Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
gb Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:38 pm
|
|
|
MtnGoat wrote: | gb wrote: | Another conspiracy theory by Goat. |
It's hardly a 'conspiracy' to note what scientific method is supposed to take into account anyway.
Are you arguing *some* paid scientists are free of the biases of lesser mortals? |
No, I'm arguing or rather just pointing out how ignorant it is to suggest that 97% of scientists are being intentionally misleading. What would be their gain? How would they be viewed in the future if their studies were proven to be blatantly false?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Humptulips Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
|
I know most of you on here are green house gas believers so this documentary might not be received well but you should watch it anyway. It explains the other side of the argument pretty well I think.
|
Back to top |
|
|
CC cascade curmudgeon
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 647 | TRs | Pics
|
|
CC
cascade curmudgeon
|
Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:25 pm
|
|
|
I see on saloon that MG is taking an online "Introduction to Logic" course. There's a straight-line that doesn't even need a punch-line.
First your legs go, then you lose your reflexes, then you lose your friends. Willy Pep
First your legs go, then you lose your reflexes, then you lose your friends. Willy Pep
|
Back to top |
|
|
Humptulips Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
|
^
Are blatant personal attacks OK now as a substitute for discussion?
|
Back to top |
|
|
RayD the griz ate my pass
Joined: 20 Aug 2005 Posts: 1763 | TRs | Pics Location: Vacaville |
|
RayD
the griz ate my pass
|
Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:39 pm
|
|
|
His logic is good. His self-awareness is bad.
don't believe everything you think
don't believe everything you think
|
Back to top |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:31 am
|
|
|
Humptulips wrote: | I know most of you on here are green house gas believers so this documentary might not be received well but you should watch it anyway. It explains the other side of the argument pretty well I think.
|
Well, I watched the first couple of minutes (out of 75). After seeing repeated demonstrable lies (in only the first two minutes), I stopped. I've been down that rabbit hole before. I remember once back when I used to spend time following those rabbit holes, having somebody tell me I just had to read this study that absolutely proved it's all the sun. So I read the study. It specifically said that it couldn't be the sun, and had to be manmade. Of course when challenged on that forum, he disappeared - for a couple months, and then was back touting the same study.
I continued following rabbit holes for a while after that, and have other such stories. I'm not saying that everybody who argues about this subject does that, but it's clear that video does, like when they quoted somebody as saying that CO2 and temperatures do not follow each other in the ice cores, so CO2 could not possibly be connected to a changing climate. So don't waste your time, I already wasted a few minutes, which is more than it was worth.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Humptulips Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
|
So, closed mind huh. You pretty much proved the entire premise of the documentary.
And your bit about it saying CO2 and temps not following each other makes me wonder f you even watched that much because it definitely correlated the two, just not in the way you wanted.
I read this topic and I see all the time a lot of challenges to refute a lot of claims but when someone posts something that might qualify you won't even watch it.
Luckily your religious views remain uncontaminated.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:19 pm
|
|
|
A picture is worth a thousand words.
|
Back to top |
|
|
AlpineRose Member
Joined: 08 May 2012 Posts: 1953 | TRs | Pics
|
What on earth is a "green-house gas believer"?
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and whether or not a certain someone died for your sins, those are faith based. Green house gases, mais non.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Humptulips Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
|
AlpineRose wrote: | What on earth is a "green-house gas believer"?
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and whether or not a certain someone died for your sins, those are faith based. Green house gases, mais non. |
It is someone that believes that green house gases such as CO2 are the culprits in a warming climate. Nothing wrong with having that viewpoint.
Religion in this case is being so fixed on that viewpoint one is unwilling to listen to an opposing viewpoints reasoning.
Kind of a flat earther type.
|
Back to top |
|
|
gb Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:11 pm
|
|
|
Humptulips wrote: | AlpineRose wrote: | What on earth is a "green-house gas believer"?
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and whether or not a certain someone died for your sins, those are faith based. Green house gases, mais non. |
It is someone that believes that green house gases such as CO2 are the culprits in a warming climate. Nothing wrong with having that viewpoint.
Religion in this case is being so fixed on that viewpoint one is unwilling to listen to an opposing viewpoints reasoning.
Kind of a flat earther type. |
You can't really believe what you are posting, it is unbelievable. The record of O18 and CO2 in ice cores is not debatable. The studies are numerous and solid in whole. Also, to not believe there there is a correlation between C02 and temperature is to admit not knowing anything about physical chemistry and the properties of atmospheric gases. Only ignorance (lack of knowledge) could lead to a conclusion that CO2 and surface (and stratospheric temperatures) do not correlate strongly.
|
Back to top |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:54 pm
|
|
|
Humptulips wrote: | So, closed mind huh. You pretty much proved the entire premise of the documentary.
And your bit about it saying CO2 and temps not following each other makes me wonder f you even watched that much because it definitely correlated the two, just not in the way you wanted.
I read this topic and I see all the time a lot of challenges to refute a lot of claims but when someone posts something that might qualify you won't even watch it.
Luckily your religious views remain uncontaminated. |
Oh please. I happen to have read plenty of source information to know the claims are not true. There are plenty of studies out there with graphs that show how CO2 and temperature records follow each other over relevant stretches of time. I don't need an obviously biased source to "correlate" them for me - I have eyes. Watching a video put out as a political hack job is not how you learn about a subject. Any time I hear or see a claim about global warming, including from environmental or lefty sources, I go look at where the raw information really came from so as to avoid the political biases. But if I am watching a video and they tell me 2 + 2 = 5 I'm going to turn it off, that simple. "Alternative facts" is an oxymoron.
Btw, I do understand that in some cases CO2 increases lag a bit behind temperature increases in the ice core record, in case that's what they are referring to. This is because unlike this episode of warming something other than CO2 got the process started, orbital changes in that case. We warmed a bit because changes in the earth's orbit over time melted some ice and cause more heat to be absorbed by the planet. But then CO2 caught up and followed along over time. This little lag has been one of those things that deniers have hung their hat on before so I don't know if it's the same here.
But if t will make you happier, go ahead and post a graph that shows that the two do not follow and we can see about it. I'm not going to wade through a 75 minute video waiting for it. It doesn't require any fancy description - just show the graph to us all or find a link for it.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Humptulips Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
|
Good Lord, you didn't even watch it. How can you know the claims are not true? You don't even know what the claims are.
That is my point!
You are always asking for an answer to some kind of question like why a scientist might be biased as one example. Not willing to listen to the answer though.
I have nothing against disagreeing but the fact that you will not explore both sides of an issue pretty much ruins your credibility.
And stop asking people to post proof of something when you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your narrative without so much as a look.
|
Back to top |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:41 am
|
|
|
You didn't read what I said. I started watching it and when I saw they were lying, I stopped. Simple as that. Like I said, if somebody says they have proof that 2 + 2 = 5, I don't ask for their reasons, especially if it might take 75 minutes. If you want to post something concise like a graph that proves CO2 and temperature don't follow one another, I will respond.
I want to add that there are plenty of things that can be debated - that are not in the 2 + 2 = 5 category. These include issues like how much sea level rise there will be. When considering the statement "the science is settled," the followup would be - which science is settled. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is settled, beyond any doubt. In fact it was settled well over a century ago and so there has been plenty of time for valid evidence to the contrary to come up, and it hasn't.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Humptulips Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
|
Spare me the BS. You watched 2 minutes. Very open minded of you.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|