Remember, I'm a pro at arguing (you could say I'm a master debater.....) .
Talking loud and endlessly repeating the same tired and incorrect argument does not make you a good debater.
Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming
- Thread starter carlosMM
- Start date
- Status
Talking loud and endlessly repeating the same tired and incorrect argument does not make you a good debater.
Ah, but you see, you're knowledgable. To ignorant laypeople like me, he's pretty convincing. Well, until you look up the facts...
That's the problem with pseudoscience - it looks right, it sounds right...
It's not even pseudo or science, though, it's just grasping for whatever halfway plausible speculation might negate the most recent post... even if that speculation directly contradicts the premise of other previous posts. These people could edit the Australian, for christ's sake.
(In one post it might be "warming isn't real!" but in another "the warming is natural and we can't stop it!" and in another "the warming is beneifical and we should welcome it!" - whatever works at that given moment)
(In one post it might be "warming isn't real!" but in another "the warming is natural and we can't stop it!" and in another "the warming is beneifical and we should welcome it!" - whatever works at that given moment)
onedreamer
Dragon
True. Too bad that it's a bad habit of scientist to never show and only tell.
Take Physics. There is always that undiscovered, theorized particle that will explain everything. It will give us even the ID code of God (that's why we call it Particle of God). On the basis of these assumptions they built CERN. Have you seen this particle of miracles yet? Apparently none has yet. Looking at History, it is FAR more likely that they will discover something they didn't foretell or thought of, as usual, as 99% discoveries in the History of humanity and science.
The inherent problem with science and scientists is that everything is seen subjectively instead of objectively, everything is based on theories. Theory after theory after theory, there is NOTHING that they show us in practice, except elementary concepts that can very well be explained in many ways, since they aren't complex. There is currently also the problem of education, the #1 enemy of scientific progress. Because errors and mistakes or wrong assumptions done by past scientists are carried over to the new generation since they are taught at school/university as universal laws, as if told by God, laws that can't be possibly contradicted. Universal laws such as "nothing is created and nothing is destroyed", to justify the concept of infinity to support the above mentioned theories, but our brains cannot even conceive the infinite, all our perceptions are based on finite things, why are our universal laws based on something we cannot see/conceive? What is the difference between this and "God"?
Of all sciences, probably the most unreliable has always been metereology. My granny who barely knew of mathematics could make better predictions than metereologists. And yes they have recently stated that they didn't take into consideration certain elements into their models (IIRC, wind currents from the ocean).
I'm not claiming it's all BS, but before stating that scientists are allmighty omniscent Gods who can't be mistaken I'd think twice. I'd also think twice before stating that a correction, even in worse as you said, is a sign that they were right. A correction is a sign that they were wrong, in my book. The bottom line about "show" instead of "tell": can anyone here that lived 30+ years seriously claim they are experiencing global warming? Is the river near your place lower than it was 30 years ago? Higher? The glacier at your place is lower? Higher? I think it is about time, since we're so educated, that we start to reason with our minds and observe with our own eyes. Everyone can show you photos of places you do not know and "prove" you that there is this and that issue going on.
Yes, because that's totally how it works. Global averages can be determined from one dude's memory of one place.
Well, to answer those questions: the glaciers near me are smaller than they were when I was younger and the aquifers are lower than when I was younger.
River depth is more complex than just global warming (irrigation is a giant factor). However, the glaciers are decent enough proxies. Obviously, you'd want to compare them to other glaciers.
River depth is more complex than just global warming (irrigation is a giant factor). However, the glaciers are decent enough proxies. Obviously, you'd want to compare them to other glaciers.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Give me some authors and titles of articles then. I want to look them up.
I can give one article for now. I'll find more when I have the time to dig.
DaMatta, FM; Grandis, A; Arenque, BC; Buckeridge, MS. 2010. Impacts of climate changes on crop physiology and food quality. Food Research International 43(7): 1814-1823.
"Decreased protein and mineral nutrient concentrations". Yum.Abstract said:
Also, inb4 reading first bolded sentence without reading the next two.
No, because the interaction of plants with ecosystems isn't that simple.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
So humans can in fact change the environment, it's just very difficult...
But I don't think cleanup efforts are usually in warzones where tons of oil has been burned.
Plus, removing those things from the air returns the land to its natural state. If temperature shifts too much, stop cleanup efforts. Simple. Science and reason-based ecology.
We did just fine before factories in terms of the environment, so logic says we can afford to make them almost entirely clean with no ill effects. Now, as for manipulating the actual, natural contents of the air...
on this also, very true. Just please don't lump in nuclear energy as a 'renewable' energy source. It is neither renewable nor clean nor safe nor cheap. The only positives are that it works around the clock regardless of weather and it does not contribute to global warming - granted.
Actually, nuclear fusion would make nuclear energy renewable if I'm understanding it correctly. Acquire base radioactive material. Split it - energy. Re-combine it via fusion - energy. Rinse and repeat.
Of course, like hydrogen, it's not only very beautiful in its prospects, but also very limited in knowledge and incredibly expensive for the time being. But if we unlock it, we can do pretty much anything since fusion power is the basis of all life.
Wouldn't fusion energy solve the problem? If nuclear waste is the result of breaking up materials with fission, isn't it possible to re-convert it back into fuel with fusion technology? Thus creating a constant cycle of fission and fusion? Or am I misunderstanding it?
Of course, fusion is a long way's off. After all. It's the basis of all life! If we can unlock it, we're closer to God than any other invention!
Indeed, an argument can be made about a high-yield solar panel network is they will provide light at night, with the actual sunlight providing it during the day. If a lot of energy is saved, it would be possible for solar to power the house 24/7 between active intake of new energy and the stored amounts, wouldn't it?
Peak electric use is daytime. There are a lot of different power sources, and they are geographically diverse as well. The tech for storing electricity isn't price effective these days. But through diversity of sources that can be covered.
countrygrl
King
What in the? I'm sorry, but any gravitas that you once had are now gone. If you're banding about this chronically unfounded myth as science, then how I can I believe anything else you're saying?
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
I think Basketcase is talking about Krakatola (sp?) which erupted and cause the brief warming during the middle ages.
There must be a lot of krakatolas erupting all the time every year right basketcase?
Except Krakatoa didn't erupt at any time during the middle ages, and one volcano can't make the Earth warm- for that matter, a strong enough volcanic eruption will actually cool the Earth by releasing vast amounts of sunlight-blocking volcanic ash, at least for a year or two.
onedreamer
Dragon
Yeah, that's obvious. I wasn't trying to suggest that if one person says he didn't experience global warming then there is no global warming. This is the argument of someone who has no arguments to reply, if I wanted to support this silly thesis I could have simply said: I didn't experience any global warming, so I refuse the idea of global warming. Asking on an international forum what's everyone's experience seems to be quite different to me. I think intelligent people can discuss and be in disagreement without mocking each other, do you agree Arwon? I simply have a different approach than listen to what someone else I don't even know tells me and take it for granted. That's called faith in my book. And it has become impossible for me to believe to almost anything claimed by scientists or the science community since for any matter of real interest the scientific community itself is in deep disagreement, and with deep I mean "completely at the opposite". Now I could understand scientific debate, Scientist A "Because of global warming, avg temperature on Earth is going to increase of at least 1°C in the next 10 years", and Scientist B "Well I disagree because according to my maths it's more like 0,8°C". Silly and made up example but for ANY topic of interest nowadays, included of course global warming, there are completely opposite thesis backed up by this and that research and study of years. Now I wonder how it is possible, given the definition of science, to have such discordant results. The answer is under your eyes, at my provocation about the level of glaciers I received answers like "boo youuu" or "in my 30-50 years experience glaciers have lowered" (I of course take it for granted that El Machinae saw it with his own eyes). Too bad that this kind of changes of geological proportions must be considered within geological variables, where 30-50 years is a grain of sand. Geology shows us that the level of glaciers have always shifted throughout the history of Earth, even when human beings were not polluting or depriving Earth of its resources. Scientists that back up the "global warming caused by human beings" theory use our survey records that date at best 100 years, again a grain of sand, and make mathematical models based on them, the result is of course obvious. The problem here is that scientists are human beings, they have ideas, they have opinions, they have sub-consciousness, and when they make studies and research they CAN NOT be impartial, they are biased like any other human being. That's exactly the reason why all these studies and researches, on anything I repeat, not just global warming, show us completely different results.
The whole story about global warming is only the last chapter of the struggle of Humanity to predict and control everything that concerns it. I think that we could live a better life once we realize that we cannot do this, if anything because among we ourselves, we have different goals, even in regard of big issues like the future of our planet and species.
onedreamer
Dragon
Arwon, writing seemingly complex sentences does not change the meaning of what you want to say. Which quite simply is: "Onedreamer, you do not understand: you are wrong, I am right".
And I agree, in fact people on the right side do not need to argument their thoughts. Why wasting time with ignorant people who do not see the Light?
And I agree, in fact people on the right side do not need to argument their thoughts. Why wasting time with ignorant people who do not see the Light?
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
@BasketCase: Oh, fer gawds sake! I was talking about median yearly temperatures changing, as you very well knew from context. Sorry I lazily shortened that to 'temperatures changing'! Which you immediately used to manufacture a whopping red herring! Yes, of course, temperatures change from day to night and from summer to winter... thank you, professor! Who knew? 
Exactly so!
To the first: I haven't ever seen anyone on these forums who ever made such a statement! Certainly I don't believe that. However, to say that thousands of scientists, who all agree basically that global warming is happening, and differ only on details, are all wrong, is another thing entirely, in my book.
To the second: Yes, indeed, I can claim that. I'm 49 and have been a biker (motorcycle) for exactly those 30 years you mentioned. I can definitely state that the biking season has gotten longer, that is, warm spring temperatures come earlier and cold winter temps later, in that time. I can even (sorta) prove it by comparing the times I have had my bike registered (I unregister it in winter, as most bikers in Germany do).
I don't offer that as 'proof' of global warming, but, since you ask...
Oh, fusion! But we don't have that yet. I assumed you were talking about fission, which is the technology we are using today.
Also, I regret to tell you you indeed misunderstand fusion technology. There is no radioactive material involved, AFAIK. Indeed, that is one of the plus points! Fusion is supposed to mimic the processes in the sun, involving, IIRC, helium. Or hydrogen? Or a combination...? Somebody help me on the details, here! Anyway, non-radioactive base materials.
Answer: you can't. BasketCase see's himself as a 'master debater' (his words) and has taken the position of denying global warming. He will use any argument or quasi-argument to make 'points'.
I've already received one infraction for taking exception to this technique, so I won't say which mythological creature, feared on internet forums, this reminds me of... (hint: said to regenerate wounds very quickly).
Please, not another infraction, Mods.... aaaaahhhhh....
Exactly so!
To the first: I haven't ever seen anyone on these forums who ever made such a statement! Certainly I don't believe that. However, to say that thousands of scientists, who all agree basically that global warming is happening, and differ only on details, are all wrong, is another thing entirely, in my book.
To the second: Yes, indeed, I can claim that. I'm 49 and have been a biker (motorcycle) for exactly those 30 years you mentioned. I can definitely state that the biking season has gotten longer, that is, warm spring temperatures come earlier and cold winter temps later, in that time. I can even (sorta) prove it by comparing the times I have had my bike registered (I unregister it in winter, as most bikers in Germany do).
I don't offer that as 'proof' of global warming, but, since you ask...
Oh, fusion! But we don't have that yet. I assumed you were talking about fission, which is the technology we are using today.
Also, I regret to tell you you indeed misunderstand fusion technology. There is no radioactive material involved, AFAIK. Indeed, that is one of the plus points! Fusion is supposed to mimic the processes in the sun, involving, IIRC, helium. Or hydrogen? Or a combination...? Somebody help me on the details, here! Anyway, non-radioactive base materials.
Answer: you can't. BasketCase see's himself as a 'master debater' (his words) and has taken the position of denying global warming. He will use any argument or quasi-argument to make 'points'.
I've already received one infraction for taking exception to this technique, so I won't say which mythological creature, feared on internet forums, this reminds me of... (hint: said to regenerate wounds very quickly).
Please, not another infraction, Mods.... aaaaahhhhh....
Well, it's hard to figure out what your issue really is (and you need more paragraph spacing, to prevent the wall-o-text effect )
The issue whether scientists are saying 'opposite things' is almost dismissible. It's hard to argue against, because it's not like I can show you article after article showing consensus. This is just something that happens when you watch the debate for some time. There is marvelous consensus at some points, and the disagreements tend to be around "how much warming will X CO2 in what timeframe?" which are small variations in the models.
The main source of actual insufficient information is with cloud feedback (will clouds reflect enough heat to offset some heating). I watch this intently, and there's not been any good news. But there's still uncertainty. Many indicators show that clouds will make things worse, but there's not enough information to be certain.
Your final point is that a few decades is nothing compared to the scope of history. This is true, but it's also a bit of a red herring. We're changing things very fast compared to previous disasters. Our extinction rate, for example, is near the velocity of many other major extinction rates. Additionally, while the Earth experiences things in geological ages, we don't. We're changing the climate on timeframes that can affect people and politics and economies. Luckily, our interventions would be done by people, politics and economies.
It's a human problem, caused by humans and affecting humans.
)The issue whether scientists are saying 'opposite things' is almost dismissible. It's hard to argue against, because it's not like I can show you article after article showing consensus. This is just something that happens when you watch the debate for some time. There is marvelous consensus at some points, and the disagreements tend to be around "how much warming will X CO2 in what timeframe?" which are small variations in the models.
The main source of actual insufficient information is with cloud feedback (will clouds reflect enough heat to offset some heating). I watch this intently, and there's not been any good news. But there's still uncertainty. Many indicators show that clouds will make things worse, but there's not enough information to be certain.
Your final point is that a few decades is nothing compared to the scope of history. This is true, but it's also a bit of a red herring. We're changing things very fast compared to previous disasters. Our extinction rate, for example, is near the velocity of many other major extinction rates. Additionally, while the Earth experiences things in geological ages, we don't. We're changing the climate on timeframes that can affect people and politics and economies. Luckily, our interventions would be done by people, politics and economies.
It's a human problem, caused by humans and affecting humans.
- Status
Similar threads
