AikiRooster
Tube Monkey USMC
I doubt congressman taste good! All your's.
Junk Science
AikiRooster
Tube Monkey USMC
We have our share of softies as well, Reed and a whole bunch others like her.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Of course there is a lot of misinformation there is also a lot of useful information (on both sides of the global warming argument) but when you make a point of selling your argument as backed by scientists and then present page after page of tabloid nonsense (which as WNxRogue has pointed out can be generated by typing "global warming" into Google) then the argument is going to founder badly.
In terms of the relevance his sources you are incorrect he doesn't have them he has sources that reference parts of other peoples work which is not that same... He claims:
"All of the links are of scientists, reporters, professors, and experts that are against the whole myth of Global Warming."
And yet I have not found one that is by a scientist, professor or expert in the field all I have found is third hand references to parts of someone elses work, using this type of investigation I can make Mein Kampf say anything I like.
Do yourself a favour and actually read some of these links and you will find the exact opposite, as my previous post indicated out of 140 links a sizable number were no longer active (which is a clear indication that he has not researched anything more than an initial document and then grabbed anything with the words global warming in it to pad his argument) one of them was BBC report on the Czech president referring to global warming as a religion but actually discussing the US missile defence program and a sizable number of the remaining links were blogs run by crack pots and disaffected nut jobs from computers in their basements.
For the record this was the question that was asked...
Sadly what has got was "some sort of source" from letsgobuyhummers.com telling us that at 7pm there will be a make over show about scientist who has heard of global warming on channel 198.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
I feel you miss my point. I don't deny that there i some "tabloid nonsense" written, but my point being that in many cases it is presented by persons who do have the same qualifications as those not writing nonsense, and it is written supporting arguments on both sides of the debate. What is happening here is that the readers are generally in no position to make a qualified decision, and as such often throw the baby out with the bathwater.
After all there is no definitive proof on either side which is why these people start their dissertations with, "There is evidence to support" or "we believe".
When proof is found there will be no debate, until that time we all have the freedom to believe as we see.
After all there is no definitive proof on either side which is why these people start their dissertations with, "There is evidence to support" or "we believe".
When proof is found there will be no debate, until that time we all have the freedom to believe as we see.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I don't disagree with this but in light of this even you have to admit that there is as much chance of global warming being a man made phenomenon as there is of it being all natural and therefore requires continued work.
Not this constant over reaction about it all being an Al Gore/liberal plot nonsense that this thread started as.
The biggest problem here is that half the people on this site don't read past the title and about half the remaining stop at the first mention of anything remotely intellectual and declare it a communist plot.
senojekips
Active member
No,.. I'm not really convinced. I'd want to see a lot more than what has been presented to date, I'm not willing to push anyone's barrow with the odds as they are.
Liberal, Conservative, Presbyterian or Devil worshipper, it makes no difference to me. Al Gore has nothing to do with it and would be better served sticking to politics. As far as I'm concerned, on this subject he is no more than another bloke venturing his rather panic stricken opinions.
I guess I'm just very suspicious of zealots in either camp.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I agree and there has been some incredibly alarmist global warming prophecies which I think for the most part came very early on in the process when they had less of an understanding of what was actually happening.
I look at as though I am walking in a minefield with two instructors:
One is tell us there is something there and triggering it will have dire consequences so be careful while we figure it out and the other is a guy they dragged in off the street giving out advice that it you cant see it therefore it doesn't exist so full speed ahead.
You choose which advice you take but I am pretty sure I know what the smart ones will be backing.
senojekips
Active member
That's the trouble with gambling, no one knows who the "smart" ones are until after the race.
Me, I support the investigation of all the alternatives, but certainly not because of global warming.
Imagine the panic there would have been at the end of the last cool period in Europe ending in the mid 1500s. There is little if any direct evidence to support global warming being anything other than a continuation of a trend since that time, below is a graph of the Central England temperature since accurate recording began in 1652.
There is no evidence whatsoever to support that this trend accelerated after the industrial revolution, when man made pollution from burning fossil fuels (Coal) increased more than 100 fold.
I feel that if global warming was caused by man's consumption of fossil fuels there would be a far greater rise in the trend since the 1850s.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Actually that graph shows that there is an upward trend and if you agree that the 1760 is that generally accepted "eve" of the industrial revolution you graph shows that a standard "sine wave" effect was in operation before that date, since that date there has been no such effect just a general warming process.
For example between 1659 and 1746 there is a normal heating and cooling cycle with a mid point at 1659, a trough at 1688 a peak at 1720 and a return to the mid point at around 1750 but instead of it continuing to decline to another trough at what would have been about 1775 (a cycle rate of about 90 years) it suddenly begins climbing around 1760 with a much flatter cycle and only shows a limited trough around 1891 and then at at about 1975 temperatures begin to climb noticeably.
You will also notice that the cold trend lines have grown increasingly shorter over the whole period.
Basically the first third of the graph is what you would expect from cyclic system the last two thirds are not and it is interesting that it corresponds with the beginning of the industrial revolution and in fact the temperature increase is actually more pronounced than appears as even though the mean has not shifted a lot the temperature troughs have disappeared.
Now obviously the analysis is very rough one as it is much better and more accurate to analyse raw data than reinterpret someone elses interpretation but even a layman can see the long term variation in a pattern that is represented in this data.
.
Last edited:
AikiRooster
Tube Monkey USMC
I'm all for investigation to find facts, not make believe. Mistakes made sometimes? Of course. An open mind on most subjects helps find facts and adjust from there. Wishful thinking to back ideology is not my idea of facts.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Ignoring an issue because it is inconvenient is not science either.
If you look at the graph posted with an open mind you will see clearly that something changed at around the time of the industrial revolution.
Does that mean that it changed because of the industrial revolution well there simply isn't enough data to make that comparison, is it a natural "random" event; again not enough data to support that either. All we can say is that according to that data temperature patterns changed at around 1760 and that is worth investigating.
The great problem now faced is that the global warming issue has become so polarised that we run the great risk of doing science to prove a point and that leads to subjective and not objective results.
If you look at the graph posted with an open mind you will see clearly that something changed at around the time of the industrial revolution.
Does that mean that it changed because of the industrial revolution well there simply isn't enough data to make that comparison, is it a natural "random" event; again not enough data to support that either. All we can say is that according to that data temperature patterns changed at around 1760 and that is worth investigating.
The great problem now faced is that the global warming issue has become so polarised that we run the great risk of doing science to prove a point and that leads to subjective and not objective results.
Last edited:
AikiRooster
Tube Monkey USMC
I am not a scientist, in fact, I'm really lousy at anything Algebra and above. I wouldn't be so stupid to say that global warming doesn't exist and anything we can do to fix it might be a good idea. However, this does not mean we should go overboard on it and especially so if it hurts our military capabilities any and other countries are building their military arsenals to kill or outgun the hated Americans. I think if we try to do right by the environment, it has to be balanced with at least that thought in mind.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I am not entirely a believer in global warming either I do however think it naive to believe that man has not had some effect on his environment (how much is what we are debating) and I believe it a wiser policy to err on the side of caution now than ignore an issue and be bitten on the arse by it 5-50 years down the track.
AikiRooster
Tube Monkey USMC
What do you suggest about other countries who are enemies or at least pretentious allies (Russia, China, etc)? Some of them refuse to do anything in regards to fixing global warming and just concentrate on building their military arsenals? Why should we be the only ones making the changes, when to me it seems if it is not a global effort, what we do here won't matter much if most parts of the world continue doing what they want with no concern for global warming besides the politically correct lip service but with no action to go along with.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
As I have said before necessity is the mother of invention I am sure a hydrogen powered tank will be just as effective as a gas powered one.
Military's world wide have adapted to change and in many cases lead the development in new technology I cannot imagine this will be any different.
AikiRooster
Tube Monkey USMC
Newt Gingrich for President. His energy idea's are very impressive by the way.
senojekips
Active member
But of course, If that were not so, it would be a steady or downward trend
I don't wish to get into a maths debate here (It's not my game) but there's a lot more to it than that. Not the least of which is the fact that we can't see the cycles prior to the start, the only clues given being that the late 1500s were the end of a protracted cool period in Europe. Never the less the first cycle seems to be pretty radical. Both the decline and rise being steeper and longer than anything we have seen to date. What would the doomsayers have said had they have been around then?
Regardless of all else, the possible effect caused by man, or for that matter anything else, has been so small as to be insignificant when we consider the increase in pollution over the time in question especially when we take into account that the upward trend had started well before this period began and has not actually increased in overall rate during that time.
senojekips
Active member
Nobody is ignoring it, it's just that some people refuse to be stampeded by a noisy and as yet unproven minority.
There are changes at any point one wishes to name, right down to the daily maxima and minima and they don't always follow a pattern, just look at the variations in any of the trends, some longer some shorter, some steeper some not so. All that really means anything is the overall trend, especially when we take into account the time periods over which these cycles might occur.
My point precisely.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Not true from the data presented the patterns are easily determined (I would rate it as a very good example of a noticeable change graph on multiple axis) not only is the amplitude decreasing but the wavelength is increasing and the whole pattern is creating and upward trend, you have produced an excellent bit of evidence that global warming exists however we all knew that because it is a natural phenomenon.
The funny thing is that you have also managed to link it to the industrial revolution which could lead to claims that man is influencing it, however that would be speculation.