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
1246710

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    fits wrote: »
    look in the mirror honey ;)


    I am not the one arguing the government approved line. Your masters are proud i'm sure


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    You people are indoctrinated and house trained.

    Shame on me for asking you to make your case.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    bonkey wrote: »
    Shame on me for asking you to make your case.

    The case has been made. Ignorance on the part of others I cannot alter.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    The case has been made.

    If thats what you consider making a case, then I can understand how you reach the conclusion you do.
    Ignorance on the part of others I cannot alter.
    Ignorance can be cured. Its stupidity thats terminal.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    bonkey wrote: »
    If thats what you consider making a case, then I can understand how you reach the conclusion you do.


    Ignorance can be cured. Its stupidity thats terminal.

    You need to examine your opinions.Consider what opinions are yours personally and which you have blindly accepted.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    oooh, another bonkey = government shill thread

    excellent, where's my popcorn.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    You need to examine your opinions.Consider what opinions are yours personally and which you have blindly accepted.

    Do you not see the irony in you telling us your version of what happened, dodging every tough question in terms of backing up said version, and then telling us to consider what we might have blindly accepted???

    I refuse to accept your argument for exactly this reason. You've offered nothing other than an insistence that its true. You won't discuss the science, despite it being a scientific issue. You won't approach the argument scientifically (i.e. using the scientific method), despite it being - again - a scientific issue.

    You offer little if any sources, and those you have offered have each managed to contradict at least one of the things you insist are true.

    You offer no detail regarding what convinced you, or how you reached your conclusion.

    I have done exactly as you suggest. I've weighed your argument, your body of evidence, and your line of reasoning against my currently held position (which you have repeatedly made assumptions about, rather than asking for details, despite criticising others for doing the same to you).

    Your position comes up lacking in almost every department, and your comeback has been to claim an ignorance on my part - yet another assumption you're happy to make regarding what I know and how I know it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Mordeth wrote: »
    oooh, another bonkey = government shill thread

    On this thread, I don't think I've gotten past being considered one of the sheeple.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    casey212 wrote: »
    bonkey wrote: »
    Do you have a problem with that idea?



    And once again, casey212 attacks science by abandoning the scientific method.

    I am questioning your stance on this issue. You refer to science yet you cannot provide your own independent source, or any other for that matter.


    Contradiction?? You are yet to answer this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    Contradiction?? You are yet to answer this.
    Immediately after you asked me to answer that, I asked you to clarify what it was you wanted. I explained why I asked for that clarification, and specified what I needed clarified.

    Rather than offer the clarification I requested, You instead levelled accusations of posters who disagree with you being "indoctrinated and house trained".

    So no, there's no contradiction at all.

    I am yet to answer your request because you have yet to offer me the clarification that I need in order to be able to answer it appropriately.

    So...once more...do you :

    a) disagree that science claims that CO2 is an insulator at all
    or
    b) agree that science claims CO2 is an insulator, but disagree with science, because you believe CO2 is not an insulator.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    bonkey wrote: »
    Immediately after you asked me to answer that, I asked you to clarify what it was you wanted. I explained why I asked for that clarification, and specified what I needed clarified.

    Rather than offer the clarification I requested, You instead levelled accusations of posters who disagree with you being "indoctrinated and house trained".

    So no, there's no contradiction at all.

    I am yet to answer your request because you have yet to offer me the clarification that I need in order to be able to answer it appropriately.

    So...once more...do you :

    a) disagree that science claims that CO2 is an insulator at all
    or
    b) agree that science claims CO2 is an insulator, but disagree with science, because you believe CO2 is not an insulator.


    What science "claims" does not concern me. Claims are not facts.

    How do my opinions affect your providing of evidence in relation to the statements you have made??


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    casey212 wrote: »
    What science "claims" does not concern me.
    I see. Well, I think that tells me everything I need to know. If you are not prepared to accept the evidence as presented by the scientific community, how can you possibly have a rational debate on any scientific issue?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I see. Well, I think that tells me everything I need to know. If you are not prepared to accept the evidence as presented by the scientific community, how can you possibly have a rational debate on any scientific issue?

    Make the distinction between claims and facts. That is what I was alluding too.

    I think some people are missing my point. People need to consider alternative theories to what has been presented. Question!


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    casey212 wrote: »
    Make the distinction between claims and facts. That is what I was alluding too.
    Oh, the irony :rolleyes:; what "facts" have you presented?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Oh, the irony :rolleyes:; what "facts" have you presented?

    I have not presented any facts based on my own independent research. How would I? If you don't have the backing of big government. All my opinions are based on secondary research. What I am saying is that you should consider other viewpoints. You cannot reference sources which are backed by others, the research itself is open to corruption. Hence the problems of your friend providing his sources.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    What science "claims" does not concern me.

    This entire thread is about differing scientific claims. If they don't concern you, what is your purpose here?
    Claims are not facts.
    Then allow me to reword my request for clarification

    I don't know whether you disagree with the fact that science says CO2 is an insulator, or the fact that CO2 is an insulator.

    Depending on which it is, my answer to your question will be different. I either have to make the case CO2 is an insulator, or I have to make the case that science says it is (regardless of whether its true or not).
    How do my opinions affect your providing of evidence in relation to the statements you have made??

    Because you are asking for evidence to satisfy your perspective, based on those opinions. I don't know exactly what that perspective is, and this need to find out in order to be able to answer your question.

    I assume, incidentally, that it goes without saying that having made this request for evidence from me such a central point, that it would be hypocritical of you not to back your own argument up with the same level of detail that you feel mine requires.

    I'm not going to force the issue however...if you'd rather choose hypocracy over self-consistency, thats entirely your lookout. Just bear in mind that the longer you insist that I give the "first principles" evidence, the more hypocritical you'll look for not having done so yourself, even without being asked to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    I think some people are missing my point. People need to consider alternative theories to what has been presented. Question!

    I'm not missing your point at all.

    You presented an alternate theory. I questioned it. You've dodged questions, resorted to insults, and refused to engage on any meaningful level regarding the science behind your alternate theory.

    There is, therefore no scientific basis for accepting your theory and I have consequently refused to accept it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    I have not presented any facts based on my own independent research. How would I? If you don't have the backing of big government.
    Currently, you and I are discussing a property of CO2 which you can test yourself, in your back garden, with very little expenditure. You do not require government grants.
    What I am saying is that you should consider other viewpoints.
    And what I am saying is that you should do so using the scientific method given that it is a scientific question. Your argument is based entirely on an abandonment of that principle.
    Hence the problems of your friend providing his sources.
    I have no problems...I am merely refusing to allow you to dodge the question regarding what it is you want sources for.

    I suspect you are dodging it because there is no answer which doesn't cast you in a bad light. You must either admit ignorance of what science's position regarding the absorption properties of CO2 are, or you admit to an abandonment of the scientific principle by refusing to accept said position despite being unable to falsify it.

    No matter which answer you choose, you damage your own credibility and undermine any reason you could possibly give for being listened to in a scientific debate. Thus, you repeatedly refuse to answer the question of exactly what it is you want sources for and instead complain that I haven't supplied them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    bonkey wrote: »
    This entire thread is about differing scientific claims. If they don't concern you, what is your purpose here?


    Then allow me to reword my request for clarification

    I don't know whether you disagree with the fact that science says CO2 is an insulator, or the fact that CO2 is an insulator.

    Depending on which it is, my answer to your question will be different. I either have to make the case CO2 is an insulator, or I have to make the case that science says it is (regardless of whether its true or not).



    Because you are asking for evidence to satisfy your perspective, based on those opinions. I don't know exactly what that perspective is, and this need to find out in order to be able to answer your question.

    I assume, incidentally, that it goes without saying that having made this request for evidence from me such a central point, that it would be hypocritical of you not to back your own argument up with the same level of detail that you feel mine requires.

    I'm not going to force the issue however...if you'd rather choose hypocracy over self-consistency, thats entirely your lookout. Just bear in mind that the longer you insist that I give the "first principles" evidence, the more hypocritical you'll look for not having done so yourself, even without being asked to.

    You are confusing yourself. Hypocritical?

    Ok. Lets analyse your approach from the beginning. How are normal human activities increasing global warming above the natural cycle? Provide your own personal evidence. Discount anything I have said about CO2.

    Bear in mind that I cannot prove a negative.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,253 ✭✭✭✭fits


    popcorn please :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    casey212 wrote: »
    You are confusing yourself. Hypocritical?

    No confusion. You demand a standard of proof that you have not met yourself. You criticise for the lack of said proof, then argue that you shouldn't be asked to provide the equivalent because you don't have something that I don't have either....that being massive large-scale funding.

    If you don't treat both perspectives by the same standard, you engage in hypocracy.

    I have time and time again said that your argument falls down using the benchmark that I apply to both sides - the scientific method. I have pointed out more than once that your argument quite possibly lies on an abandonment of said method...and the only offered reason is some "trust no-one, believe nothing...except me" line of reasoning.
    Ok. Lets analyse your approach from the beginning.
    Lets not...and here's why:

    There is an established theory. If you wish to challenge it, then you must explain why it is wrong. This must be a scientfically verifiable and repeatable falsification of the theory, not just some appeal-to-emotion based on a distrust of government. This is how science works.

    If you wish to offer an alternate theory, then you must explain why that theory is better. This is how science works.

    If you don't want to do that, then lets start by facing the facts that you want to challenge established scientific theory by abandoning the principles of how science works. If we admit that, however, then the debate is already over and it becomes merely a "science vs. non-scientific belief" issue. I'm happy to leave it like that....the records of history are on the side of science.
    Provide your own personal evidence.

    I have no interest in abandoning the scientific method in this debate. Science isn't about "personal evidence". In fact, personal evidence is the least trustworthy thing in science. It is multiply- and independantly-verified evidence which is of value.

    You're making it increasingly clear that your objection is based on a rejection of what science is, rather than on what science says in this specific instance. Until you rectify that, you don't have an argument....merely faith.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    I cannot disprove something that has not occured. Namely human causation of global warming above natural cycles. That is the core of my argument. You can look at science anyway you wish.

    The theory being argued is that of global warming caused by humans, I do not have my own theory, merely the rejection of this.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/15/ocean_currents_melt_planet/


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    casey212 wrote: »
    The theory being argued is that of global warming caused by humans, I do not have my own theory, merely the rejection of this.
    "There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance."
    Hippocrates


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭casey212


    djpbarry wrote: »
    "There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance."
    Hippocrates

    Quotes like that can be traded all day long


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    casey212 wrote: »
    Quotes like that can be traded all day long
    I was making the point that you are rejecting science (i.e. knowledge) in favour of ignorance (i.e. lack of knowledge).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10 cedco1


    casey212 wrote: »

    "Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton(New Zealand) this week. Man’s contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn’t change the climate if we tried, he maintained. “We’re all going to survive this. It’s all going to be a joke in five years,” he said. A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it"
    Perhaps this may be true, but what if it's not, The winters most certainly are milder, the glasiers are melting. What do we tell our grand children when it's too late.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 75 ✭✭fictionaire


    I can't resist, I have to wade in on this discussion.

    People are forgetting their history at an alarming rate. It was not even 60 years ago that periods of global warming and global cooling were being taught to school children as completely normal in the cycles of our planet.

    Even in children's history books, it was being taught that at certain period during the middle ages, dwellings were not constructed with chimneys as the temperature for the period was on average 2-3 degrees warming that present day!

    More recently, a book called "Limits to growth" was published in the '60s by a group called "The Club of Rome" which gave a hellish prediction of what our planet would be like if we continued with our ways.

    They followed this book up with another one called "The First Global Revolution"
    published almost 20 years later. In this book you will find this quote:
    "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill."

    I included a link to the members page of this organisation, and if you're really interested in global warming you need to challenge your conceptions, look into who is and was members of this global think thank.

    They pulled that same stunts back in the 70's accept it was well documented and backed science that we were on the verge of a new ice age. I wonder have same authors written about global warming too? check out this article from Time magazine in 1974

    Here is a little quip from the bbc about the Kyoto protocol being drafted up. It makes for interesting reading.

    What aroused my suspicion to this farce called global warming was this little gem from the United Nations own site, its a treaty which was signed in 1978.

    Its a must read. To my mind, in order to have such a treaty in place, the technology must have been perfected and used by the involved parties - otherwise, why would an enemy nation show your technology which you are developing??

    A side note on this is that it only states that it cannot be used on other nations. It does not say anything about using it on the people of their own country.

    Every extreme weather pattern we are experiencing today due to "Global Warming" can be created by the technology mentioned in this treaty and what is more frightening is that this is old outdated technology is comparison to what I'd imagine is around today (taking Moore law into consideration)

    This business of Global Warming is exactly that - a business, where one can earn obscene amounts of money if you know what to push on the public.

    If you find yourself having trouble taking this information in, then you have already closed your mind. This is not up for belief. It is fact and it is big business.

    Once last thought, coming out of an ice age, we have whats known as a "period of warming", and going into a ice age we have whats know as a "period of cooling". Cool - Warm - Cool - Warm etc.. seems quite natural to me. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Even in children's history books, it was being taught that at certain period during the middle ages, dwellings were not constructed with chimneys as the temperature for the period was on average 2-3 degrees warming that present day!
    Historical anecdotes about the past climate have to be treated with caution. For starters, the accuracy of some historical claims is questionable. What is clear, both from the temperature reconstructions and from independent evidence – such as the extent of the recent melting of mountain glaciers – is that the planet has been warmer in the past few decades than at any time during the medieval period. What really matters, though, is not how warm it is now, but how warm it is going to get in the future.
    I included a link to the members page of this organisation, and if you're really interested in global warming you need to challenge your conceptions, look into who is and was members of this global think thank.
    Not really sure that this organisation is in a position to be making any predications on climate change. I've just had a look at their current members; ambassadors, governors and the odd humanities professor - not a climate scientist amongst them!
    They pulled that same stunts back in the 70's accept it was well documented and backed science that we were on the verge of a new ice age.
    Indeed "they" did. A guy by the name of Stephen Schneider, who worked for NASA, predicted in 1971 that aerosols derived from man-made emissions would have a cooling effect if their output increased. He was not exactly wrong, he just over-estimated the effect. He admitted as much in a book in 1977 entitled "The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age".
    Here is a little quip from the bbc about the Kyoto protocol being drafted up.
    First of all, this article refers to the IPCC, not Kyoto. Secondly, this is one man's opinion on the workings of the IPCC, not the scientific basis behind it. Finally, here is a quote from John Christy, the author of this article:

    "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way"
    What aroused my suspicion to this farce called global warming was this little gem from the United Nations own site, its a treaty which was signed in 1978.
    First of all:
    Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment
    Secondly, the term "environment" refers to the totality of surrounding conditions; what this convention is most likely referring to is biological weapons.
    Every extreme weather pattern we are experiencing today due to "Global Warming" can be created by the technology mentioned in this treaty
    :confused: I'm sorry, where is that stated?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 75 ✭✭fictionaire


    From the UN link above:
    Understanding relating to Article II

    It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention: earthquakes, tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere.

    Article 2 defines environmental modification techniques as:
    any technique for changing -- through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes -- the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Bassman


    Well, there is no actual solid proof of global warming. It is a myth. Just look outside your window today...are there sand dunes? Have the birds decided not to migrate? Are people in the northern hemisphere going to BBQ their turkey outdoors this year? No. For example, some Green crazies are saying the hottest year on record in the 20th century was 1998. Untrue, it was 1934.
    ircoha wrote: »
    :)


Advertisement