Big issues in the world

[ZAROVE]

ZAROVE wrote:
I think a clear-thinking person would interpret the evidence as I do, that the world is in for some real challenges in the near future.

I always must wonder why peopel assume that a clear-thinking person must somehow arrive at the same conclusions they do.

It also implies that I am not a clear thinking person, and implicates a reason for such a fog in my thinking in beleifs I hold that you donot share.

I dfind this rathe runjustified.

Sorry if you were offended by that.


WELL, it does say that those hwo disagree aren't clear thinking.


I'm well aware that everyone thinks "a clear-thinking person would interpret the evidence as I do", and it's an almost meaningless statement. However, I do think that your trust in God might play a role in your interpretation of the evidence.


But couldn't one say your Atheosm plays a role in your thinking? Or are we goign to assume "Beleif in God" clouds judgement while "Atheism" frees it up?

You, on the other hand, believe that God wouldn't put insurmountable obstacles in the way of civilization on Earth.

I never actually said that, and your making an assumption about somethign you have not been givenr eason to speculate on.

What did you mean when you said "God doesn't lay before us that which we cnant overcome"? Clearly, I misunderstood something...


I speak of individuals. We are not tempted above what we can handle. I do not speak of Civilisations,or even spiecies. Plenty of extinct Spiecies exist on the pl;anet to show that, indeed, extinction can occure.

I also reject any notion that everythign was for Humanity, recall.

Howeer, individually, we are not given what we cannot overcome.

( But, overcoming sin doens't mean nessisarily survivign Physically.)

But, in this case I think soluitons to the current problems of the world, which are largley manmade, are within our reach.

As an interested scientist in a closely related field, I'm telling you that the mainstream global warming science is good.

So was the new Ice Age Data.

Which was supported by the most Brilliant midn sint he world back int he 1970's.

What happened to that?

No, that isn't true. That is not what happened in the 1970's, unless "the most brilliant minds" translates to "Newsweek" and "Science News" journalists.


In seeral years people will say of Global Warming that it was not supported by the actual majority of cientists. Instead, it was only perpetuated by the Media and a foolish Politician from Tennessee.




Honestly, I'd love to find real science that contradicts the mainstream opinion, because I'd much rather be right than wrong about a big issue like this.

But, you miss my point. The Internet is loaded with Scientific, and Sceintific sounding, websites. You can prove almost anythign by using it.



Once, I did see a paper that suggested the Sun was more at fault than previously assumed. That paper said the Sun caused up to 35% of the warming in the last 50 years, the rest being caused predominantly by human GHG.

Which shows that there is still a lot of disagreement, and part of our current GLobal Warmign could be just a Natural trend. Its not just Humanity, and a complex network of things work togather to cause changes.



That's the strongest statement against human-caused warming that I've been able to find in recent literature. If you have something better, please point me to it because I'm honestly interested. If you'd like to see that paper I mentioned, I'm sure I could dig up the reference for you.


I'd much rather note that the future is not presently known to anyone, and no matter how Brilliant, predictiosn of the future cannot be relied upon fully.



Now, to quickly refute this Ice Age baloney: The "Global Cooling" hysteria in the 1970's was never supported by scientists, it was almost purely a media circus.

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

There are Scientists even now that hold to this theory. Respected ones.

They'll say the sam ehting when this GLobal Warming phase pases. They'll say it was never supporte dby Scientissts, and only lunes attatcked to it to make a media Frenxy.

However, Brilliant Scinetisst where attatcked to the GLobal Coolisg Fiasco.
It even has proponants today in repsected fields on CLimate and Meteorology.

There were a grand total of 3 papers published, all very preliminary research, all calling for caution and patience as more data was collected.

three papers? Really, you repeated htis but the truth is they had research rangign from between the 1950's and 1970's.

There where many mroe than just 3, and the 1970's saw an increase in alarm. The Media also increased this alarm.

But the claim tja there wher eonly 3 papers is simply not true.

False. Even in recent eyars many still hold tot he theory, and many more papers wher epublished.

This is simply not true.

This simply is.




Can you find me references to some of these papers that support the notion that a new Ice Age is coming?

I'll see if I can dig them up. As I said though Im notoriosuly unreliable online, so many think I just say this. Relaly I just get distracted by the real world.


The scientific community in the 1970's did not endorse the idea of global cooling.


Actually some still do endorse it.



There was a report in 1975 by the NAS that said all predictions were premature at this point. The NAS report is basically a synthesis of the science at it stood at that point in time. That's it, the "Global Cooling Hysteria of the 1970's" is a myth, end of story.


An we knwo tis the end of the story because you said so. 30 years form now, Global Wamrign will never have been endorsed by the Scintific COmmunity and was hysteria cause dbyt he Media. End of story.



Quite unlike the current scenario, I might add, where the media sometimes finds itself cautioning scientists that they're being hysterical.

Most of the Media seems ot have embraced Global Warming. Any aution at all is off the radar of most viewers. That said, soem of the caution that ( Very slightly) exsts is from those who rmemeber the Global Cooling SCare.

WHich was nto caused soley by th MEdia.



Secondly, "Global Heat wave" is not an accurate term.

Its nto intended to be accurate. The poitn in using the term is to illustrate my lack of confidence in the theory. Sort of like how Edwin Hoyle named the Primordial Atom theory a "The Big Bang". Granted, Hoyle is now seen as wrong, but then again, Hoyle also never renounced his position.

That said, not everythign in casual speech is goign to be tehcniclaly accurate.

I am dissapoitned, though, that you think this is evidence that I am not well studied int he sicneces.


I use "Global Climate Change" because it really is climate change on a global level, and it is driven by heating.

But what you use and the terms I used doesn't reflect lack of knowledge.Least of all in context.


If you actually spent the time to read up on climatology, you'd learn that the science supporting a new Ice Age is weak, at best. Crap, I said I wasn't going to debate this.


I hate to break it to you, but I didn't brign up the Global Cooling theory because I beelive we are enterign a new Ice Age. The reason I mentioend it was to show why I am not overly worried baotu GLobal Warming.

To explain further, I am not actually advocatign Global Cooling. I simply do not think we know enough to secure the GLobal Warmign position as is presented now, and am using the Global Cooling Phoenomenon to illustrate this.

There are other predicted futures made by Scientists that never happened to. SHoudl I list them? WOudl listign them mean I advocat ehtem?

If I remidn you of the Y2K scare, which many Tehcnical Engeneers and COmputer experts warned us of, woudl that mean Ibeleive our comouters are goign to crash newyears day?


I'm afraid yo misunderstand my point enturely if you think I am actulaly advocatign Global Cooling. But then again, you misunderstand why I use the term Global Heat Wave.

Yes, too bad I beelive in God and am religious, that mustmean I am scientificlaly Illiterate.


Never study Sicnece, I just sit back and obey the CHurch.

(Sorry for the Sarcasm but I do acutlaly know about the Science involved.)

Sorry for being presumptuous, but terms like "global heat wave" throw up a red flag.

Perhaps, then, you shoudl study Linguistics as well as CLimatology.

I was not tryign to use it as a Scientific term, but rather as a term to show my apathy toward the concept.

Its nto suppose to be Scientificlaly Accurate.

Heck, the term "Big Bang" isn't Scientificlaly Accurate, yet iff I told you I beelvied it he Big Bang theory I doubt that'd send any red flags.

Its an expression, not a tehcnicla term.


Believing in the cooling myth throws up a red flag.

But, who said I beleived int he Cooling myths? My point in brignign them up was to show how I don't really have the confidence in the Global Warmign theory that woudl promot me to make rash acitosn or suffer undue anxiety.

Its not so mucht hat I beleiv ein GLobal Cooling, rarther its that I am Sceptical of the extent of GLobal Warming.

I do hope that by stressign this you will perhaps take down one red flag.




I don't believe you when you say that you know the science.

Part of your lack of beelif stems from misunserstanding my point, though.



I've seen no indication that this is true, since you haven't even used any scientific arguments yet. Come on, aren't you going to blame the Sun or cosmic rays or volcanoes?


How can I make a Sceintific argument based on lack of evidence? The whole reason I am sceptical of the present GLobal Warming predictiosn is lack of evidence. We simply haven't studied the matter fully yet.

I'm not advocatign GLobal Cooling, I'll repeat.

What I am doing is remidnign you that Scientifsts ar ehHuman, and do not know the future.

Thus I am advocatign Caution in dire predicitons when we haven't fully stuudied the matter, and wen we have known Science to have been wrong before.

Shoudl I list other failures in redictions aside from Global Cooling?

Hopefully if I do, you won't think I beelive each of the listed claims. Otherwisd you will be well justified in thinkign I don't know science when I brign up the Ether, and start talking about the space rays and moon dust.

I'd like to add that it was due in larg epart to Missionaries of the CHristain Faith that helped Africa gain modenr Medicine and Technology, as well as up the literacy rate.


Indeed. I'm not anti-religion. The culture and charity work done in the name of religions are both very fine examples of the best in humanity.

Good. Now maybe you can conceed also that I may know the sicneces and dont think God won't let horrible disastes befall humanity.

Nope, I still don't think you know as much of the science as you claim.

You also think Ibeleive in GLobal Cooling, which missed my point.

Could you perhaps be mistaken in what I am saying? At leats in part?


I'll concede that you think that God won't let horrible disasters befall humanity, but I question the relevance of that point. Will you concede that I might know a little about the Christian God, too? I think your idea of what God won't do is inaccurate.


I didn't say God won't allow horrible disasters to befall Humanity. I als think you misread the sentence. I said, and I quote, "Now maybe you can conceed also that I may know the sicneces and dont think God won't let horrible disastes befall humanity."

Re-read the sentence.

I do not think God Won't let...

This means, I do not beleive that God withholds disasrers form Humanity.

THis means that I do not think God prevents disasters.

This means God does allow disasters to befall Humanity.

So, why on earth are you sayign that I uphold the oposite?

Good ole' Socialist Sweden sin't free if you want to, say, claim Homosexuality is Immoral. Or speak abotu Abortion beign Evil. Or tell others that they shoudl get married.

Sorry, it sonly free if you agree with the previaling govenrmentally approved cultural norms, and its gross national overhead willee its Economy fall apart.

First of all, the economy is doing fine (and isn't propped up on a huge foreign debt like America's).

Ah yes, lets compare it to America. We all know I think America has no problems...


Swedens Economy isn'tdoing fine. Its illusory success masks the real problem of an increased overhead, and the funding for various, and increasing Govenrmental Agencies is beginning to see strain.

Its not ging to be sustainable.


But you're right about freedom in Sweden, your "right" to be a sanctimonious jerk isn't upheld.

Your beign a Sanctemonius Jerk right now, though.

No offnece but, do you really think that you cannot possibley disagree with Abortion, and oppose it withotu beign a Sanctemonious Jerk?

Do you honeslyly think that only Jerks are Pro-Life?

Only the Sanctemonius?

Do you relaly think that Homosexuality is only thguth f as Psycologicla and not innate by Sanctemonious Jerks?

Do you really think that only by agreeign withthose things are you not a Jerk?

Aren;t you beign a Sanctemonious Jerk by lablign others base don posiitisn they take, rahter htan who they are and why they hodl them?

I find this Hypocritical.



This makes Sweden a terrible country, where you're forced to be tolerant of others.

How is this tolerant, though? Lablign Pro-Lifers Sanctemonious Jerks proves your intolerant of their views. Labling those who do not think Homosexuality is moral or just dont thinkit sinnate also wins them this prise.

So who is beign tolerated? Surley not those hwo disagree with the current social trends.

Tolerance, it seems, is only awarded certain types of people.

That, of ocurse, isn;'t really tolerance.

Nor are you tolerant , as evidenced by your lablign peopel Sanctemonous Jerks.

I'm rather tired of hiding behind the Tolerance sheild. If TOlernace for Homoseuxals means I cannot possibely advance theories of the causes of Homosexuality that do not meet Pliticllay COrrect standards, then it snot TOlerance.

If soemoen else cannot disagree on the morlaity of the topic of Homosexuality, then this is not tolerance.

If peopel cannot defend the right to life of the unborn, this is not tolerance.

Sweden is not a tolerant country, it is intolerant of those who do not follow the party line.

Tolerance shoudl not be maldefiend as accepntance of liebral ideas, but of allowance of others to disagree.

This Sweden doesn't do.

You justifying it by lablign others Sactemonu Jerks and sayogn we are forced to toelrate eahc other isn't goign to make Sweden Tolerant, just as it fdoesn't make others relaly Sanctemonious jerks.


How about the right to enjoy nature anywhere you want as long as you're not bothering others?

That'd be hard to curtail. EVen the most TSrident of COmmunist Countires can't remove Nature.





That's written right into the constitution.

Thats nice.


How about the right to medical care, the right to higher education, the right to a place to live? What a terrible injustice, to be free to live one's life without worrying about money for basic necessities.



But if I am goign to be blabled a Sanctemonius Jerk because I want an end to Infanticide, and put in jail for objectin to the wholesale slaughter of innocent lives, thats harldy freedom.

If I am a Psycologist ( I am in trainign go be one) and advance a theory that Homosexuality s not innate, I'd not be alowed to continue.

If a Preahcer, who objected to Homosexuality, I cna be fined or even spend time in Jail.

Sanctemonious speaches abotu tolerance won't make that a better option for those who are not fitted with your personal moramity wich they find shoved down their throats.

Tolerance is simply another word for dictatorship, it seems.

I'll ltake Liberty over enslaved thinking.

And, Technologisl booms expand and contract throguhout hisotry, with logn periods of little ot no inventiion, and periods of rapid invention. here are signs that ours is begining to slow down.

Natural patrtern really.


Actually, this isn't true. Ray Kurzweil is a scientist who has studied the way technology has progressed through the ages, and it has been exponential basically the entire time. It's like Moore's Law, but more universal. For more info, look up his presentation on TED.com.

One man does not a fact make. As a Scentisst you shoudl know this.

He is the foremost expert of his field, and runs a large team that investigates this subject in a hundred different ways. One man does not generally make a fact, but in this case he has brought plenty of facts to bear. Check out that TED.com presentation, read a couple of his books, you'll see.


I've seen it, and others who disagree.

I'd still say, Patterns of History.

I detect another Athiest who thinks that, even though God doens't exist, if he did and was as described he'd be Evil.

Perhaops you shoul give God mroe of a benefit of a doubt. Rather than see him as some sort of Dictatorial and cruelk tyrant filled with Rage and wrath, perhaops try to see why he is decibed as Lovign and Merciful.

It'd certianly help you udnerstand CHristian argumnts more readily.

I am also ell awar of the usual "Evil Bible verses" abotu wars and destruction, but also abotytheir context.[/quote]

I think you misunderstand me. God is basically absent, he doesn't deal with the world much. He's not cruel or evil, he just lets cruel things happen in the world anyway. I see the Christian God as Loving and Merciful because he saves people from death and gives them grace. God isn't the cause of Peak Oil, but neither is He going to fix the problem for us.


So your basiclaly agreeing wiht me.

I knwo you htink I think that God won't allow disasters to befall Humanity, soemthign I've flatly said the oposite of, yet when you quoted me thoguht I said the reverse of my intention, but tis true. ( And the above is a DIliberatley convoluted sentence.)


I see our lives here on Earth as a mean of teahcign us great moral and Philosophical lessons. As a result, God doens't solve all our problems, interveneing only in minor ways throughout Hisotry.


The reason I am Sceptical of GLobal Warign has nothign to do with my beleif that God won't allow disaster to befall Humanity. My Sceptisism rests on past predictions beign abject failures, and insufficient Data to base such claism on.


Your presentaiton of how God works is certianly better than the Evil God theory, and concords with mine in from what you typed above.

Althoguh I'd not sya he si Abscent, God is merley not interveneing diliberatley in order to let us solv eour problems. He is still there in case of need, or to ffier insight or inspiration or guidance.



and my scientific sensibilities are convinced that severe Climate Change/Peak Oil consequences are practically inevitable.


Mine aren't.

But you said yourself thta Humanity ill likely overcome it. Even if you did add that "It won' be pretty".

Don't you think it then a bit more practical t sort the problem out than fret over its consequences?

Without realizing the consequences, how would you even recognize that a problem exists?

Your still makin the assumption that I don't realise the consequences.




You can't separate the solution to these problems from the consequences. I'm just advocating looking ahead, so we can calibrate our actions so they correspond to desirable consequences.


Generlaly this is wise. But I still remain sceptical of the predicitosn absed on what I said above, lack of informaiton and awarenes sof several past failures.

[ZAROVE]

zor,... zor... zor. what are we going to do with our little brilliant reactionary monarchalist right winger? You are such a bright guy, but so hung up on outmoded political fashions that really had any true representatives.


My politics doens't effect my Science.

Besodes, what was will be, and what is now was in the past.

THings tend to return.


the vast consensus of the world scientific community supports the data on global warning. It's proven over and over again, in ever major study. Chuncks of ice the size of New Jersey are falling away from the polar ice caps.


Which doens't prove the full extend of GLobal Warming as predicted by Al Gore, for example.

I didn't flalty deny GLobal Warming, I simply advocate caution. I am also scpetical of the long reaching claims made by those who advocate it.



this is one of the most backward aspects of the Bush administration, to doge the scetnfiic community and insist that science has to be wrong. the only scientists that still agree with Bush are the hacks who work for right wing propaganda groups.


I'm a Monarchist, Remember? God Save the Queen? All fo the sudden I'm Bush?




Fallacy: to think that the ice age data and it's apparent failure to materialize disproves Global warming. that's argument from analogy.


I didn't say the Ice Age Data proved Gobal Warmign was wrong. I mentioned this in responce to Quantum Trolls own Fallacy.

His Fallacy was to say that because Sceintists said soemthign it must be true.

That isn't logical, and I used the Ice Age theory fo rthe 1970's to demonstrate why this isn't true. Because Scientisst can be wrong.

[ZAROVE]

TO summerise.

1: I do not beelive that God withholds disaster from the world. I also did not say God wouldn't allow disaster to befall Humanity. Quiet the revrse, I think God allows both man-made and natural calamity tobefall Humanity sicne I ee the enture world as a means to Advancign our souls via overcomign those obsticles.

Sayign that I think the world is safe because God won't allow Humanity to suffer disasters is a gross misreading of wat I've said.

2: I don't beelive int he Coming Ice Age, my rasonm for bringing it up is to show how faulty future predictions can be.

3: That said, I am not convenced of the Full Ramifications predicted by Global Warming. I have yet to see sufficient evidece for the most spectacular claims.

My sceptisism, however, is base don lakc of evidence and awarenes of apst failures, not a beelif that God won't let bad thigns f that scale happen.

[QuantumTroll]

TO summerise.

1: I do not beelive that God withholds disaster from the world. I also did not say God wouldn't allow disaster to befall Humanity. Quiet the revrse, I think God allows both man-made and natural calamity tobefall Humanity sicne I ee the enture world as a means to Advancign our souls via overcomign those obsticles.

Sayign that I think the world is safe because God won't allow Humanity to suffer disasters is a gross misreading of wat I've said.

2: I don't beelive int he Coming Ice Age, my rasonm for bringing it up is to show how faulty future predictions can be.

3: That said, I am not convenced of the Full Ramifications predicted by Global Warming. I have yet to see sufficient evidece for the most spectacular claims.

My sceptisism, however, is base don lakc of evidence and awarenes of apst failures, not a beelif that God won't let bad thigns f that scale happen.

There is no lack of evidence! What more could there be? The consensus on anthropogenic climate change in the climate science community is nearly complete. That's why I keep asking you to show me some science. I'm hoping you'll go looking and find out how difficult it is to really find evidence against the mainstream opinion.

Re Global Cooling in the 1970's: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
I noticed that you neglected to respond to this stuff, and I assume that you realize that you were in error. It is to be hoped that you reconsider your some of your other ideas about climate science.

What specific objections do you have against the scientific opinion expressed in the IPCC reports, for example? I don't expect you to actually read the entire thing, but you know enough to express the flaws that you perceive in the current science. I believe that I could answer most of them, as long as you don't copy-and-paste or ask me to respond to other people's articles. Care to do a 1x1 thread on the debate board and discuss this in a Q&A type format?

[ZAROVE]

There is no lack of evidence!


Actually nmerous people, while not disputign soem climate change, woudl still shy away from he massive scale of the future scenario you present. Which is what I am doing here.

I never denied somethign wasn't Amiss, however I doubt its as severe as you are indicating.

On that note, there is no evidence for the whplescale changes you present. None. EVen what you present is speculaiton based on a collection fo facts combined wiht theories.

That is not solid evidence.


What more could there be? The consensus on anthropogenic climate change in the climate science community is nearly complete.

Consensu is not evidence.


That's why I keep asking you to show me some science. I'm hoping you'll go looking and find out how difficult it is to really find evidence against the mainstream opinion.


The difficulty is that, even though you think I am a Scientific illiterate hwo knows very little of the sicnec einvovled, the truh is that I have. Even the site you advocated abotu Climate change had no real, solid science to prove its dire warnings. Evidence of some Global warming is nto the same as evidence of massive, wholesale changes.

I don't see why this point eludes you.

Thats why I mentioend Global Cooling.

Plenty of times has the COnsensus been wrong, and this sin't even relaly the ocncensus. The concensus is on global warmign existing, not on he nightmare scenarios you present.



Re Global Cooling in the 1970's: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
I noticed that you neglected to respond to this stuff, and I assume that you realize that you were in error. It is to be hoped that you reconsider your some of your other ideas about climate science.

I still don't think you even see why I mentioned GLobal coolign in the firts place, and fear that you think I actulaly beelived it.

GLobal Cooling as a fad dissapeared before I really came of any sort of age to appriciate it. My point is, though, that just because it is chatter doens't mean it is fact.


So, no, I didnt realise I was in error. I actulaly stand by everythign I've said in this thread.

I think you are in error, however, in what you think I've been saying.

IE, that I have said, in your view, that God won't allow disaster to befall Humanity. I acutlaly said the oposite, but yeven after sayign this you repeated the claim that I said God own't allow disaster to befall Humanity.

Unless you want to say I revised my position on that too, you shuld at leats admit you where mistaken on that end.



What specific objections do you have against the scientific opinion expressed in the IPCC reports, for example?

I'd have to go intothem in more detail than I have , but as I said, my main objection at the moment is hat we cannot see the future, and not everyone even agrees on all the causes of FLobal Warming.

The disasters you depict happening are themselves not the ocnsensus of the Scientific OCmmunity, which in and of tself can eb wrong.

Its speculaiton abse don theories base don soem observed facts and extrapolations.

I find that unreliable enough to deny it full confidence.




I don't expect you to actually read the entire thing, but you know enough to express the flaws that you perceive in the current science.

Actually, I never said the Current Science is flawed. I simply question the conclusions some peopel draw base don conjecture and theory.




I believe that I could answer most of them, as long as you don't copy-and-paste or ask me to respond to other people's articles. Care to do a 1x1 thread on the debate board and discuss this in a Q&A type format?


How can I debate you when you don't even know my position?

Can we at leats have you admit you where wrong abotu how I view God?

I'd like you to admit that I never said God won;t allow disasters to befall Humanity. I really wpuld.

Then maybe you can understand that I never advocated GLobal Cooling, and haven't changed anythign in what I've said thusfar.

Until then, discussion will be moot.

I don't want ot say Godzilla is destoryign Tokyo only to have someone remake my words into New Yrk beign attacked.

[QuantumTroll]

These posts are getting too long.

Zarove, it seems I misunderstood you from the start. I made assumptions about you based on this misunderstanding, and here we are. The cooling thing, your apparent disregard for terminology, and all the talk about finding evidence on websites stereotyped you in my mind. I still disagree about the Cooling thing, it was never very popular with the scientific community at large. Fringe adherents of a theory don't really matter if they're as unsuccessful at publishing in peer reviewed journals as the cooling folks are.

To keep things short, I'm sorry, let's start over. You apparently believe that global climate change is happening, you're just not convinced of the severity of the situation. I hope I've got it correct now.

I'd like to point you to the IPCC WGII Report and Summary. The Summary does a good job of explaining what we know and how we know it. The IPCC works with conservative estimates, whenever the magnitude of change is concerned. I'd like to hear what is so speculative about all this science?

Clearly we're not facing an end-of-the-world scenario, but the science that I've seen predicts a future with a lot of trouble. I don't understand why you think these predictions are very speculative.

[Metacrock]

There is no lack of evidence!

Actually nmerous people, while not disputign soem climate change, woudl still shy away from he massive scale of the future scenario you present. Which is what I am doing here.

that's an impression created by Bush pr and right wing pr but not borne out by evidence.



I never denied somethign wasn't Amiss, however I doubt its as severe as you are indicating.

On that note, there is no evidence for the whplescale changes you present. None. EVen what you present is speculaiton based on a collection fo facts combined wiht theories.

we haven't had flooding of major coastal cities, but essentually your position seems to be "I don't want it to be bad so it wont be."

That is not solid evidence.

the solid evidence shows it's going to get hot. The rest is extrapolation, but it's not uneducated or unwarranted.

What more could there be? The consensus on anthropogenic climate change in the climate science community is nearly complete.

Consensu is not evidence.

yes it is. when all the major scholars in a given field agree we have no choice but to accept it.


That's why I keep asking you to show me some science. I'm hoping you'll go looking and find out how difficult it is to really find evidence against the mainstream opinion.

The difficulty is that, even though you think I am a Scientific illiterate hwo knows very little of the sicnec einvovled, the truh is that I have. Even the site you advocated abotu Climate change had no real, solid science to prove its dire warnings. Evidence of some Global warming is nto the same as evidence of massive, wholesale changes.

"some global warming" shows we can expect temperature in the 100's every year as a norm. that's obviously going to cause to problems the ice caps are already melting. get it man, the ice caps are melting. it has never been known in recorded human memory that chunks of ice the size of new Jersey split off and float away. that's just not normal and the results are predictable. why would you think we can't tell what will happen if the ice caps melt?

[ZAROVE]

Troll, I knew it was a mere misunderstanding, but how else coudl we so graciously speak if not corrected. I am happy to begin again, and will see if I can work in tme to post on the positions noted.

Of ocuse beign currently une,mployed I'll have a good deal of time, but, thats another question.



Meta-

My position is nt "I don't want it to be bad therefore it wont be", my posiiton is "We do not know wjhat the future will hold, and much of the dire warning seems well too speculative for my taste".

That is hardly the same thing.

As for GLobal Warming, I seem to recall that int he Cretacious age, Global Temptetures where warmer still thaneven what we are predicting, and he average mean global tempreture was 6 to 9 degrees higher.

THe same is true of the Jurrasic period.

The Triassic was warm too, but only toward the end did we see tr massive rise.

Of ocurse, each period lasted millions of years, and likely tempreture fliuctuated wildly.

Still, it is apparent thta life will continue on its merry way under such conditions.

Of course, this leads me to my main point, in that even thouh we are speculatig on such things that will happen a s a result of GLobal Warming, ansd the exact extent of it, we really don't know what will happen. Its all theory and conjecture at this point.

In fact, if up to 35% of the current globalw armign trend is base doteh sun, an the sun changes its mind ( Spekaign metaphoriclaly) then we'd loose 35% of the problem.

And wha if some other weather factor coutnermands the GLobal warmign that we have yet to forsee?

Ice is melting in the Extreme North and extreme south.

But what will this prove?

We have yet to see.

[runamokmonk]

push play on video (short)

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/bus ... as-prices/

[Metacrock]

Troll, I knew it was a mere misunderstanding, but how else coudl we so graciously speak if not corrected. I am happy to begin again, and will see if I can work in tme to post on the positions noted.

Of ocuse beign currently une,mployed I'll have a good deal of time, but, thats another question.



Meta-

My position is nt "I don't want it to be bad therefore it wont be", my posiiton is "We do not know wjhat the future will hold, and much of the dire warning seems well too speculative for my taste".

That is hardly the same thing.

As for GLobal Warming, I seem to recall that int he Cretacious age, Global Temptetures where warmer still thaneven what we are predicting, and he average mean global tempreture was 6 to 9 degrees higher.

THe same is true of the Jurrasic period.

The Triassic was warm too, but only toward the end did we see tr massive rise.

Of ocurse, each period lasted millions of years, and likely tempreture fliuctuated wildly.

Still, it is apparent thta life will continue on its merry way under such conditions.

Of course, this leads me to my main point, in that even thouh we are speculatig on such things that will happen a s a result of GLobal Warming, ansd the exact extent of it, we really don't know what will happen. Its all theory and conjecture at this point.

In fact, if up to 35% of the current globalw armign trend is base doteh sun, an the sun changes its mind ( Spekaign metaphoriclaly) then we'd loose 35% of the problem.

And wha if some other weather factor coutnermands the GLobal warmign that we have yet to forsee?

Ice is melting in the Extreme North and extreme south.

But what will this prove?

We have yet to see.

it clealry means the sea level is going to rise. IT doesn't have to rise much to flood major cities.