Global Warming

bonkey · 26-03-2009 1:16pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Like evolution and creationism?

Exactly like evolution and creationism...we should teach the scientific arguments for both...or point out the lack thereof. Anything which isn't a scientific argument should not be taught.

Creationism doesn't have much (if any) of a scientific argument behind it, so thats a perfect example. Teach evolution and the science of it, then mention creationism and the fact that it doesn't have a scientific argument worth talking about....or just leave creationism out on the same grounds.

Do you think that children should be handed the responsibility of deciding what is scientifically valid, and what is not?

Thats the antithesis of what was suggested. If you only teach the scientific arguments, then such a decision does not exist. If you teach political arguments, fear-mongering arguments, populist arguments, religious arguments, or anything other than scientific arguments, then you open that door.

By teaching opposing scientific arguments, you might arguably be handing children the decision to decide which of two opposing scientific views to believe, but you know what...I don't see anything wrong with that. If there are opposing views of comparable merit, then science hasn't reached a firm opinion on the matter...so why not teach children both sides?

derry wrote:

Man when I did school they told me a load of Sh!t that the world was overpopulated and we would all be starving before the year 2000

I don't know where you went to school, but I would seriously question that any educational curriculum actually contained such claims. I also seem to recall you claiming in the past that you were also taught about Global Cooling....despite it never being on any educational curriculum, and certainly never being based on scientific consensus.

derry · 27-03-2009 3:14pm

bonkey wrote: »

Exactly like evolution and creationism...we should teach the scientific arguments for both...or point out the lack thereof. Anything which isn't a scientific argument should not be taught.

Creationism doesn't have much (if any) of a scientific argument behind it, so thats a perfect example. Teach evolution and the science of it, then mention creationism and the fact that it doesn't have a scientific argument worth talking about....or just leave creationism out on the same grounds.

Thats the antithesis of what was suggested. If you only teach the scientific arguments, then such a decision does not exist. If you teach political arguments, fear-mongering arguments, populist arguments, religious arguments, or anything other than scientific arguments, then you open that door.

By teaching opposing scientific arguments, you might arguably be handing children the decision to decide which of two opposing scientific views to believe, but you know what...I don't see anything wrong with that. If there are opposing views of comparable merit, then science hasn't reached a firm opinion on the matter...so why not teach children both sides?

I don't know where you went to school, but I would seriously question that any educational curriculum actually contained such claims. I also seem to recall you claiming in the past that you were also taught about Global Cooling....despite it never being on any educational curriculum, and certainly never being based on scientific consensus.

I did secondary school in dublin .In geography for which I got a honour in the leaving cert for that subject there was included from early on the issue of exponetial population expansion and the most likey senario of earths inabilty to cope with this population growth and highprobabilty of a collapse before the year 2000.The lessons taught us also about Ice ages and warm periods .
As ice ages were the majority as in an ice age would last some 1,000,000 years and warm trends like we enjoy presently lasted typically 10,000 years .As we in this period of time have enjoyed some 10,000 warmer years without the ice age it was a direct logical inference that the cooling effect from the fourties through the the sixties where snow was often feet thick meant that the normal time to switch over to ice age was imminent and that the ice age period was coming real soon .Put that down in the intercert and leaving cert exams of that period and you got extra brownie points .
Nowadays new religious order of suedo science has overtaken things and you have to say that the CO2 will cook our goose any time soon and that gives the most brownie points :pac:.

So now you want to tell me you were a geography teacher in that period and your memory is differnt:p

Lucky for me I bunked off school one day went to easons and libaries and read some books where some agreed with this ice age logic and others didnt .So I was exposed to the AGW CO2 and ice age argument probably before you even heard of CO2 AGW

So from 1980 when the two debated the subject seemed to me that it was more a science fashion that dictated who was kick ass biggest theory and who got the juicy big jobs in the unversities and the route of the ice agers went into full swing as CO2 and AGW got the upper hand .

Normally its just another amusing example of how stupid wrong science is on most every subject they do and there are countless similar examples that stay inhouse in Universites and dont go viral to the rest of society .

For reasons to do with Maggie Thathers love of the nuclear industry AGW and CO2 global warming kick started the rout of the UK unversites to replace the ice agers with Global warmers to back up the case for why nuclear power was so baddly needed .
Science yet again hijacked to suit an agenda .

Dissenters from this new religion risked to be become university academic scrap heaps stuck in the bad parts of the college basements far from the lime light of the great CO2 parties and free ligs so lots stopped deating in this new neo nazi regime in this subject .
Ice agers didnt get funds and died out so AGW and COP2 global warming became the new fashion .Long skirts came back into fashion as well and bell bottoms died off thank god awful pair of trousers

So for me having been exposed to suedo sceince in schools I prefer that if they cant explain a subject correctly then they should aviod it.

For me it THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a nice theory.THEORY is not the same as the laws of gravity that newtown states
The THEORY is take a few fragments of bones spread across gazzilions of years join the dots in a way you believe the dots join up and then it becomes a new SUEDO SCIENCE.Sorry until it is the LAW of eveoltion it still for me another suedo science

So schools have no buisness to teach evolution as fact or some LAW .They can mention in religion classes there exists creationists as that is religious studies .In science they can merely state there is a subject called evolution as preached its inventor whats his name and if you want there is more stuff on the internet or books in the libary that explain the THEORY, as its not on the course for schools to teach its now for half proper science lessons move onto the next subject the LAWS of gravity from NEWTON...:p

Equaly the subject of Overpopulation I was exposed to other books in Easons or libaries both sides of the arument some said we were overpopulated and others claimed that the world could easily sustain doubling or trepling of the then present 1975 population without any problem .
They even went further and figured the world could easily cope with a hundred fold and even thousand fold and even ten thousand fold increase in world population over the then 1975 era and still not be over crowded .
So far after 35 years most all the predictions the optimists made that food production and other thing like iron copper gold diamonds oil production would easily match demand and in most cases drop in price have all come TRUE.
More population has made a far better world and I can compare then from now and say i prefer more population in the world anyday

So for me the end of the world suedo science AGW and CO2 and iceagers the whole lot are SCUM BAG euginics and exterminators that hate the human race and invent crap science as to why they should exterminate mankind

So Kids in school do not need exposure to these SADDO scum bag suedo sciencetists with suedo like CO2 or population control sciences and the end is nigh logic and worse the QUAZI theory of evolution dressed up as a LAW which it isnt

Derry

Flamed Diving · 27-03-2009 3:25pm

derry wrote: »

For me it THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a nice theory.THEORY is not the same as the laws of gravity that newtown states

The THEORY is take a few fragments of bones spread across gazzilions of years join the dots in a way you believe the dots join up and then it becomes a new SUEDO SCIENCE.Sorry until it is the LAW of eveoltion it still for me another suedo science

LOL! Newton's theory of gravity is not a law. It cannot predict the orbit of particles, nor does it explain the consistency of galaxies. This is merely an argument of semantics anyway. Law... theory... what matters is the evidence and the models ability to make predictions. The Law of Evolution

can do this in spades. It is thanks to this model that we can create new drugs that save lives, such as new antibiotics.

Furthermore, is there no room for the other half dozen or so disciplines that verifies evolution? Or is it only allowed to be the fossil record? You clearly know very little about evolution, if you think it is as you describe. I suggest picking up a book on the subject, lest you look foolish with further comments like that.

Good lord, where do you people get these ideas?

Oh yeah...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

djpbarry · 27-03-2009 4:15pm

derry wrote: »

For me it THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a nice theory.THEORY is not the same as the laws of gravity that newtown states
...
In science they can merely state there is a subject called evolution as preached its inventor whats his name and if you want there is more stuff on the internet or books in the libary that explain the THEORY, as its not on the course for schools to teach its now for half proper science lessons move onto the next subject the LAWS of gravity from NEWTON...:p

You are aware that gravity is just a theory, aren't you? This law (the law of universal gravitation) was nothing but a hypothesis (albeit a brilliant one) when it was published in 1687.

hoser expat · 27-03-2009 4:15pm

derry wrote: »

So for me having been exposed to suedo sceince in schools I prefer that if they cant explain a subject correctly then they should aviod it.

Derry

For f@ck's sake take some of your own advice for once.

hoser expat · 27-03-2009 4:20pm

derry wrote: »

As ice ages were the majority as in an ice age would last some 1,000,000 years and warm trends like we enjoy presently lasted typically 10,000 years .

Derry

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Please check your 'fact' before continuing to spout crap.

bonkey · 27-03-2009 4:28pm

derry wrote: »

I did secondary school in dublin .In geography for which I got a honour in the leaving cert for that subject there was included from early on the issue of exponetial population expansion and the most likey senario of earths inabilty to cope with this population growth and highprobabilty of a collapse before the year 2000.

Now we're getting somewhere...

You've gone from claiming that the school taught we would all be starving, to the school teaching there was a high probability of "a collapse". I'm sure if we looked a bit further, what we'd find is that the curriculum really taught that there was reason to believe that the growth would result in population exceeding the supportable maximum within a certain timeframe.

The Geography curriculum would not, however, get involved into the political ramifications of what would result from the limit being exceeded.

The lessons taught us also about Ice ages and warm periods .
As ice ages were the majority as in an ice age would last some 1,000,000 years and warm trends like we enjoy presently lasted typically 10,000 years .As we in this period of time have enjoyed some 10,000 warmer years without the ice age it was a direct logical inference that the cooling effect from the fourties through the the sixties where snow was often feet thick meant that the normal time to switch over to ice age was imminent and that the ice age period was coming real soon .Put that down in the intercert and leaving cert exams of that period and you got extra brownie points .

Again...we're getting somewhere.

Schools did indeed teach that intra-ice-age periods were on average of a certain length, and that we were currently already above that average.

I would question, however, that they taught that having a warm period longer than the average lead to a "direct logical inference" that an ice age was imminent based on any evidence of the day...particularly while teaching how slowly climate changes. If the word "imminent" was used, one would expect it to be used in climatological terms...so that we could expect an ice-age sometime in the next few milienia.

Nowadays new religious order of suedo science has overtaken things and you have to say that the CO2 will cook our goose any time soon and that gives the most brownie points :pac:.

No, Derry. As has been pointed out before, the only people using terms like "cook our goose" are those like yourself who wish to misrepresent things. I'm fairly certain that using such terms in current-day examinations will not curry favour with anyone.

So now you want to tell me you were a geography teacher in that period and your memory is differnt:p

You still haven't mentioned the period, but I don't need to claim to have been a geography teacher. We've already seen that once you felt the need to defend your stance, the detail you provided was at odds with the claims your originally made. Once more, we see you misrepresenting things to suit yourself.

For me it THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a nice theory.THEORY is not the same as the laws of gravity that newtown states

<snip>

Anyone reading this who doesn't understand the distinction between theory and law in science should either ask or educate themselves independantly of this thread.

Suffice it to say that this entire line of argumentation of Derry's only serves to show his lack of understanding of basic scientific concepts, and how that lack of understanding is core to his beliefs and arguments.

I'd go so far as to say that its not just that Derry's position is not right. Its not even wrong.

derry · 27-03-2009 9:46pm

bonkey wrote:

I would question, however, that they taught that having a warm period longer than the average lead to a "direct logical inference" that an ICE-AGE was imminent based on any evidence of the day...particularly while teaching how slowly climate changes. If the word "imminent" was used, one would expect it to be used in climatological terms...so that we could expect an ICE-AGE sometime in the next few milienia.

Ah now were getting places.....

"direct logical inference" that A RUN AWAY GREEN HOUSE OR CLIMATE CHANGE was imminent based on any evidence of the day...particularly while teaching how slowly climate changes. If the word "imminent" was used, one would expect it to be used in climatological terms...so that we could expect A RUN AWAY GREEN HOUSE OR CLIMATE CHANGE sometime in the next few milienia.

So the modern hystria that we are going to tilt the world climate immently less than 6 years :eek:say the Denmark conference with CO2 emmisions means .......

we can all thanks to bonkey above conclude there is nothing to worry about with AGW or CO2 or Climate change:pac::pac:

its all been defered another 50,000 years into the future

Bonkey your the man you saved the planet from these global warmers

Bonkey for president

Derry

Flamed Diving · 27-03-2009 10:22pm

Derry - I would just quit now, if I were you. You are making a holy show of yourself.

derry · 28-03-2009 8:46am

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Derry - I would just quit now, if I were you. You are making a holy show of yourself.

yeah to show the others out there I would rather stay on theme the AGW issue rather than the what I learn or kids should learn or be programmed with it sometimes nessary to make a show:p

so "dark side of the moon" "boards forum wanna be teachers leave those kids alone"

now back on theme global warming or was it monkeys made man ??? or man is is still a monkey

This sorta clever man_key is Freeman Dyson who dabbles in CO2 for more than 20 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU&feature=related

part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk

very refreshing to hear less hype more info part of the old school in climate science who did CO2 before the modern make up a boggie man brigade jumped onto the CO2 wagon

now compare that to these MANN_KEYS who even when given a blank sheet to speculate crap are showing they like to spout boogie monster hype from thier computer hockey stick modells
or as they say the famous MANN hockey stick.Some can now see thier real life heros on telly spouting more than CO2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRc33Ow2di0&feature=related

then compare it to this where former founder of green peace Patrick Moore PHD has another angle on CO2 in this short youtube vidio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY&feature=related

anyway the good news is bonkey putting in his long term spoke and the droopy effect it has on climate change has saved us from MANN and his famous hockey stick:pac::pac:

reminds me of my "Ian Dury days "hit me with you rythm stick....."

Oh tonight I will have a electric light celebation for one hour and light up the house with every light thats throws light outside to celebrate the good news there is no worries from CO2 emmisions according to bonkey

Celebraation is timed for 8.30 saterday tonight for one hour

Whoops what a pity its going to be the same time as earth hour and showing primitive living with no electricty which most with the match on will ignore anyway

Derry

bonkey · 28-03-2009 12:48pm

You've shown that you misrepresented or misunderstood what you were taught in school about climate.
You've shown that you misrepresent or misunderstand basic concepts of science, such as what a theory is.
Now you've either misrepresented or misunderstood what it is I said.

I'm at a loss as to how repeatedly showing people that you misunderstand or misrepresent fundamental aspects of so many things can do anything but undermine your own argument.

derry · 30-03-2009 12:21am

bonkey wrote: »

You've shown that you misrepresent or misunderstand basic concepts of science, such as what a theory is.

Ah yeah now we getting place

If you ask people is it fact that the theory of evolution proves man is the higher evolution form from a lesser monkey most will say yes the theory proves this fact.
Even the word THEORY means not proven a suggestion still open to critic

So Theory of evolution as a fact is not remotely close to something like a real fact that is proven in the LAW OF GRAVITY.
yeah I misrepest the word theory isnt like a LAW in your weird world in bonkey land
But doesnt change the FACTAL that AGW is a SCAM to make Al Gore who has the UN exclusive right to carbon trading credits a lot of money to keep this SCAM going
Worse now it seems good old Obama has a part share in AL GORES Chicargo carbon credits trading company
Now thats what you call insider trading making CO2 laws and profiting from them
So picking on my education 35 years ago in light of present day evidence of who dreamed up this CO2 scam is neither here nor there in the scheme of things except maybe in a bonkey universe

Derry

djpbarry · 30-03-2009 9:59am

derry wrote: »

bonkey wrote: »

You've shown that you misrepresent or misunderstand basic concepts of science, such as what a theory is.

If you ask people is it fact that the theory of evolution proves man is the higher evolution form from a lesser monkey most will say yes the theory proves this fact.
...
So Theory of evolution as a fact is not remotely close to something like a real fact that is proven in the LAW OF GRAVITY.

Thank you for illustrating bonkey's point beautifully.

oscarBravo · 30-03-2009 10:11am

derry, this is a moderator instruction: stay off this thread, and don't start any similar ones.

Don't argue with this instruction here. If you have a problem with it, take it up with me by PM or start a thread in the Help Desk forum.

derry · 30-03-2009 12:13pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

derry, this is a moderator instruction: stay off this thread, and don't start any similar ones.

Don't argue with this instruction here. If you have a problem with it, take it up with my by PM or start a thread in the Help Desk forum.

I shall now go to the help desk to see what gives ??????? or doesnt give

Derry

pukabowers · 30-03-2009 3:32pm

bonkey wrote: »

No, we don't. We have a refinement of existing models, which may be correct. if it is correct, it will cause a short-term divergence, which will correct itself. So any cooling we experience will be short-term, and then offset immediately afterweards, so that within 20 years we'll have the same conditions as currently predicted for 20 years from now.

We clearly know no such thing, and yes, the earth has warmed since 1998. Look at the chart in the article you linked to. See the red line...the one of measured temperatures? See how it rises steadily up to about 2005?

We know theat people are not the only cause, yes. We also know that they are a cause.

No, it wasn't.

No, it isn't.

You need to re-read what was written in the article you linked to. Here...I'll make it easy and give you the bits to look at:

"it does suggest a plateauing of temperatures, and then a continued rise,"
...
"We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)."
...
he emphasises that even if the Kiel model proves correct, it is not an indication that the longer-term climate projections of the IPCC and many other institutions are wrong.

The only joke I see is that I can't find a single sentence in your post that is factually correct.

Quote:
now global cooling.
No, it isn't.

yes there was talk of global cooling in the 70s.

djpbarry · 30-03-2009 3:52pm

pukabowers wrote: »

yes there was talk of global cooling in the 70s.

So what? There's "talk" of creationism today; does that make it real?

Flamed Diving · 30-03-2009 4:11pm

pukabowers wrote: »

Quote:
now global cooling.
No, it isn't.

yes there was talk of global cooling in the 70s.

Yes. In magazines. Magazines are not scientific journals. The general consensus in the scientific community was that a short cooling period had finished and that the earth was back to its long-term trend of warming.

It is covered nicely, in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

pukabowers · 30-03-2009 7:28pm

djpbarry wrote: »

So what? There's "talk" of creationism today; does that make it real?

thats exactly my point, there was TALK of cooling and it dosn't make it true, the exact same can be said of global warming, TALK of it does not make it true either and neither does a lack of any real evidence.at least not man made global warming. talk of global warming will peeter out in years to come as with cooling.

pukabowers · 30-03-2009 7:33pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yes. In magazines. Magazines are not scientific journals. The general consensus in the scientific community was that a short cooling period had finished and that the earth was back to its long-term trend of warming.

It is covered nicely, in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

thats my point, it was only talk of global cooling without being backed up with any real scientific proof, exactly the same as global warming is now. made up "facts" in Al Gore's film is not proof of global warming. there is a lot of actual scientific fact that counters much of the claims made in the gore film.

Flamed Diving · 30-03-2009 7:57pm

pukabowers wrote: »

thats my point, it was only talk of global cooling without being backed up with any real scientific proof blah blah blah

There is no such thing as scientific proof. I suggest you pick up a science book and learn why. Everything you say is redundant until you learn this.

pukabowers · 30-03-2009 8:33pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

There is no such thing as scientific proof. I suggest you pick up a science book and learn why. Everything you say is redundant until you learn this.

yes there is and until you pick up a dictionary and learn why everything you say is redundant until you learn this. thanks for your worthwhile contribution to the discussion

Flamed Diving · 30-03-2009 8:39pm

pukabowers wrote: »

yes there is and until you pick up a dictionary and learn why everything you say is redundant until you learn this. thanks for your worthwhile contribution to the discussion

Provide an example of a scientific proof. Just one.

I love debating scientific illiterates.

bonkey · 30-03-2009 10:08pm

pukabowers wrote: »

thats exactly my point, there was TALK of cooling and it dosn't make it true, the exact same can be said of global warming, TALK of it does not make it true either and neither does a lack of any real evidence.at least not man made global warming.

You seem to be suggesting that the state of science regarding global cooling in the 80s is comparable with that of global warming today.

This would be inaccurate.

In the 80s, some scientists in the relevant fields thought that global cooling was a distinct possibility. Some thought that global warming was a distinct possibility. Pretty-much all agreed that the models of the day were insufficient to actually provide an answer with any degree of confidence and what was really needed was more study.

So they went and studied it. They utilised advances in mathematics, computing power, and information gathering techniques. They improved their models.

Today, they have models which have a far higher degree of accuracy, in which they can (and do) have a far higher degree of confidence. They have a far better (albeit still incomplete) understanding of the systems they are modelling. They have, with a high level of confidence, mostly agreed to a most likely progression.

Could they be wrong? Sure. Thats implicit in a level of confidence.

The position today with regards to global warming is not meaningfully comparable to the position with regards to global cooling in the 80s.

hoser expat · 31-03-2009 8:11pm

aghhh, don't ban Derry, he/she is good for a laugh.

Mahatma coat · 01-04-2009 12:32am

I was watchin a docco about lost Civilisations over the weekend, seems that catastrophic climate change ie the drying up or rerouting of rivers, sudden and dramatic sea level rises, warming or cooling periods have been going on since we started recording history, so why is it all of a sudden teh crisis thats going to 'cook our goose'

also on a slight tangent, can anyone confirm or deny that the atmosphere contained a substantialy larger proportion of oxygen during the time of the dinosaurs

Flamed Diving · 01-04-2009 8:51am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I was watchin a docco about lost Civilisations over the weekend, seems that catastrophic climate change ie the drying up or rerouting of rivers, sudden and dramatic sea level rises, warming or cooling periods have been going on since we started recording history, so why is it all of a sudden teh crisis thats going to 'cook our goose'

also on a slight tangent, can anyone confirm or deny that the atmosphere contained a substantialy larger proportion of oxygen during the time of the dinosaurs

I don't think anyone denies that there has been warming and cooling periods throughout history. For example, in medieval times there were vineyards in Northern England. The problem with this 'warming period' is the exponential nature of it. This appears to be unprecedented.

bonkey · 01-04-2009 11:28am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I was watchin a docco about lost Civilisations over the weekend, seems that catastrophic climate change ie the drying up or rerouting of rivers, sudden and dramatic sea level rises, warming or cooling periods have been going on since we started recording history, so why is it all of a sudden teh crisis thats going to 'cook our goose'

In post 273 you asked a series of questions which seem more or less to be "is what this documentary said true". They may not have been inspired by the documentary, but they certainly seem to have the same basis.

You clarified (post 283) that you believed you knew the answers, which were what you formed your opinion on, and just wanted to double-check.

I answered those questions in post 288.

Now, you seem to be saying you don't understand why people say there's a crisis.

Is this again a case that you believe you do know why people say there's a crisis, but are asking again for confirmation? If so, may I suggest that you instead explain what you think the argument for a crisis is. That way, anything you are correct on need not be re-addressed, and people can instead focus on where your misunderstanding is incorrect.

Or are you saying that you genuinely don't know why....that as far as you can determine, there is no basis whatsoever to argue that the current events are in any way different to historical events?

djpbarry · 01-04-2009 1:40pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I was watchin a docco about lost Civilisations over the weekend, seems that catastrophic climate change ... have been going on since we started recording history, so why is it all of a sudden teh crisis thats going to 'cook our goose'

It isn't. Or at least, it isn't according to any credible scientific source. Of course, it is likely that derry will disagree.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I don't think anyone denies that there has been warming and cooling periods throughout history. For example, in medieval times there were apparently vineyards in Northern England.

Sorry; had to qualify that statement slightly.

Flamed Diving · 01-04-2009 1:51pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Sorry; had to qualify that statement slightly.

Well, apparantly, the universe exists.

Apparantly.

Global Warming

Comments