"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
oooo... I know... lets tax the shit out of every living breathing creature on the planet, so that we can save the earth, based on potentially junk science. So sayeth the Gore...
That is an awesome headline! Prediction may be wrong!!!! Do you work for a local paper?! Brilliant. I've got another, you can use it if you want - hell, I've got a few:
Opinion may be subjective
Off-topic posts may be trolling
Guy with long track-record of breaking the rules may break the rules again and may get banned
World may suffer catastrophe in future
Finally... I've been waiting for a global warming thread in this forum for months!
Seriously though, captain, all your going to get from people are one or more of the following statements:
"This guy is an unknown scientist."
"Look at all the evidence in support of man-made global warming."
"This guy is one scientist who was probably paid by conservative groups or big corporations."
Or, my personal favorite - "Straw man!"
On a side note, where the heck did everyone go? Sultanofsurreal is gone. Jonesthecurl hasn't been posting. BK is gone. I mean, fine, I know where Dancing Mustard is, but where is everyone else? I feel like the only people I can argue, I mean discuss, issues with anymore are captain.crazy, Inklosed (who just got reported for spam I guess), and gabonx.
greek, in case you haven't noticed... I don't really care what they say. I want to keep the changes in the global warming debate fresh and ongoing because people need to know that the science on climate change is not yet settles... so when world leaders say that it is and that there must be global government and taxts to save the earth, they should be aware that it is all based on questionable science. that, to me, and hopfully others, is enough to question the motives of these globalists.
xelabale wrote:That is an awesome headline! Prediction may be wrong!!!! Do you work for a local paper?! Brilliant. I've got another, you can use it if you want - hell, I've got a few:
Opinion may be subjective
Off-topic posts may be trolling
Guy with long track-record of breaking the rules may break the rules again and may get banned
World may suffer catastrophe in future
ummm... I just used the headline from the article...
captain.crazy wrote:greek, in case you haven't noticed... I don't really care what they say. I want to keep the changes in the global warming debate fresh and ongoing because people need to know that the science on climate change is not yet settles... so when world leaders say that it is and that there must be global government and taxts to save the earth, they should be aware that it is all based on questionable science. that, to me, and hopfully others, is enough to question the motives of these globalists.
I was questioning the need for yet another thread on the subject, not the need to argue the science. As you well know, I fully support arguing science and do not subscribe to the argument "it's proven, shut up."
Opinion is always subjective and the world will experience catastrophic events in the future.
Regardless of the realities of global warming, human interaction has fucked up this planet.
oVo wrote:Opinion is always subjective and the world will experience catastrophic events in the future.
Regardless of the realities of global warming, human interaction has fucked up this planet.
I disagree. Human interaction has helped this planet.
oVo wrote:Can you name ten things human interaction has done to help this planet?
Define "help the planet"? In other words, are we talking about "the planet would have been better off if monkeys hadn't evolved?" Because, frankly, the planet would have been better off if there were no animals at all (plants too for that matter). I mean, we can get as ridiculous as you want with this... kill all humans? Sure. All animals? Why the hell not?
oVo wrote:Can you name ten things human interaction has done to help this planet?
I will give you one...
Arbor day. The day that people are encouraged to plant trees.
The only reason this happens is to make it look good because we cut so many more down lol.
It's like... chopping someones arm of with a dull axe - and then giving them a free plaster, saying "Here you go. Look what a nice guy I am!" No you're not, but it might help you sleep better at night.
oVo wrote:Opinion is always subjective and the world will experience catastrophic events in the future.
Regardless of the realities of global warming, human interaction has fucked up this planet.
I disagree. Human interaction has helped this planet.
If you are the least bit serious, I would really like to see your reasoning.. though maybe in another thread?
captain.crazy wrote:greek, in case you haven't noticed... I don't really care what they say. I want to keep the changes in the global warming debate fresh and ongoing because people need to know that the science on climate change is not yet settles... so when world leaders say that it is and that there must be global government and taxts to save the earth, they should be aware that it is all based on questionable science. that, to me, and hopfully others, is enough to question the motives of these globalists.
If your goal is to keep things "fresh and ongoing", then you might try posting something credible --- and begin by actually reading what you post, because 99% of your recent postings lack credibility, don't claim what you assert they claim or both!
Far from putting forward your ideas, right now you are just making a big joke of yourself and the ideas you attempt to put forward....even if a few of those ideas do merit serious discussion.
oVo wrote:Can you name ten things human interaction has done to help this planet?
Define "help the planet"? In other words, are we talking about "the planet would have been better off if monkeys hadn't evolved?" Because, frankly, the planet would have been better off if there were no animals at all (plants too for that matter). I mean, we can get as ridiculous as you want with this... kill all humans? Sure. All animals? Why the hell not?
No need to carry it to that extreme. Part of the problem is that people keep wanting to see ourselves as apart from the ecosystem instead of a part of it. Therefore we think it is OK to ignore our impacts. The net result is that much we have done is harmful to us. The rest of nature illustrates it, but ultimately, it does come down to what is best or is not for us. And, the real truth is that if you are killing off millions of species (as we have and are), we are doing things that will harm us.
The further truth is that because our technology has done such a good job of isolating us from these very real impacts, by the time many people deign to notice there is a problem, it will be far, far too late to fix much of anything. All the cloning in the world won't bring back complex ecosystems we don't even truly understand.
On a side note, where the heck did everyone go? Sultanofsurreal is gone. Jonesthecurl hasn't been posting. BK is gone. I mean, fine, I know where Dancing Mustard is, but where is everyone else? I feel like the only people I can argue, I mean discuss, issues with anymore are captain.crazy, Inklosed (who just got reported for spam I guess), and gabonx.
I believe BK got himself a short forum "vacation". Jonescurl is always a bit variable ... he seems to have a true "real life". I am not sure about Sultan.
Captaincraxy seems to be making a poor stab at imitating DM. Poor in that while DM was at least funny, much of captain's stuff is like this.. unoriginal repeats of stuff he apparently did not even thoroughly read.
captain.crazy wrote:greek, in case you haven't noticed... I don't really care what they say. I want to keep the changes in the global warming debate fresh and ongoing because people need to know that the science on climate change is not yet settles... so when world leaders say that it is and that there must be global government and taxts to save the earth, they should be aware that it is all based on questionable science. that, to me, and hopfully others, is enough to question the motives of these globalists.
If your goal is to keep things "fresh and ongoing", then you might try posting something credible --- and begin by actually reading what you post, because 99% of your recent postings lack credibility, don't claim what you assert they claim or both!
Far from putting forward your ideas, right now you are just making a big joke of yourself and the ideas you attempt to put forward....even if a few of those ideas do merit serious discussion.
I think that you say that my sources are not credible because they do not say the things that your sources say. You say that they have no credibility because they are opposing views to what you believe to be sound fact. I can understand this, I feel the same way about your sources... mainly because your sources come from the established institutions that I believe are corrupt and infiltrated with agendas that are put forth by a power hungry global elite.
captain.crazy wrote:greek, in case you haven't noticed... I don't really care what they say. I want to keep the changes in the global warming debate fresh and ongoing because people need to know that the science on climate change is not yet settles... so when world leaders say that it is and that there must be global government and taxts to save the earth, they should be aware that it is all based on questionable science. that, to me, and hopfully others, is enough to question the motives of these globalists.
You should pretty much always question the motives of pretty much every one (especially those that post sensationalist hysteria with a political agenda on web forums).
captain.crazy wrote:
I think that you say that my sources are not credible because they do not say the things that your sources say. You say that they have no credibility because they are opposing views to what you believe to be sound fact. I can understand this, I feel the same way about your sources... mainly because your sources come from the established institutions that I believe are corrupt and infiltrated with agendas that are put forth by a power hungry global elite.
If you even halfway considered anything I write, you would know how silly that assertion is.
Among other things, you don't even read or understand a good many of the articles you post.
