Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Abaddon, Dec 26, 2006.
Umm but some of them are not. I have seen this first hand.
Claiming that it was an excellent skeptical article, but that it had nothing in the way of science.
You've lost me then Wiki is BS anyway without sources, and science is meaningless, so your views come from faith and faith alone? Well that's it then you won't prove anything. Great waste of my personal time. You believe global wamring is faith based not scientific
What are you reffering to? This is wierd spam.
Not really, you can do what you want. The SEKRIT WORLD GOVERNMENT already has a plan to shuttle all the smart people to another planet so we can start over without your kind.
If we do, the amount is still completely insignificant.
Do you mean mathematically insignificant or biologically insignificant? Because the two are different.
I could decrease your blood pH to 98% of its current level and you would, um, die.
There are plenty of scientists that are skeptics from elite universities like Harvard and MIT.
Here are two astrophysicists from a Harvard.
you soooo funny mista
even your attempts to belittle are wrong.
Blood Ph should be kept around 7.4 but can go as low as 6.8 or high as 7.8
...that's 5 - 8%
Since you are asking about beliefs I am going to answer what I see what people believes, in the US and in Europe.
But first let me use an analogy. Suppose I am claiming over and over and over that I have psychic powers and that I can see the future. I insist so much that my family tells me that they believe I have psychic powers. Then my uncle is taking the plane to Barcelona tomorrow and I warn him not to take that plane because I foresee it is going to crash. But my uncle takes the plane anyway. Do you think he really believes I have psychic powers?
Same happens with global warming. Go to London tomorrow and walk around Picadilly Circus, Trafalgar Square, Regent St, Oxford St, and tell me what you see. Lots of cars and christmas lights. Do you think this people believe in the apocaliptic forecasts published in The Independent after the sinking of the Varuna island in India? (I am talking about this thread) If they really believe they should be very worried, since the Thames is a tidal river. But are they worried? same as my uncle taking the plane, they don´t look very worried or really doing something to prevent it.
I went to Biarritz, in the french atlantic coast, last Saturday and people do the same as in London, driving their cars and enjoying the christmas lights. They don´t act as if they were worried.
Same in Chicago, (BTW, thanks Whomp for the lunch at The Italian Village I`ll try to post the pics tomorrow) Same in Madrid, (but Madrid is more than 2000 feet above the sea level) I don´t see that people in general believe that a catastrophe is upon us.
I agree. The study is very complicated.
Your average scientist is going to publish anything, with inconclusive results or not. The reason? first old saying a scientist that wants to keep being a scientist is "publish or perish". People try to publish anything before perishing. If you don´t publish you lose your funds, so you have to publish even when your results are inconclusive. And your average scientist also knows that conclusive results attracts more funds than inconclusive ones.
Funny how everyone's a climate scientist all of a sudden. My Accountant says I'm bankrupt. Being bankrupt is not convenient right now. My Accountant is wrong!
Neo: And the point is - not all life forms have as well-buffered a circulation system. Like, ahem, phytoplankton?
Pouring CO2 into the atm = effectively adding carboxylic acid to the oceans. Increase the ocean's acidity by a tiny amount, and most of the world's oxygen producers will die.
But go on, keep one-upping me, lolz, because that's what's important.
Considering all I did was ask questions how is my argument bunk?
You're welcome Urederra it was my pleasure. I hope you made your plane.
Are you saying that the scientists who disagree with the magnitude of the warming are incorrect or the data is incomplete?
I made it with time enough to spare at the terminal.
What I am saying is that studying the climate is very complicated, the data is difficult to handle and the standard deviations of the proxies they use are very often too wide and of the same range as the variation of the given measure through time. You can see it by looking at Mann´s hockey stick graph (the 1000 to 1850 portion) and how the graph has changed depending on what statistic system they apply to the raw data or how the shape of the data changes, specially during the medieval optimum, depending on what proxies are applied. But that is a bit off topic.
I am also saying that scientist are pressed to publish. I)f you don´t publish you lose your job, or you don´t get promotions. And that kind of pressure is not good for a difficult science like long term climate prediction.
Dodo bird. Whales. Other critters which we have hunted into near-extinction, or full extinction.
And your point to this thread is?
Compaired to all the ones that died out naturaly its still not much of an impact. 99% of all the species both plant and animal to ever live on earth are dead. Humans killed off a fraction of a fraction of a persent.
ahem? Is that necessary?
The question is not are we having an impact, the question is how much of an impact are we having when compared to the vastness of nature. Cities are pinpoints on the world map, and roads are unseeable ribbons. Plus roads are only pumping out gases at capacity around rush hour, maybe 1/8th of the day on a mere 1 or 2 percent of the worlds roads... the rest of them are idle.
I am sorry, but I believe it is you who is being immature, with the SEKRIT GOVERNMENT comment, and the condensending "ums" and such.
Separate names with a comma.