|
U-Know! Forum » Climate-Cat's out of the Bag! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Dec 07, 2009, 11:06
Dec 07, 2009, 10:53
|
||
|
On reflection, i find much this response to be very telling. DarkMagus wrote: Evolution has been demonstrated in fruit flies for fuck's sake! It is a massive leap to to extrapolate from these tiny differences that all of life came from single-celled forms. Can it really explain all that the evolution-believing geologists claim? Can it explain the evolution of the eye, which Darwin himself declared so marvellous that it practically defies evolution theory? DarkMagus wrote: Where is the experiment for global warming? Rather like the fruitflies, you can prove in a lab that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can then do the maths for what happens if you double the amount of it. You can make predictions that come to pass. We now move into the parts of the response I find most revealing. The scattergun of ideas, the desperation to discount the evidence, facts and points already made on this thread. DarkMagus wrote: only theories and models based on them & suspect data And an overwhelming amount of non-suspect data, and records of changes that correlate with the increase of greenhouse gases, and the aforementioned predictions (that you said didn't exist, then made no mention when I cited examples) DarkMagus wrote: which fail to make accurate picture. Except that, as mentioned, the picture was accurate. And, where the predictions have been inaccurate, it's largely been because they've been too conservative. Having to get great swathes of scientists to sign off on a position will tend towards conservatism. So, for example, the IPCC was predicting an ice-free Arctic summer by the end of the century, but now it's looking like it'll be within five years. DarkMagus wrote: Evidence points to a conclusion but does not prove it in terms of science. Exactly, just like evolution theory and cancer from smoking. So, once again, I ask why the overwhelming agreement from scientists based on untold quantities of data but with one or two contrarians is enough for you to believe those two, but not global warming. DarkMagus wrote: Scientific theory states that theories are there to be disproved. The implication you're trying to make here is that because it's a theory, it should be treated as if it *will* be disproved. Some theories don't get disproved. Some theories are reinforced by the further evidence. At what point do we act on them? Again, I wonder why you have a different conclusion for theories with similar levels of scientific consensus that affect policy, such as the link with HIV and AIDS, or tobacco and smoking. DarkMagus wrote: I see I'm wasting my time. It's quite common among trolls for them to say something controversial and when it's countered to either move to another point, or to say 'you're all closed minded I'm leaving', then not actually leave. It's a way of avoiding responding to the patient facts and counter arguments that disprove what they said. It's the forum equivalent of fingers in the ears going lalalala. DarkMagus wrote: 99% consensus does not make something right. Remember Galileo?? This one's incredible. It actually means that the stronger the evidence and the greater the consensus, the more the isolated position is right (and indeed righteous). Again, do we hold that the scientists who doubt smoking and cancer are Galileos? Of course, Galileo had evidence for his ideas, the Catholic church (as far as I am aware) did not have unanimity from almost everyone qualified in their field based on decades of research and hard fact from tens of thousands of scientists. DarkMagus wrote: I say again, any right thinking person should be hoping AGW is bullshit. This non-sequitur is the most telling of all. The 'I say again' as if the point hadn't been responded to already. The implication that the evidence is very inconclusive and those who want action on carbon emissions actually *want* climate change to be happening. Whereas - and the throwing in of it as a final word points shows this - we're at the root of the denier mentality here. Like anyone else, they really don't want climate change to be happening. So if they can find something, anything, to put a slight doubt in then we're off the hook. Hence veering between scientific twaddle and overstating the content and importance of the leaked emails. The greater the evidence, the greater the need to deny it. If I were in bed and the smoke alarm went off, smoke was coming under the door and I could hear the neighbours shouting from the garden, I'd really not want my conclusion to be right. Do you know how much stuff I treasure I've got in this house? Do you know how difficult it'll be to deal with the aftermath? But I'm not going to wait until the flames are under my bed before I act as if it's true. The evidence is there and it's already past time to move.
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Dec 07, 2009, 18:36
|
||
|
Web forums require citations? Oh come on. This isn't an academic paper. Hint: Mann. Belief in AGW = hubris. I've said enough here perhaps to make some people think, bye bye.
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Dec 07, 2009, 18:42
|
||
Sticks and stones...
|
|||
Daminxa 1415 posts |
Dec 07, 2009, 18:43
|
||
Fuck science, politics and cyclic arguments on U-Know - the climate has indisputably CHANGED in my life time. It's happening right in front of us and I can't believe we're even arguing about it. The seasons are blurring into one, snow in this part of the country has become incredibly rare and yet when I was younger there'd be weeks of it every winter. Summers have become increasingly erratic and there is DEFINITELY more rain. I'm starting not to give a fuck about WHY this is happening, but I'm adamant, from my own observations, that it IS happening and surely ANYTHING we can do, no matter how seemingly small, is worth giving a shot, because while we're here bickering about which government scientist says what, the rain's hurling down and people are getting flooded out of their homes. OK to some extent this HAS happened before, but not as regularly and not at such frightening speed.
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Dec 07, 2009, 18:50
|
||
|
DarkMagus wrote: Web forums require citations? Oh come on. This isn't an academic paper. Hint: Mann. Belief in AGW = hubris. I've said enough here perhaps to make some people think, bye bye. You have indeed......I think your an idiot. bye bye.
|
|||
|
dodge one 1242 posts |
Dec 07, 2009, 18:57
|
||
|
Your not kidding either. Just wait till the Ganges River dry's up. Or any of the other glacier dependent rivers too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNE6D5Vp9Pg
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Dec 07, 2009, 20:10
|
||
|
WTF? Do you think you can make a statement accusing all scientists researching climate change of being secretive and not have to give examples, and then expect us to treat you seriously ?? er.. please fuck off now.
|
|||
ratcni01 916 posts |
Dec 07, 2009, 20:57
|
||
|
Hah! Have no idea about the actual argument in detail which I suspect it where its needs to be settled. I'm satisfied that AGW is real because my step Dad who presented papers at the biggest global Nuclear Winter conferences (where the climate models now used had a lot of their origins) in Russia two or three decades ago has shifted in the 20+ years I've known him from the serious science based climate change sceptic/denier to saying things like. He's "read all the research I can on both sides" (and his career was in the production of research papers and the list of these is fucking vast) and said "I'm glad I'm nearly 80 because" in his view "there is no way there will be sufficient political motivation to take the action required, and the way chages will be made is through crisis, such as approaching 100 million migrants moving from Bangladesh to the surrounding countries and that amongst a number of other countries suffering lack of water, lack of energy, lack of food etc crises will cause a huge amount of social and political unrest and given what we know of human nature as it is at the moment that is not going to be a good period to live through". Interestingy he's gone from viewing the giai (spelt?) theories as hippy tosh to a useful model (if used appropriately) for understanding some of the difficulties we are going to be facing.
|
|||
|
dodge one 1242 posts |
Dec 07, 2009, 22:44
|
||
|
Just for the record, i do not enjoy calling anyone an idiot. But i won't waste much time arguing a point {or doing the research for} a guy like 'DARK MAGUS'{what the fuck is that anyway? Batman?}{Laughin'} I see things much the same as your Dad. But i am pushing 50 also. These type conversations are not new to me. I've followed the research as an interested party since i was a kid, with an encyclopedia in one hand and a National Geo in the other. I've been watching the planet get ravaged my whole life. Helpless to stop it. Refusing to be part of it, as much as i am capable. Every forum on the Net, seems to have at least 1 or 2 of these jerk-offs that insist they know better than everyone else...And they must too....some even bigger jerk-off has caught them in there sway, and shown them 'the way'. And...generally speaking, for me at least, they tend to reveal a profound lack of knowledge regarding the subject rather quickly. There talking points are generally, a sychophantic apeing of the latest right wing reporting. Ho Hum...... Why bother at all with the like? Anyway..i am a great lover of truth and knowledge and the sciences. If Global warming were not happening....no would appreciate the sciences that could dis-prove it, more than i. It'll take more than a mindless fucking idiot to show me the 'ERROR' of my ways though. It astonishes me that anyone would waste there time on such senseless arguements.
|
|||
|
ratcni01 916 posts |
Dec 07, 2009, 23:18
|
||
|
The weird thing was that as a dirty hippy punk type in my late teens/early 20s I knew there was something happening with the climate, not because of anything that was in the press, because I worked outside all the time, and just "knew" from growing up as a country boy that things had changed - my what rows my step dad and I had, science vs a reader of the Encycopedia Psychedelica! Absolutely no scientifically provable basis for what I "knew" and of course it could have been (in fact could still possibly be I suppose, even hope) a blip of freakish warming/change, seems unlikely sadly. One thing I learned ... NEVER play my step dad at Trivial Pursuit, he knows too much!
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
