Climate shift causing epochal changes by SignyM

Hubby and I have spent hours talking about this, as both of us are scientists (physics/ chemistry) and both of us are amateur economists. We look at the self-created catastrophe of Easter Island... prolly the most pristine example of ecocide .... and we ask ourselves "What was the man thinking as he cut down the last tree?", and why ?

History is replete with examples of societies that have run off cliffs. Mayans whose answer was Sacrifice more people for rain!", Egyptians whose answer was "Build higher pyramids for the Pharaohs!" and modern-day elites whose answer is "Gather more money!". That kind of societal suicide requires that most of the people look to their leaders for "the answer". We realized that many societies died for lack of common sense. We figured that there are two kinds of people in society.... those who look inward to the center of social power for "the answer", and those who look OUTWARD... to the real world... to detect the dangers and pathways OUTSIDE of human society. Societies survived when the elite structure happily coincided with the survivalist outlook... but not ever if it didn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 03, 2012 7:09 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think there is a crossroads of blind self-interest and environmental interest, and I think we are approaching it. When we reach that crossroads, things will begin to improve for all the wrong reasons. But none of the ecologists need concern themselves for the reasons. Only that things will improve.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 04, 2012 5:46 AM

TONY, just because a crisis is upon society doesn't mean society will react in a rational way. There are many societies that dug themselves ecological graves, aside from the Easter Islanders (the Anasazi, Haiti) and many other that expanded to their ecological capacity and couldn't withstand any sort of change (Mayans, Romans). Look at RAPPY... he represents a fairly large portion of the USA population who believe that they will either be saved by their god (and yanno, this isn't a once-in-a-while belief, this is the driving force of everything they think on the topic) or saved by capitalism (which is just belief in another kind of religion). Or they have their heads seriously stuck up their behinds because they cannot abide the thought that there really might be a problem "out there".

When things get worse - which they will- those people won't suddenly wake up one morning, wipe the sleepers from their eyes, smack their foreheads and exclaim Of course! What was I thinking??. No, they will turn to somebody like Hitler or their preacher ... there are plenty of historical examples... and they will follow a self-destructive course and collectively march to their doom. I used to be pretty optimistic about "the better idea" taking root and societies evolving, but the more history I read the more I realize that we humans are flawed thinkers: Most of us defer to "the authorities" and fail to look to the larger world for danger signs and solutions. Looking beyond the human circle, to the big wide universe out there is a rigorous pursuit of knowledge, requiring one to think in non-human ways and in non-human timescales, a POV that most humans... with their innate bent to anthropomorphize* everything have difficulty applying. And those that can look at things with a larger perspective have a hard time communicating their world-view to anyone else.

The other thing I find curious is that what people seem to fear most is uncertainty. They will suffer deprivation, hunger, and death before they give up on the world view in which they were raised.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: If there is a problem- and I think there is- we need to do more than coast towards a solution. The solution will not be automatic, among other things TPTB (and their followers) will not willingly accept any sort of change which diminishes their wealth and authority. The politicians, the military, the corporations and banks, "the authorities"... they're on a pinnacle now. Why change? For THEM, it's all downside!

Now, there IS a solution, but it will take the awakening of people and the realization that THIS problem has to be tackled by most people. And, we HAVE to get governments constructively involved, even if it means ripping people from office election cycle after election cycle until we get the representation that we need. It also means changing the nature of government itself... to make it more scalable and more responsive. But that's another story.

*to ascribe human form or attributes to an animal, plant, material object, etc.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 04, 2012 6:47 AM

America loves a winner!

From the scary Muslims thread...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

You cannot for the life of you divorce emotion from discussion, can you? It seems impossible for you to sit down and look at data w/o some sort of glamour attached to it by "the authorities". I keep trying, really I do, to show you where you go off track and how you might actually learn to think like a real boy, but you keep insisting on thinking like a sheep.

One day, will you learn to be NOT useless ?

Hard to not be emotional when it's a known fact that some of this 'data' has been misinterpreted, and even worse, fabricated. To the contrary, I see YOUR lack of emotion on this matter much akin to NAZIs, dutifully going about their business, in following orders, during WW2.

" But the Fuhrer SAID... ! HE can't be wrong! "

My view on this is that climate DOES change, always has, and always will, yet the MSM view of sheer ignorance is being promoted that it doesn't change, unless mankind is f-ing up the planet. The blatant,sensationalist and intentional lies and distortions being put out by certain groups and individuals, for the explicit purpose of driving public opinion, is nothing short of deplorable.

Might be that we need to start a new thread ? Kinda got off the whole Muslim terrorists bit here.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 04, 2012 7:03 AM

Quote:
My view on this is that climate DOES change, always has, and always will

Do you hear any climate scientists saying that climate has NOT changed in the past? Because if you did, you might have a point, but as far as I know ALL scientists ... climate scientists, geologists, chemists, physicists and anyone with any college-level knowledge of the topic will agree that climate has changed in the past and will change in the future. The only peeps denying this are the creationists.

Quote:
yet the MSM view of sheer ignorance is being promoted that it doesn't change, unless mankind is f-ing up the planet.

Even Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth showed climate changes of the past. Unless you can quote any sort of scientist claiming that climate has NOT changed in the past, this is an utterly baseless argument and should be abandoned.

Quote:
The blatant,sensationalist and intentional lies and distortions being put out by certain groups and individuals, for the explicit purpose of driving public opinion, is nothing short of deplorable...Hard to not be emotional when it's a known fact that some of this 'data' has been misinterpreted, and even worse, fabricated.

Which lies are you referring to? Can you quote those lies here? Can you point to the "fabricated" data? Can you point to data which you do think is NOT "fabricated"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 04, 2012 7:53 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: The only peeps denying this are the creationists.

Well, Creationists say T.Rex was a vegetarian, and Noah put Dinos on the Ark. So let's at least agree to dispense with that nonsense, ok? But my POINT was that the MSM was framing the issue as if climate is stable, static and to ignore the historic fluctuations of global climate in the last 1000 years, never mind 10,000, million or 100 million.

I'll not abandon this point, for the reasons stated above, and because the REAL 99%, the mass of humanity who go about their daily lives and pay no attention to the finer points of this debate only go on by what the media says, or doesn't say.

Quote:

Quote:
The blatant,sensationalist and intentional lies and distortions being put out by certain groups and individuals, for the explicit purpose of driving public opinion, is nothing short of deplorable...Hard to not be emotional when it's a known fact that some of this 'data' has been misinterpreted, and even worse, fabricated.

Which lies are you referring to? Can you quote those lies here? Can you point to the "fabricated" data? Can you point to data which you do think is NOT "fabricated"?

Some highlights :

Gore climate film's nine 'errors' Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7037671.stm

*Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategat
e-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

*Questionable locations for temperature surface station locations.

http://surfacestations.org/

The entire issue of CO2 causing or being the result global temperature change.

http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/the-crux-of-the-global-warming-fraud
-temperature-increase-causes-co2-level-increase-1400

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 04, 2012 9:44 AM

BYTEMITE

My understanding was that the big problem with the Siberian Traps was methane.

There have been recent indications of permafrost thaw on the traps releasing methane.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 04, 2012 10:27 AM

TPTB (and their followers)

WE ARE THE 70 PERCENT!*

*discounted from 99

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 04, 2012 10:29 AM

Oh, btw, I've been treating little Rappy's posts the same way I treat PN's ... scroll, scroll, scroll ...

It's remarkably freeing, and empowering, and saves a lot of time as well!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 04, 2012 9:38 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I don't mean to rain on your parade here but I'm a creationist who believes that the climate changes.

I think that we should really be looking at this acidification issue, that sounds like a pretty bad thing for everyone.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 2:24 AM

Okay rappy, I looked pretty deeply into "climategate". There is a long an nuanced story behind it, which I'm sure you're not at all interested in so here's the summary: What I gather out of the whole kerfuffle is that while some data was elided from the record, the vast majority of the data, when carefully parsed to ensure representativeness, continues to point to warming on a global scale.

I pointed to other data in this thread including ocean acidification and the loss of ancient ice... that is the kind of data one needs to include if you are going to create a meaningful world-wide picture of climate change. Have you looked at it? Do you have a refutation for it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 2:41 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Posted by Rappy:

Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

So if I can show you an error in your own cite, will that disprove your refutation?

Read it again. One of these things is not like the other.

"Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change."

So... was that "manipulation of data" equivalent to a fabrication on YOUR part (did you misquote the article?), or was it a fabrication on the author's part, or was it a fabrication on the court's part?

You did mention fabrication of data, right?

Have I completely disproven your claims and your whole point of view? That's what you've tried to claim in your arguments - that any kind of manipulation of data discredits the entire theory.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 2:57 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Now, there IS a solution, but it will take the awakening of people and the realization that THIS problem has to be tackled by most people. And, we HAVE to get governments constructively involved, even if it means ripping people from office election cycle after election cycle until we get the representation that we need. It also means changing the nature of government itself... to make it more scalable and more responsive. But that's another story.

*to ascribe human form or attributes to an animal, plant, material object, etc.

You dream awfully big! Love to hear what you solution is. My 2 cents: If you have to wait for others or gov it could be a deal breaker. Can you prove your ideas on a working scale and then show them to the world?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 8:06 AM

We HAVE to dream big!

Why do we let our dreams be shriveled by those niggardly, penurious, greedy bastards at the top? Aren't dreams, at least, still free???

Everyone (or early everyone) has to be rowing in the same direction. Personal action by peons (that's us) is great, but it isn't sufficient. Even if everyone you know saves fuel, the military will still be blowing gallons per second on their jet take-offs; and the metropolitan areas will still be looking to develop undeveloped areas rather than restoring the city center, putting in mass transit, and fixing leaky water pipes.

In other words, you couldn't have stopped Hitler by dumpster-diving, and you can't respond to climate shift by recycling old newspapers.

I'll be busy for the rest of the week and I have yet to reply to rappy's other point, but let me let me share some of my dreams:

First of all, the USA is still a major driver of negative action. We (by our military spending which exceeds that of the rest of the world combined, relentlessly suppressing self-determination movements) have created a worldwide system of "every man for himself and god against all". All hope for the future has been blighted by the relentless focus on money and competition. We need to reduce our military spending and footprint by about 90%. There is nothing more counterproductive than military spending. Military spending doesn't produce more and it doesn't stop climate shift. What a bloated waste of money!

We need to turn our taxation power to real good, not just planting our military's boot in someone's far-away ass. Let me give you an example (a dream of mine): There was a government-funded university-run experiment on fire prevention in the Sierras. They divided a roughly one-square-mile plot into four quadrants: no action, mechanical thinning, thinning by burning, and mechanical+burning thinning. As luck would have it, one of those devastating crown fires raced through, so the researchers had a chance to assess the different fire-prevention strategies. The "do nothing" quadrant was burned to the ground. The single-technique quadrants were both damaged, but not utterly destroyed. The dual-technique quadrant stopped the fire cold. Now, since forest fires are a predicted result of climate shift, forest management is a labor-intensive process, and a lot of people are looking for work, what is the only thing between "where we are" and creating mile-wide firebreaks throughout our forests, except that the wealthy do not see forest protection as a viable "investment"?

Fuck them, yanno?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 8:13 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Have I completely disproven your claims and your whole point of view? That's what you've tried to claim in your arguments - that any kind of manipulation of data discredits the entire theory.

No. You've done no such thing. I've not misquoted anything.

You're really , really reaching.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 8:17 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire: I don't mean to rain on your parade here but I'm a creationist who believes that the climate changes.

I think that we should really be looking at this acidification issue, that sounds like a pretty bad thing for everyone.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

Ri, you're just on everyone's hit list then, huh?

:wink:

Young Earth or Old Earth creationist ? ( yes, it mattes. )

Oceanic acidification is an issue I could certainly get behind, as I think it's far easier to grapple with and find a cause / solution for, in a relatively short period of time.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 8:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So if I can show you an error in your own cite, will that disprove your refutation?

When have facts ever trumped ideology when dealing with a true believer?

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 8:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: Okay rappy, I looked pretty deeply into "climategate". There is a long an nuanced story behind it, which I'm sure you're not at all interested in so here's the summary: What I gather out of the whole kerfuffle is that while some data was elided from the record, the vast majority of the data, when carefully parsed to ensure representativeness, continues to point to warming on a global scale.

All of which has been explained many times over. But he beleives there's no way humans can contribute - so no matter of factual info will sway him from that. And any misstep on the side of science will be viewed by him and his ilk as complete and absolute justification for ignoring everything else - because it just don't fit what they beleieve.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 8:31 AM

America loves a winner!

And Storybook, there's evidence presented which YOU blindly ignore, because it goes against what you WANT to believe.

So, where's that leave us ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: And Storybook, there's evidence presented which YOU blindly ignore, because it goes against what you WANT to believe.

So, where's that leave us ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Leaves me on the high ground, as what I ignore is your say-so, while you ignore actual sceince.

But keep on beleivin' son. It's all you have.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 9:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Kiki,

Quote:
Oh, btw, I've been treating little Rappy's posts the same way I treat PN's ... scroll, scroll, scroll ...

It's remarkably freeing, and empowering, and saves a lot of time as well!

Welcome to my world! I will go on dreaming that, if enough people join us in the real world, we can leave Alt.Univ. to his own devices and have REAL discussions/debates, rather than have virtually all of them (as this has) turn into Rap v. Story, Rap v. Sig, Rap v. Mike, Rap v. Anyone With Brains.

Certainly as far as climate change is concerned, he should be left in the dust. We ALL know his stance; it will never change, facts will never be accepted, he will always have meaningless snarks a-plenty, etc., etc., and NOTHING WILL EVER GET THROUGH TO HIM.

Shees...

Sig, yes, I looked into it a long time ago, and you're right:

Quote:
while some data was elided from the record, the vast majority of the data, when carefully parsed to ensure representativeness, continues to point to warming on a global scale.

You're correct; the omitted material did not in any way "disprove" global warming, but everyone forgot that after the story got all the attention it did. And always bear in mind that Alt.Univ. NEVER looks further than the original story (or just the headlines, when they're what he wants), remembers only the original hullabaloo, and "nuanced" Does Not Compute.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 9:52 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Leaves me on the high ground

I find it both humorous and disheartening that you think so. But mostly humorous.

:biggrin:

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 10:16 AM

I'd have an easier time with climate change (formerly known as global warming) if ONE climate scientist would explain the link to the late Ordovician period during the Paleozoic, when the atmostphere's carbon dioxide hovered above 4000 parts per million and there was an ice age. Currently we're around 350 ppm. Which is roughly comparable to the late Carboniferous/early Permian periods when we had another ice age. So, ice age with high or low carbon.

Remember, this isn't theory, this is evidence. You don't change evidence to fit your theory. You change your theory to fit the evidence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 10:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Leaves me on the high ground

I find it both humorous and disheartening that you think so. But mostly humorous.

:biggrin:

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Of course you find the notion of believeing science over YOU as funny - you're that fucking deluded.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 10:24 AM

Your data is 7 years out of date. And all it took was googling 'ordovician ice age co2'. But don't be concerned that I will expect you to learn this. I predict you will post your same old same old at the next opportunity.

The answer: This particular ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Critics who dismiss the importance of greenhouse gases as a cause of climate change lost one piece of ammunition this week. In a new study, scientists found further evidence of the role that greenhouse gases have played in Earth’s climate. Matthew Saltzman

In Thursday’s issue of the journal Geology, Ohio State University scientists report that a long-ago ice age occurred 10 million years earlier than once thought. The new date clears up an inconsistency that has dogged climate change research for years.

Of three ice ages that occurred in the last half-billion years, the earliest ice age posed problems for scientists, explained Matthew Saltzman, assistant professor of geological sciences at Ohio State.

Previous studies suggested that this particular ice age happened during a time that should have been very warm, when volcanoes all over the earth’s surface were spewing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

With CO2 levels as much as 20 times higher than today, the late Ordovician period (460-440 million years ago) wasn’t a good time for growing ice.

The answer: This particular ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 3:22 PM

This is the graph of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global average temperatures I referenced.

The first ice age, from left to right, represented by a drastic dip in the blue line. Sliding it up or down the graph 10 million years still leaves the atmospheric CO2 well above 4000 ppm. The other two ice ages do indeed show low CO2.

Then again, 30-40 years ago some of these same climatologists were warning us of the dangers of global cooling.

Not convinced.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 3:27 PM

It is pointed out that your data is 7 years out of date....

And you respond with data that's 11 years old?

Brilliant!

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 3:34 PM

Embargoed for release until January 27, 2005.

Now last I knew, 2012 - 2005 = 7 years. Why you respond with data that's 11 --- oh THAT explains your posts! You can't do simple arithmetic!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 3:36 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Of course you find the notion of believeing science over YOU as funny - you're that fucking deluded.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

I find it both humorous and disheartening that you think so. But mostly humorous.

And with the added vulgarity, too !

ROFLMAO !

` " I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Of course you find the notion of believeing science over YOU as funny - you're that fucking deluded.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

I find it both humorous and disheartening that you think so. But mostly humorous.

And with the added vulgarity, too !

ROFLMAO !

Talk about ego - you find it laughable that someone would believe science over you.

And what's with the virgin ears routine?? You don't seem too verklepmt when you bust out with some vulgarity.

No wonder you are such a laughiung stock yourself. You're a cartoon. You make Glenn Beck look like a calm, reasoned individual.

Truely amazing.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 3:46 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki: Your data is 7 years out of date. .

So? AlGore said the debate was over like 5 years ago. He's been yapping about this non issue since he lost to Bush, in the 2000 election.

What's your point ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 3:51 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Talk about ego - you find it laughable that someone would believe science over you.

Naw. It's just funny that you think it has anything to do w/ me ( I'm flattered, really I am ) and that " science " is some how on YOUR side, or that I don't acknowledge science. Now THAT is funny.

Science isn't a 'belief', btw. It's a tool, used for observing the known world.

Quote:
And what's with the virgin ears routine?? You don't seem too verklepmt when you bust out with some vulgarity.

When it's appropriate, yes. :biggrin:

Quote:

Truely amazing.

Awww, thank you.

* blush *

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 05, 2012 9:31 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Well Raptor I guess I'm a new earth creationist, since I don't buy the billions of years thing.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 4:36 AM

The original graph, 2001.

An updated graphic, showing the same data points I referred to in my original posts, 2005.

Please examine the graph. You said that the ice age began 10 million years earlier than shown on the graph. The range at the bottom of both graphs is measured in 100 million year increments. You are arguing that a tiny shift in CO2, which still places CO2 levels at about 10 times what they are now, causes an ice age. Yet immediately before, with CO2 levels even higher, the geological record shows a higher temperature.

In fact, looking at both graphs, that are grossly similar, I don't see any strong correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. They could both be related through a third data point that hasn't been identified yet. But global temperatures seem to be high and low when CO2 is high or low.

I'd love to see a more recent chart. I haven't been able to find one in cursory searches. But then again, this became a hot button issue in the mid 2000's. With the way academia prosecute intellectual pogroms, I'm not surprised there's no new data. Anybody who published a paper that disagreed with the pravda of the left would be immediately castigated. I've yet to see the other side present any sort of data linking CO2 and temperature with regard to the geological record. I'd welcome it in fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 5:09 AM

CAVE, many people who argue FOR carbon-dioxide-sourced climate shift have gotten death threats or have been muzzled by government. "The left is forcing all scientists to walk in lock-step" applies to the right as well as the left. So without going off-track and bringing up extraneous factors (at which point the right might actually suffer more than the left) let's stick to the data, ok?

BTW, here's another chestnut from the right, which goes something like:

"There is no consensus on global warming- the right Yes there is, nearly all scientists working with that data see that it's happening, there are only a few people who think otherwise- the left And besides, science isn't decided by consensus- the right"

Again, can we agree to table this line of discussion, and variants of same? It gets us nowhere in terms of looking at data.

RIONA

Quote:
Well Raptor I guess I'm a new earth creationist, since I don't buy the billions of years thing.

Do you expect us to take anything you say on the topic seriously? Because if all it takes is for god to wave his magic wand to create stuff, then no scientific discussion is possible. And this is supposed to be a thread where we drill down on science.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 5:25 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Do you expect us to take anything you say on the topic seriously? Because if all it takes is for god to wave his magic wand to create stuff, then no scientific discussion is possible. And this is supposed to be a thread where we drill down on science.

Hello,

I think you'll find that even people who think God created everything still believe he created everything to function within a set of rules. Barring a personal appearance and miracle, even a lot of creationists think the world operates by scientifically predictable mechanisms.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 6:20 AM

FREMDFIRMA

What part of "don't wreck your living space" requires this level of complication ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 6:27 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

And this is supposed to be a thread where we drill down on science.

So we agree... " drill, baby drill ! "

:biggrin:

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 6:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: CAVE, many people who argue FOR carbon-dioxide-sourced climate shift have gotten death threats or have been muzzled by government. "The left is forcing all scientists to walk in lock-step" applies to the right as well as the left. So without going off-track and bringing up extraneous factors (at which point the right might actually suffer more than the left) let's stick to the data, ok?

BTW, here's another chestnut from the right, which goes something like:

"There is no consensus on global warming- the right Yes there is, nearly all scientists working with that data see that it's happening, there are only a few people who think otherwise- the left And besides, science isn't decided by consensus- the right"

Again, can we agree to table this line of discussion, and variants of same? It gets us nowhere in terms of looking at data.

RIONA
Quote:
Well Raptor I guess I'm a new earth creationist, since I don't buy the billions of years thing.
Do you expect us to take anything you say on the topic seriously? Because if all it takes is for god to wave his magic wand to create stuff, then no scientific discussion is possible. And this is supposed to be a thread where we drill down on science.

Signym, You're right. Red or blue koolaid has no place in science.

My actual opinion is that climate change is occurring. I do not believe that man is a significant influence in that change. Could we be a catalyst? Maybe, but again, no strong evidence. Which way the change is going is not readily apparent. We had a Maunder minimum event recently that would be a possible indicator of a colder climate. Surface ocean temps are an indicator the other way. Subsurface ocean temps remain stable. (below 1000 feet, and I've only seen one report on that.)

Given that we've only got the one biosphere, I'd prefer if we not mess around with it. Reducing pollutants in the atmosphere? Hell yes, but do it for the value it has in and of itself. Not because of some cockamamie theory.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 6:32 AM

Gah. Double tap.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 6:32 AM

Triple tap?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma: What part of "don't wreck your living space" requires this level of complication ?

-F

That's always been my position. Clean air and water over higher corporate profits sounds like a good plan to me.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 8:42 AM

America loves a winner!

I'll take clean air and water AND higher corporate profits.

All of the above works for me.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 3:03 PM

OONJERAH

2004, "Peat bogs harbour carbon time bomb" => http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6124-peat-bogs-harbour-carbon-ti
me-bomb.html

Son-in-Law is a creationist. Fairly intelligent in most ways. His position on GW:

1. It's not happening. 2. Peat bogs produce more CO2 in 1 day than Man does in a century. 3. If global warming were happening, it is cyclical. Man doesn't contribute to it. 4. There is nothing we can do about it. 5. It's not happening.

He is the authority on science and reality in his own home. My 4 grandsons show above average intelligence. But I don't expect them to overcome the parental brainwashing.

Quote xbf Joe: "A man only believes what he wants to believe."

Personally, I think it would take an Act of God, with a message written in fire in the sky, to wake people up. I'm with Einstein on human stupidy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 5:49 PM

OONJERAH

I looked this up 'cause of them that makes fun of the Algae fuel plan. As if to say, "We prefer No Plan to one we don't undertand."

from PhysOrg.com: Alternative-energy innovations on display => http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-alternative-energy.html

"Climate change is in dispute. Oil and gas are staging a comeback. Republicans are questioning federal funding for energy research as a waste of money in a time of deficits. ...

In this fraught atmosphere, more than 3,000 academics, entrepreneurs and scientists gathered here this week to peer into the future of alternative energy sources like wind, solar and biofuels. The meeting, which ended Wednesday, was dubbed an energy innovation summit. ...

More than 300 exhibitors showed off their ideas at the meeting" the article lists only 3 of the new innovations. But they are ... fascinating.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 06, 2012 8:50 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I don't really think creationism and climate change have all that much to do with each other. Signe if you don't want to listen to anything I say on the matter that is your call. I haven't really said much in this thread for you to ignore anyways, so it shouldn't be too difficult for you. I've already said my opinions on climate change in other threads so there's no real point in saying them again.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 08, 2012 3:38 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Republicans are questioning federal funding for energy research as a waste of money in a time of deficits. ...

Just Republicans ? I think ANYONE w/ a brain would be asking such questions, not just Republicans. The list of failed 'green' companies, given millions of US tax payer $'s is ever growing. And Obama seems intent on doubling down on his failed policies. Instead of giving a $7,500 tax credit for those who buy 'green' cars, like the failed Chevy Volt, Obama is proposing now giving even more, a $ 10,000 tax credit!

Wind farms, built by tax $ money, are now being given MORE tax payer $, for when they produce too MUCH electricity, when it gets .... wait for it... TOO WINDY! Wind power is unreliable, and is costing the tax payers at both ends, and eventually drives up power rates, not decreasing them.

Note to self: I wonder how long Anthony will continue with his childish, moronic persecution of others whom he falsely accuses of things for which they're not guilty.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 12, 2012 11:14 AM