Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Skeptical Environmentalist on Global warming

Options
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    To think that an ideal market system will somehow automatically place humans beyond the reach of natural laws is magical thinking.
    It would not. What natural laws are you talking about? If you mean the growth and collapse of population due to lack of resources the declining population of native western Europeans indicates that humans are not solely ruled by the (more resources == more children) equation that is used to model animal populations.
    Now your 'evidence' would be, what, exactly?
    Evidence for what? Evidence that Ireland during the famine was a virtually feudal society and that it was a net exporter of food?
    Ireland remained a net exporter of food even during the blight.
    the English and Anglo-Irish families who owned most of the land, and had more or less limitless power over their tenants.


  • Options
    #33
    Lennoxschips
    Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭Lennoxschips


    cavedave wrote: »
    Did the Easter Islanders have a market economy? Please give a reference to this belief.

    I don't know. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't have saved them.

    The market system is but a means, a tool if you will, for distributing commodities. When oil runs out we are talking about a commodity running out.


  • Options
    #34
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    I don't know. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't have saved them.

    I was about to go off on a tragedy of the commons lecture but then I read this
    http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/EE%2016-34_Peiser.pdf

    You are correct being the biggest tree hugger in history would not have saved you from genocidal maniacs


  • Options
    #35
    Lennoxschips
    Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭Lennoxschips


    I'm saying that when a commodity runs out it runs out, no matter what system you use; market economy, socialism, communism, fascism, genocidal maniacism, whatever.


  • Options
    #36
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    I'm saying that when a commodity runs out it runs out, no matter what system you use; market economy, socialism, communism, fascism, genocidal maniacism, whatever.

    That is not what you said you said "didn't" not "wouldn't"
    The market system didn't save the people of Easter Island after the last tree was chopped down.

    The paper cited shows that Easter Island did not undergo ecocide but genocide so your original quote now says in effect

    "Doing something they did not do didn't save the people of Easter Island from something that did not kill them"

    Which is not a great argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Lennoxschips
    Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭Lennoxschips


    didn't/wouldn't... there's no need to be pedantic. capitalism wouldn't have/ didn't save them at the time
    The paper cited shows that Easter Island did not undergo ecocide but genocide so your original quote now says in effect

    "Doing something they did not do didn't save the people of Easter Island from something that did not kill them"

    That's quite a sweeping straw man conclusion.


  • Options
    #38
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    Human activity has no effect on global warming whatsoever. The earth goes through natural cycles, this was taught to school children until the 1950's.

    The vast majority of people believe whatever they see on the news. For example the polar bear on the block of melted ice??? Polar bears can swim for 200 miles without any problem.


  • Options
    #39
    BULLER
    Registered Users Posts: 340 ✭✭BULLER


    casey212 wrote: »
    Human activity has no effect on global warming whatsoever. The earth goes through natural cycles, this was taught to school children until the 1950's.

    The vast majority of people believe whatever they see on the news. .

    Yet only a small minority have the intellegence to properly comprehend it... your post proves that.

    (the thousand year natural cycles have been broken by human activity)


  • Options
    #40
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    Explain yourself further. Also, when you mention intelligence, use the correct spelling.


  • Options
    #41
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    The market system didn't save the people of Easter Island after the last tree was chopped down.
    That's quite a sweeping straw man conclusion.

    I am putting forward your argument as
    "capitalism which the easter islanders were using did not protect the easter islanders from ecocide" is this not your argument?
    didn't/wouldn't... there's no need to be pedantic. capitalism wouldn't have/ didn't save them at the time
    It is not pedantic to say that people dying from something else were not doomed by an economic system they were not using.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    BULLER
    Registered Users Posts: 340 ✭✭BULLER


    casey212 wrote: »
    Explain yourself further. Also, when you mention intelligence, use the correct spelling.

    :rolleyes: That was a bit ironic wasn't it... I can't right now, I'll reply to you're pm when I have time to go into further detail. There's no point skimming the surface...


  • Options
    #43
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    casey212 wrote: »
    The vast majority of people believe whatever they see on the news.
    Yes, they do, which is presumably why you believe that global warming is totally "natural", despite the mountain of scientific evidence to the contrary:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/
    casey212 wrote: »
    Polar bears can swim for 200 miles without any problem.
    That won't be much good to them when there's no ice left:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070501-arctic-ice.html


  • Options
    #44
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yes, they do, which is presumably why you believe that global warming is totally "natural", despite the mountain of scientific evidence to the contrary:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/

    That won't be much good to them when there's no ice left:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070501-arctic-ice.html

    Have you ever heard the saying:

    "who ever pays the piper calls the tune"

    National Geographic channel is run by the CIA. IPPC is funded by the United Nations, just do some research into that organisation.

    Are you aware that virtually all scientists survive on governmental/foundation grants, be they university based or institutional. What scientist is going to speak out against his master?????

    Also I have never seen any reports on the news where humans were not labelled as the problem, as a result I would refute your first assumption. I am open to correction on this point as I don't watch much of the stuff, yet I can assure you none of my opinions are formulated without extensive research into all areas of the specific topic.


  • Options
    #45
    octo
    Registered Users Posts: 321 ✭✭octo


    casey212 wrote: »
    Human activity has no effect on global warming whatsoever. The earth goes through natural cycles, this was taught to school children until the 1950's.

    The vast majority of people believe whatever they see on the news. For example the polar bear on the block of melted ice??? Polar bears can swim for 200 miles without any problem.

    You're right, of course the earth goes go through natural cycles. But its called man-made climate change because it's above and beyond these natural cycles.

    I hope they're still teaching this in schools.


  • Options
    #46
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Who pays Al Gore then ?
    Or is he like a charity worker for the global warming conspiracy ?
    In Fairness, The ice cores do paint a pretty damning picture of the causes of climate change with regard to human behavior, Of course you are entitled not to believe it, but your reasons are unscientific and bad philosophy to say the least.
    There is a mental tool called Occams Razor, It states that if there is an apparent obvious cause of a result, It is more than likely the cause. You have to look for evidence to the contrary, as it will be of more value than the torrent of speculation that you will find supporting it. Evidence to the contrary of the global warming theories is pretty thin on the ground. Give me something concrete and I will consider it.


  • Options
    #47
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    AngryHippie wrote: »

    your reasons are unscientific and bad philosophy to say the least.

    QUOTE]

    "Reasons unscientific and bad philosophy" Could you point out where have I introduced science and philosophy???? Also refute my arguments as they are presented.

    Study the history of Al Gore, it makes interesting reading. The United Nations are funding the global warming farce. In the early 1970's it was decided that a new method was required to enhance more control over the people.

    You might also want to consider the source of all data/images which are presented.


  • Options
    #48
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    octo wrote: »
    You're right, of course the earth goes go through natural cycles. But its called man-made climate change because it's above and beyond these natural cycles.

    I hope they're still teaching this in schools.

    They no longer teach it in schools. Not from the early 60's. People fail to appreciate the long term planning and precision of government. Believe me they are not the bunch of idiots presented by the media. The vast majority of the brightest minds today are involved in one way or another with government.


  • Options
    #49
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    The earth goes through natural cycles, this was taught to school children until the 1950's.

    Geosyncline theory was taught in universities until the 1960s.

    Additionally, you'll struggle to find a pro-global-warming scientist who denies that the earth goes through natural cycles.

    Which specific natural cycles do you believe are at play here, that are known and understood but have not been included in the current best-of-breed climatological models?


  • Options
    #50
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    bonkey wrote: »
    Geosyncline theory was taught in universities until the 1960s.

    Additionally, you'll struggle to find a pro-global-warming scientist who denies that the earth goes through natural cycles.

    Which specific natural cycles do you believe are at play here, that are known and understood but have not been included in the current best-of-breed climatological models?


    Geosyncline theory?? This is a concept, how does it relate to global warming?
    How about this for an uncomplicated cycle (maybe you only believe difficult theory's made with authorative tones by people in white coats), the earth does not circle the sun in a uniform fashion. Its distance from and path around the sun varies according to various solar patterns. Also there is a vast amount of geothermic activity under the oceans at present, the highest levels since data was recorded in the late 1800's.

    The noition that CO2 has any effect on global warmming is a joke, CO2 is vital, try to live without is and see how far you get.


  • Options
    #51
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    Also there is a vast amount of geothermic activity under the oceans at present, the highest levels since data was recorded in the late 1800's.
    That is very interesting do you have a reference?
    The noition that CO2 has any effect on global warmming is a joke, CO2 is vital, try to live without is and see how far you get.

    Co2 is a greenhouse gas so it certainly can have an effect on global warming. It is vital and you might think plants would absorb more when it was available but I am told the main constraint on plant growth is not co2 but water and soil nutrients.

    Just because something is vital does not mean you can take any amount of it. Drinking too much water or taking in oxygen at too high a partial pressure will kill you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    cavedave wrote: »
    That is very interesting do you have a reference?

    Look into the work of Henry Pollack. He is a professor at the university of michigan. (published work 2002/2003)

    Your second point is correct. I do not debate this, my argument would relate to the source of said CO2.


  • Options
    #53
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    Look into the work of Henry Pollack
    Thanks I will do. A quick review does seem to suggest he is not completely unconvinced by man made climate change
    Pollack's analysis of borehole data suggests that some of the present day warming in North America is a recovery from the Little Ice Age, but there is additional warming that might stem from human activities.
    the highest levels since data was recorded in the late 1800's
    You can use other data to trace geological history. Cave Stal's, mud deposits, ice cores there are many sources of this data. The cave data I am told indicates a man made source of the extra CO2.


  • Options
    #54
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    Again, you must consider the source of all information, who funds them and what is the overall agenda. Read Agenda 21 published by the United Nations, this is the framework for the future.

    Dogma is rampant in the area of science.


  • Options
    #55
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    casey212 wrote: »
    Are you aware that virtually all scientists survive on governmental/foundation grants, be they university based or institutional.
    Yes, I know. I'm one of them ;).
    casey212 wrote: »
    What scientist is going to speak out against his master?????
    They don't pay me nearly enough to keep me quiet!

    The government are a shower of w*nkers. There you go.
    casey212 wrote: »
    Also I have never seen any reports on the news where humans were not labelled as the problem
    You obviously don't watch FOX news very often...
    casey212 wrote: »
    I can assure you none of my opinions are formulated without extensive research into all areas of the specific topic.
    So, you have reviewed all scientific papers on the subject and reached the conclusion that man-made global warming is a hoax? Interesting...
    casey212 wrote: »
    The United Nations are funding the global warming farce.
    No, not really. Individual governments fund scientists (not very well) in their own constituencies.
    casey212 wrote: »
    You might also want to consider the source of all data/images which are presented.
    Everything that goes into an IPCC report is clearly referenced - not sure what you're getting at here.
    casey212 wrote: »
    How about this for an uncomplicated cycle (maybe you only believe difficult theory's made with authorative tones by people in white coats), the earth does not circle the sun in a uniform fashion. Its distance from and path around the sun varies according to various solar patterns.
    Wow :rolleyes:.
    casey212 wrote: »
    The noition that CO2 has any effect on global warmming is a joke, CO2 is vital
    So is water, but could you live under water?
    casey212 wrote: »
    I do not debate this, my argument would relate to the source of said CO2.
    So what is the source?


  • Options
    #56
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    Geosyncline theory?? This is a concept, how does it relate to global warming?

    It doesn't. It relates to the fact that something being taught means very little.

    Geosyncline theory is, fundamentally, wrong. We know this today, but until we knew it, it was taught as "truth".

    You're lamenting that something is no longer taught, and claiming that this is some sort of evidence of a coverup / deception, without ever establishing that what is no longer taught was correct and relevant in the first place.

    (maybe you only believe difficult theory's made with authorative tones by people in white coats),
    A bit more politeness and less presumption on your part wouldn't go astray here.

    the earth does not circle the sun in a uniform fashion. Its distance from and path around the sun varies according to various solar patterns.
    Can you show correlation between these changes, and past/current climatological shifts?
    On what basis do you conclude that this correlation is a better fit than that of current climatological models?
    Also there is a vast amount of geothermic activity under the oceans at present, the highest levels since data was recorded in the late 1800's.
    Same questions as above.
    The noition that CO2 has any effect on global warmming is a joke,
    Based on what reasoning?
    CO2 is vital, try to live without is and see how far you get.
    Who's suggesting living without it?


  • Options
    #57
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    Are you aware that virtually all scientists survive on governmental/foundation grants, be they university based or institutional.
    This would in clude Henry Pollack, who's work you urged us to read to support your side of the argument.
    Again, you must consider the source of all information, who funds them and what is the overall agenda.
    That would include Henry Pollack...again.
    The noition that CO2 has any effect on global warmming is a joke,
    CaveDave wrote:
    Co2 is a greenhouse gas so it certainly can have an effect on global warming.
    Your second point is correct. I do not debate this, my argument would relate to the source of said CO2.

    You say first that its a joke to say that CO2 has any effect, then you agree that it can have an effect, but are arguing about the source of CO2.

    You could clear yoru stance up by answering the following questions...

    Do you believe CO2 can or cannot effect global warming?
    Do you believe CO2 is or is not effecting global warming?
    Do you believe CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is effected by human activity, and if so to what extent?


  • Options
    #58
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    The government are a shower of w*nkers[/B]. There you go.

    You are still willing to take their funds?? What does that say for your moral viewpoint

    You obviously don't watch FOX news very often...

    You got that right

    So, you have reviewed all scientific papers on the subject and reached the conclusion that man-made global warming is a hoax? Interesting...

    How could you possibly review all papers, don't be ridiculous. If you are indeed a scientist then your would be informed in the methods used to filter content according to relevance.-


    Everything that goes into an IPCC report is clearly referenced - not sure what you're getting at here.

    Referenced to whom. I could write a paper and refernce my dog, whats wrong with that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.


    So is water, but could you live under water?

    yes if I had the right equiptment


  • Options
    #59
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    You say first that its a joke to say that CO2 has any effect, then you agree that it can have an effect, but are arguing about the source of CO2.

    I was refering to this point:

    Just because something is vital does not mean you can take any amount of it. Drinking too much water or taking in oxygen at too high a partial pressure will kill you

    Co2 has no effect at all on global warming. Henry Pollack, there are always a few who stand up for truth. Will his funding be provided in the future????


  • Options
    #60
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    Co2 has no effect at all on global warming.

    We know that CO2 acts as an insulator. We know that more CO2 == more insulation.

    Logically, increases and decreases in CO2 concentration should lead to changes in teh amount of heat retained by the atmosphere.

    You are saying flat-out that this is not the case, but aren't offering any reasons why.

    Henry Pollack, there are always a few who stand up for truth.
    As already pointed out, Pollack doesn't rule out CO2 concentrations and man-made influence.

    So does Pollack only stand up for some truth? If so...how have you figured out what that truth is? Indeed, how have yo figured out that Pollack stands for truth? Is it a case of simply refusing to buy into what mainstream science tells you?

    Are you not even slightly perturbed that the argument you take is 100% in agreement with the stance taken by Big Oil and related industries?
    Will his funding be provided in the future????
    If you could show that others have already lost funding for "speaking out" then one has to wonder why you'd use Pollack's future situation, rather than established cases which prove your point.

    If you can't show that others have already lost funding for "speaking out", then there is no evidence to believe that Pollack would suffer such a fate.

    Thus, by asking this question, you simply undermine your own case. You want us to believe that he might be denied funding because of this, but the very way you make the point suggests that you have no evidence to back this up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    casey212
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    We know that CO2 acts as an insulator. We know that more CO2 == more insulation

    How do you know? Just because something is widely accepted does not make is correct.

    So does Pollack only stand up for some truth?

    Define truth.

    Are you not even slightly perturbed that the argument you take is 100% in agreement with the stance taken by Big Oil and related industries?

    I assume you have solar panels that provide electricity and ride a bicycle.

    Thus, by asking this question, you simply undermine your own case. You want us to believe that he might be denied funding because of this, but the very way you make the point suggests that you have no evidence to back this up.

    Who are the US you refer too. There a countless cases of people being ejected from both the medical and scientific community of heresy.


Advertisement