Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
lord_casek

Glacier alarm 'regrettable error': UN climate head

Recommended Posts

the only thing being debunked is man-made global warming, obvious enough from the wikileaks climategate information. the fact that you call everyone tinfoil hat wearers says enough for me to understand your angle on everything.

 

Why don't you read the other threads? Climategate didn't prove shit. I'm just exasperated with the level of willful ignorance on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
Why don't you read the other threads? Climategate didn't prove shit. I'm just exasperated with the level of willful ignorance on this subject.

 

for one because i only recently started posting here, so why would i go back and dig up old threads. this is a new thread about the subject, so i'm voicing my opinions here.

 

second of all climate gate proved that scientists were willing to suppress data that didn't support their consensus on global warming, and were going far enough to even exaggerate data through manipulation. it's interesting to me that when these things occur, instead of taking them into account you consciously reject it and claim it "means nothing" or has been "debunked" or isn't true. that always seems to be the case regardless of how things turn out, people on your side of the debate don't ever seem to be willing to admit to certain data, but are more then willing to throw the data in support of your side of the argument in everyone's faces with arrogance. you have to take all things into consideration, and if climate gate "didn't mean shit" then copenhagen would have probably went a lot smoother then it did now wouldn't it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
second of all climate gate proved that scientists were willing to suppress data that didn't support their consensus on global warming, and were going far enough to even exaggerate data through manipulation.

 

It did not prove that "scientists" are willing to falsify data, it suggested that a few specific scientists may have tampered with some data, but it is unclear what exactly was tampered with and what their goals were in doing so. Climate gate provided an open-ended scandal that was taken by many skeptics as total vindication of their own position. Massive assumptions were ascribed to rather meager information.

 

it's interesting to me that when these things occur, instead of taking them into account you consciously reject it and claim it "means nothing" or has been "debunked" or isn't true.

 

As I indicated, if you look at the climategate thread I already explained my position on this. I can confidently say that I have taken this information into account and find it unimportant. It's mostly just unfortunate that it muddles things for overzealous skeptics like yourself.

 

that always seems to be the case regardless of how things turn out, people on your side of the debate don't ever seem to be willing to admit to certain data, but are more then willing to throw the data in support of your side of the argument in everyone's faces with arrogance. you have to take all things into consideration, and if climate gate "didn't mean shit" then copenhagen would have probably went a lot smoother then it did now wouldn't it.

 

Well, if you're going to consider an educated opinion "arrogance" then we can end this discussion right now. I think I can say that I am the one being more objective here. Try getting your information from somewhere besides whatever-your-agenda-is internet blogs. As of yet I have no reason to think you are capable of this, but by all means surprise me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jared Diamond is a geography professor at UCLA and an accomplished author. He is not an investigative journalist. The book Collapse contains historical examples of societies that have failed directly due to poor ecological management. It's very well researched and it doesn't really have any political agenda; it's an impressive synthesis of information from several related fields. It also shows very convincingly the level of impact human societies can have on our ecosystem.

 

Again Ruppert isn't doing studies. He is seeking out information. Reading, studying than interpreting these things, and writing about them.

 

As I said in my previous post. I have posted numerous articles from many people(some who are certainly qualified scientist's and others who just speak on issue's such as these) who disagree with this supposed, "unanimous consensus". I am also not aware or have not picked up on any political agenda this man might have. If you have noticed something I am unaware of about Ruppert, which would make me not trust his opinion please point it out to me.

 

I also said I would check the book out. I am always open to all viewpoints.

 

I'm merely pointing out that it's absurd and rather stupid to have a strong opinion on something of this nature without any personal expertise. It's fine to question the information you get from mass media, which tends toward fear-mongering and politicizing the subject, however this does not change the research that is being done across the world. Doing your own internet research is VERY misleading, for reasons that should be obvious to you.

 

I don't think it's absurd if you have done research on the subject. I don't believe you have to be an expert to have an opinion on any subject. Sure, your opinion may not be as relevant because of your lack of personal experience or just overall knowledge but when an issue most likely will affect you directly, I think trying to educate yourself about said matters and being aware of it are extremely important.

 

Well I have a B.S. in Physics/Environmental Studies so I suppose I am more qualified than you to speak on this subject. I wouldn't consider myself an 'expert', but I grew up around scientists and regularly talk to people who are doing research related to climate change. Everyone draws some kind of conclusion based on "information that you receive" however I understand that some people (i.e. experts) receive greater volumes of better information. In the scientific community there are certainly dissenters (as there always are and should be) and some aspects of climate change are uncertain, but overall the science is considered very very good.

 

I would say most not some aspects of climate change are uncertain. The complexity of the system that is our environment is not to be underestimated. Predicting the weather is difficult enough as it is. Let alone accurately predicting what exactly will happen on a global scale within the next 50-100 years.

 

The B.S. is impressive, so I would say you most definitely are more qualified than I am.

 

I have yet to see anything suggesting this '70s Ice Age scare' is actually comparable to what's going on today with global warming. Doomsday scenarios aren't really what this is all about anyway. The point is that as global population burgeons humankind needs to become more in tune with our impact on the ecosystem. Things are changing and it is vital to come up with sustainable energy alternatives and manage our resources much better.

 

The doomsday scenario has nothing really to do with it. At least that is not why I really brought it up.

 

I bring it up because it was considered widely by a lot of experts at that time that this was going to happen, and they were completely off I would say. I'm sure technology has improved immensely since the 70's. So I'm sure our ability to obtain valid data is a lot better.

 

Please don't take this disagreement with the fact that I do not think that we shouldn't make improvements on how we treat the planet that we live on.

 

I am in full agreement about evolving onto newer, cleaner more renewable forms of energy. I also support a few other idea's that are being promoted.

 

I'm just saying that getting off using fossil fuels completely is not going to be as smooth as is being suggested in here. Nor is it even a realisitic option at this point in time.

 

I'm also against a lot of laws and overall policy on certain issue's pertaining to the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It did not prove that "scientists" are willing to falsify data, it suggested that a few specific scientists may have tampered with some data, but it is unclear what exactly was tampered with and what their goals were in doing so. Climate gate provided an open-ended scandal that was taken by many skeptics as total vindication of their own position. Massive assumptions were ascribed to rather meager information.

 

 

 

As I indicated, if you look at the climategate thread I already explained my position on this. I can confidently say that I have taken this information into account and find it unimportant. It's mostly just unfortunate that it muddles things for overzealous skeptics like yourself.

 

 

 

Well, if you're going to consider an educated opinion "arrogance" then we can end this discussion right now. I think I can say that I am the one being more objective here. Try getting your information from somewhere besides whatever-your-agenda-is internet blogs. As of yet I have no reason to think you are capable of this, but by all means surprise me.

 

well, i wouldn't necessarily categorize myself as an overzealous skeptic. if i'm skeptical, it's of the solutions posed towards any environmental issues we are facing, i'm not necessarily skeptical of the concept that we have serious environmental issues that we have to take care of rapidly because our situation is drastic.

 

as for getting my information from somewhere besides whatever-your-agenda-is internet blogs, let's discuss that briefly. i will admit that i do tend to gravitate towards websites that support my personal perspective, but that doesn't mean i don't cross spectrums. realistically, this is the information age. you can find information supporting whatever paradigm it is you want to jump into, so to come off like THIS information is more valid then THIS information is a little ridiculous. we could sit here and post articles from all over the internet from official or unofficial sources supporting both sides of the climate gate issue, or even the entire global warming/climate change debate. there is endless amounts of information out there, that's why i would much rather prefer a discussion instead of a contest on who's information is more valid.

 

now, without really making this thread into a thread about climate gate... i just would like to raise this one issue and get clarification. you're coming off like it was only a few specific scientists who tampered with data, like this is just an unimportant issue that happened upon a whim, but am i mistaken in saying that wasn't this coming from one of the main sources behind the whole global warming consensus. so in essence it would be like the headquarters of the entire global warming theory, sending e-mails back and forth to each other about manipulating and suppressing data that didn't coincide with their theory.

 

i'm sorry to put it into simplistic terms like that.

 

on the other hand, i do agree that severe climate change and environmental issues are occurring and we do have to take preventive measures to make significant changes. i personally believe though that there is an abundance of alternative methodologies we could pursue towards changing the way society consumes and operates, however i also understand that greed and power block those methods from being pursued by free humanity. that is my personal opinion, and i hope it isn't too GENERAL of an idea which needs to be explained with citations and what not. hopefully, you just get what i'm saying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as for getting my information from somewhere besides whatever-your-agenda-is internet blogs, let's discuss that briefly. i will admit that i do tend to gravitate towards websites that support my personal perspective, but that doesn't mean i don't cross spectrums. realistically, this is the information age. you can find information supporting whatever paradigm it is you want to jump into, so to come off like THIS information is more valid then THIS information is a little ridiculous. we could sit here and post articles from all over the internet from official or unofficial sources supporting both sides of the climate gate issue, or even the entire global warming/climate change debate. there is endless amounts of information out there, that's why i would much rather prefer a discussion instead of a contest on who's information is more valid.

 

I see what you're saying, but the problem with the internet is that it gives every dumb-ass a voice. It is very difficult to accurately gauge something like broad scientific consensus when some of the most outspoken, visible opinions (i.e. Glenn Beck) are also the most poorly informed and agenda-driven. If you go read some books about climate change and talk to researchers you are absolutely getting more valid information on the subject. Honestly I sort of feel like I'm arguing calculus with people who never passed algebra and think they know more than me...that's not totally directed at you.

 

you're coming off like it was only a few specific scientists who tampered with data, like this is just an unimportant issue that happened upon a whim, but am i mistaken in saying that wasn't this coming from one of the main sources behind the whole global warming consensus. so in essence it would be like the headquarters of the entire global warming theory, sending e-mails back and forth to each other about manipulating and suppressing data that didn't coincide with their theory.

 

Yes, you are mistaken. There is not a "headquarters" to the entire global warming theory. Scientific consensus refers to broad, multidisciplinary agreement about a result that is supported by large amounts of research data. Scientific research is done in such a way that it wouldn't really be possible to manufacture a false consensus. You can't pull the wool over the eyes of people who work with the raw information almost every day. However, what is reported in the media is of course often skewed and blown out of proportion. This is perhaps where most of your skepticism comes from.

 

Also, I still haven't seen anything that really shows that these East Anglia scientists were even manipulating and suppressing data. As far as I can tell a big stink was made about some very vague information. To paraphrase a biologist I spoke to about this, it's really too bad this brought so much bad publicity, because the science behind global warming is still very good. Don't just be skeptical for the sake of skepticism.

 

on the other hand, i do agree that severe climate change and environmental issues are occurring and we do have to take preventive measures to make significant changes. i personally believe though that there is an abundance of alternative methodologies we could pursue towards changing the way society consumes and operates, however i also understand that greed and power block those methods from being pursued by free humanity. that is my personal opinion.

 

Well, yeah, but I think you're overeager to dissent and your desire to find fault with the government spills over into other subjects. Climate change is a very complex subject, to be sure. It's hard to say what the best path is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This.

 

And the fact there have been Ice ages and other several huge Climate changes on our planet even before Mankind was in existance.

 

This statement is not logical. "The fact" that you would even type this rubbish forces me to dismiss any further posts you will make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how does my house using electricity or the use of automobiles cause warming on all the other planets in the solar system? HMMMM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how does my house using electricity or the use of automobiles cause warming on all the other planets in the solar system? HMMMM?

 

 

Shhh, you'll wake the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This statement is not logical. "The fact" that you would even type this rubbish forces me to dismiss any further posts you will make.

 

Can you explain how it isn't logical?

 

He made a general statement that our climate goes through dramatic changes over the course of time.

 

How does this not make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody disputes that our climate has gone through big changes before. When those big changes happen, species die. Arguing that extreme climate change can be caused by non-human factors is illogical because it doesn't apply to the current situation, where human activities are having a huge effect on the climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how does my house using electricity or the use of automobiles cause warming on all the other planets in the solar system? HMMMM?

 

Because not all planets in our solar system are showing global warming. Durrr. Mars is cooling because of its duststorms, Jupiter's warming internally, Pluto's warming because it's mad about something...scientists dont kno, and then Neptunes orbit is 160 years long so it's warming because its just entering summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^You forgot Venus. Venus is scorching because of a runaway greenhouse effect. The atmosphere is over 95% CO2. It's a global warming party over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because not all planets in our solar system are showing global warming. Durrr. Mars is cooling because of its duststorms, Jupiter's warming internally, Pluto's warming because it's mad about something...scientists dont kno, and then Neptunes orbit is 160 years long so it's warming because its just entering summer.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops you're right. I was thinking of aresol. Dust storm = darker color to the planet = more thermal density.

 

 

Which reminds me of our cities of the "urban heat island" effect which basically shows that if winds every night didnt cool cities we wouldnt they'd be unlivable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oops you're right. I was thinking of aresol. Dust storm = darker color to the planet = more thermal density.

 

 

Which reminds me of our cities, "urban heat island" effect, which basically shows that if winds every night didn't cool our cities they'd be unlivable

 

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you explain how it isn't logical?

 

He made a general statement that our climate goes through dramatic changes over the course of time.

 

How does this not make sense?

Any sequence can appear to be forming a pattern without excluding the possibility of future divergence from that pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...