stands to gain from people believing in them. | ||
|
Dali.
New Zealand689 Posts
On July 05 2010 14:13 brain_ wrote: The best part is how in 20 years all these people will have blotted "global warming" from their memory so they don't feel like idiots. By then you'll be laughing at some crazy kids who believe a meteor is going to hit, or an ice age is going to hit overnight, or global flooding is going to kill everyone. Ask an old person. These fads come and go, and none of them are ever scientifically proven. The only thing they have in common is that somebody stands to gain from people believing in them. This is a terribly poor argument. Anthropogenic Global warming has been in the mind of scientists for over 60 years and has risen to prominence as the gathered evidence has continued to support the hypothesis. And before anyone mentions anything about the "global cooling scare", that pales in significance to the amount of papers being published on a potential global warming scenario, the figure was something like 3:1 in the early 50s. Again I implore anyone with even the slightest interest on the subject of AGW to watch the series on youtube by Potholer54, the first installment of which is on page 2 of this thread. It is a enjoyable and concise look at the science behind the theory, and presents the views of scientists, both proponents and dissenters, and if their proposals are valid. The concept of AGW is one that will forever be entrenched in the scientific world. It is one that has produced many peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals. There is a very high consensus amongst scientist, especially climatologists. Here is an article detailing this consensus: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref9 If the peer reviewed literature agrees upon a subject, then we best listen. Not doing so leaves you to fall into three categories: Ignorance Denial Conspiracy theorist Take your pick, or perhaps, jump in to all three. | ||
|
illu
Canada2531 Posts
On July 04 2010 11:44 dcberkeley wrote: No, you're thinking of Jack Johnson. Jack McCoy is a fictional character on NBC's critically acclaimed series, Law & Order. I obviously know that  | ||
|
Maji
Australia82 Posts
Amount of gas spewed into atmosphere will cause the sky to darken and go red, you will see problems such as acid rain, waters becoming toxic as underground oil is spewed into oceans as well as volcanic gas from underground volcanos this will kill of alot of the ocean life in turn affecting stability of the food chain leading to problems of food resources 'expect at some point food shortages' some people will starv to death others will become cabals it wont be a pleasant time at all. War will be occuring as countrys try to take advantage of their enermys situations and struggle to obtain resources to survive, meteorites will be on higher impact than seen before as the magnetic fields surrounding the earth will be at their weakness they will be easier to pentrate the atmosphere, comets will cause impacts sending dust into the air affecting the atmosphere, as lifeforms die of new ones will become dominate new deseases will arises mutations of current ones which will also be deliberately assisted by human groups. There will come a point all money will be electronic a number will be given as a indentification for the person which will contain all details this number will be a encrpyted 666, prototyping of it will be the switching from physical money to debt and credit system 'electronic'. Eventually it will come to point that barcoding of skin occurs or insertion of chips this will be to increase security is what you will be told and to protct you but this is the mark/number of beast of prophercy. That is your future change it if you can, I highly doubt you can... | ||
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
On July 05 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Yeah, in the last 100 years temperatures have gone up.... when you look at adjusted data rather than actual temperatures. [...images omitted...] I could post lots of things about statistical accuracy. But I'll just leave it at Global Warming hasn't met the scientifically significant statistical relevance to be considered "true". So if you're saying it's true, you're wrong. You're using yearly measurements. If you use the daily measurements, your confidence interval shrinks by a factor of sqrt(~365) and it is then statistically significant. | ||
|
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
On July 05 2010 07:24 sluggaslamoo wrote: The "so called scientists" are actually scientists. Also there is a big difference between how science is substantiated and how religion is substantiated, the main one being that if science was done in a religious fashion, every single scientist would be a heretic. You seem to miss the point that every scientist who questioned CO2 to be a "climate killer" like a year ago was actually called a liar by the media and the CRU, and they tried everything to get them out of any recognized media attention. You are right that there is a big difference between science and religion, but those "scientists" who willingly hid the decline of global temperature and called everybody a liar and "climate change denier" who thought otherwise, are no actual scientists, they are just trying to manipulate. | ||
|
Ineluctable
Canada68 Posts
Does anyone else remember the hole in the Ozone layer? Cigarettes being ''good'' for your health. I guess those were just conspiracies invented by scientists too, so they could get a worldwide salary augmentation. | ||
|
cemlions
Canada43 Posts
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous. Naturally, the skeptics now claim that this, like the UEA's report, was a whitewash. [/QUOTE] Obviously the skeptics would say it was as you say whitewash, if they read the emails and determined them to be fradulent. You anticipating their decision in ridicule does not make it any less credible if the email were indeed indictive of fradulent activity. | ||
|
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
On July 06 2010 00:48 Ineluctable wrote: I find it hard to believe people are so naive as to not see the immense commercial interests being served by denying global warming/cc. Does anyone else remember the hole in the Ozone layer? Cigarettes being ''good'' for your health. I guess those were just conspiracies invented by scientists too, so they could get a worldwide salary augmentation. Cigarettes being healthy for you is a product of lobbying. My major issue is that people treat scientists as contiguous universal body on so many issues, when there are actually only a few idiots out there in the scientific community who claim that cigarettes are good for you, that MMR causes autism and that AIDs doesn't exist. What happens is the press report "Scientists now say that there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism", when really they should say, Dr Andrew Wakefield, whose research doesn't live up to scientific standards reports that there link between the MMR vaccine and autism. | ||
|
Helios.Star
United States548 Posts
On July 05 2010 03:30 sluggaslamoo wrote: No, you're thinking of Manny Calavera. Michael Mann is a comic book superhero. No, you're thinking of Batman. Michael Mann is a Filipino boxer who is the Welterweight Champion, and considered to be one of the best ever. | ||
|
SiNiquity
United States734 Posts
On July 06 2010 01:41 Kerotan wrote: My major issue is that people treat scientists as contiguous universal body on so many issues, when there are actually only a few idiots out there in the scientific community who claim that cigarettes are good for you, that MMR causes autism and that AIDs doesn't exist. What happens is the press report "Scientists now say that there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism", when really they should say, Dr Andrew Wakefield, whose research doesn't live up to scientific standards reports that there link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Or "Researchers report," "A new study suggests" etc. Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. | ||
|
.zch
37 Posts
Well said. | ||
|
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
On July 06 2010 00:48 Ineluctable wrote: I find it hard to believe people are so naive as to not see the immense commercial interests being served by denying global warming/cc. What about the immense commercial interests being served by saying global warming/cc is an undisputeable fact without having any empiric studies to prove this? Just think about all the companies in the world manufactioring solar and wind energy solutions, electric cars, biofuel, or green lobbyists who try to gain more power.. look at the immense amounts of money invested to reduce CO2, while we don't even know how it affects cc yet. All this money would've been way better invested strengthening animal rights, saving the rainforest, etc. I mean, now that there is so much money involved in this, we can't even use it to do something really helpful, and rather try to tell people they are criminals because they are driving a car that put out 10 mg too much CO2... | ||
|
hizBALLIN
United States163 Posts
On July 06 2010 01:45 Helios.Star wrote: No, you're thinking of Batman. Michael Mann is a Filipino boxer who is the Welterweight Champion, and considered to be one of the best ever. No, You're thinking of Manny Pacquiao. Michael Mann is the WWI German flying Ace credited with 80 flying combat victories. | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 06 2010 04:17 hizBALLIN wrote: No, You're thinking of Manny Pacquiao. Michael Mann is the WWI German flying Ace credited with 80 flying combat victories. No, you're thinking of Manfred Albrecht 'Freiherr' von Richthofen. Michael Mann is the South African keyboardist who, along with his Earth Band, was blinded by the light, and subsequently revved up like a deuce. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
WardiTV European League
Replay Cast
Epic.LAN
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
CSO Contender
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
