|
|
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 |
Who is ‘he’ tadaeusas or me?
I didn’t reply for two reasons. First I wanted to give others a chance to react, and second, I think that the whole point of a discussion is to give opinions. I gave mine, and they still haven’t changed in the fact that we have no proof of long ago. Those examples only go back 650 000 years at most. So my point of ‘who’s to say that it didn’t happen before, say 1 million years ago’ still stands. But, if you are open to a little fun I could reply and play the devil... um, I mean, devil’s advocate.  And use the evidence provide by you in a way to actually proof that it isn’t as bad as it sounds. As Chuckles rightfully pointed out; evidence can be twisted and turned to fit all kinds of views.But I also don’t want to turn this discussion bitter, so you should know upfront that I would just be having some fun and THEN don’t necessarily mean what I will say. So... do you want me to reply?  H.W. The real intelligence of mankind is not measured in IQ, but in the results of actions taken. |
|||
|
 |
And so forth, you can read the entire article HERE . But the main idea is that there is a consensus on the matter. Of course sciense can be wrong. But if you generally agree to the validity of the scientific method, then this should not be an exception. Do not be selective about it. The entire confusion around the matter really exists mostly because people don't want to believe it, or even hear about it. It is an inconvenient truth. Just thought I'd drop by :P Carry on.  "The surest sign that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, is that none of it has tried to contact us" -Calvin & Hobbes |
|||
|
 |
I don't see why I need to have references in the following post, since I'm one of the good guys (alias-hw and his folkes being the bad
 ) and wouldn't make stuff up that can hurt my point of view.There have ben drasticaly warmer periods in earlier history.- 20 degrees and the like. Even several thousand in some instances  but they have always ben caused by dramatic disasters (if that's what they are). However, I wonder how many supervolcanoes, asteroids, gaint mutated whale farters and the like we have seen the last thousand years. so I frankly don't see an reason to compare to those times, since we haven't had any insane occurances that can prompt such things. And the scientists know of these things, as Red said, they are paid by the people who make money on letting out gasses and toxics, so why would almost all of them risk their money just for a bit of publicity, if they had fairly good proofs of this not being man made?And I would liek you to reply, althoug I hope you'll remain serious, and not go the Doctor Dino way, or ignore parts of the graphs in order to promote others... Or change them so they show parts per billion rather than million, and then say it's a nice flat graph, you get what I mean Now, I'll start with your last post, altohugh I'll use quite some time on it, since I do homework at the same time. Edit: I agree 100% with Shauku Edit2: no time, no time, no time at all... got to wait for my reply  Freedom - a mountain in the distant sky, love in the grass, birds on the vast plains of the sea... Freedom - I treasure your name, I love your sweet sound, I smell your dreams. I see you - when I turn away I hold you -when my hands are full Freedom - Never shall you be more than a name to me |
|||
|
|
|
Is this my moment to point out that this is once again no proof that it never happened before,  and that this might be once again nothing more then someone saying ‘it never happened in recorded history and therefore it never happened before.’I like science, and love scientific shows. But exactly because I love them I know that 90% of science is guessing. (Don’t take that number literally.) Allow me to change subject for a moment, and only to proof something, not to steer this away from the global warming debate. (From here on any ‘you’ is the general you, not the you you.) I recently saw this very interesting series on the Discovery Science channel called ‘the big question.’ In which professor Stephen Hawkins and others discuss the universe. The big question was... how did the universe come to be. Now, first there was this ‘rubber’ theory that suggested that the universe expands, then contacts again, then expands again then... and so on. Then it was reasoned, ‘no wait there was this big bang and proof of that is because we find this background radiation from the big bang and see the universe is still expanding. Both interesting theories, but first of all, they are just that. We all now ‘know’ that there was this big ban theory, and it might be right... or it might only last until someone comes up with the next theory. My point is, at some moment everyone knew for sure that the universe bounced back and forth all the time. Every scientist knew this for sure and it was clearly proven... until a new scientist came and said, um, not. By the way, why can’t both theories be right? Why can’t the universe expand, and then collapse again all to one small point, and then with a ‘big bang’ explode again? That would cover the big bang theory and it would cover the ‘rubber’ theory. But, that’s just my opinion. The existence of one theory does not necessarily exclude de other. Now, I’m still not done about the universe. Another ‘big question’ was. How big is the universe, and where does it end? There are two answers to that, and both are dissatisfactional to me. The first one is; the universe is endless. First of all, just how damn presumptuous is it of that scientist that said that to assume that he knows that for sure. Where is his proof? Nowhere, it’s just a theory. It’s so easy to say something when nobody can proof you wrong. It’s so easy to say ‘the universe is endless, and if you think otherwise; proof me wrong.’ I for one have a problem with that theory simply because in my simplistic mind there has to be a beginning and end to everything. And if you think otherwise then you have to proof it to me, and ‘because I said so’ won’t cut it. The second one is that there is an end to the universe, and that end is simply beyond the scope of how far we can see. Alright, I can buy that because it fits into my ‘there has to be an end to anything’ thinking. So I should be happy with that theory, right? Wrong. Because I think further. Alright, so there is this end to the universe, then what? What comes after this end? Nothing, eh, I don’t believe in ‘nothing.’ No, the theory stated that there is this end to the universe. Alright, my logic than states, if there is an end to one thing, there must be a beginning of another thing. So, what is that other thing? The fact is, and stays, that scientist are ALWAYS right... until new evidence if found to proof them wrong. Again, I’m NOT saying that global warming is not happening; I’m not at all disputing that. And I’m even NOT saying that humans don’t contributing to the CO2 level. With, what, 6? Billion people simply breathing in and out all day, that’s tons of CO2 right there. All that I’m saying is that there is till is no proof that on a global scale this actually matters, and that it never happened before. There simply is no clear proof for the simple reason that they have not (yet) been able to go back far enough to test how it was millions of years ago. Do I think that we should just sit back and do nothing while they test some more? No. I do think that we should do stuff if for nothing more than the ‘better safe then sorry’ mentality. And ironically enough apart form the whole environment and health and global warming issue, you yourself get better from it financially because in the long run doing things against CO2 pay out. Put in double glazing and you cut the CO2 because you need less heat.. and you lower your energy bill, to name just one. Unfortunately I think that this too is something that the governments need to promote more. As it is, I live in an apartment building with 100 apartments. We were literally one week ago discussing in the owners meeting (since I own my apartment... well, the bank does anyway) getting rid of the wooden frames and single glass windows and doors and putting in double glazing and plastic or aluminum frames. We want, but we can’t why? Because to replace all the windows and doors in the whole apartment building we were looking at a total cost of 200 000 Euro. Or 2000 Euro per apartment. Most of us cannot afford that period, or could afforest that if we cut all spending for the rest of the year. I could afford it for instance, if I were to give up my vacation to the U.S. Hmm, a vacation to the U.S. where I spent time with my sister and then with two of my best friends (other way around actually, I visit the friends first because of logistics.) Hmm, spending a month in total with my gamely and friend, or not seeing them for two years and instead having double glazing at home... that’s a no brainer. I cannot afford the double glazing, and neither can those old people that live here that have to get by on a pension. So, once it becomes affordable I would love to save the world, and we have to do stuff to indeed safe the world. But all of that does still not change the fact that there is no evidence that the CO2 level we have now NEVER happened before. H.W. Edit: Let me point you to a sentence of that part you posted: [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" Notice the word ‘likely’? So even they aren’t absolutely sure. And second, again, I’m not disputing at all that CO2 has risen. My question is; where is the proof that its only us, and not us and nature, or even nature, and who are we? Even the scientist can’t do better than saying ‘likely.’ It is also likely that I’ll still be alive tomorrow, but can you guarantee me that I will not be run over by a truck today? This message has been edited. Last edited by: alias-hw, The real intelligence of mankind is not measured in IQ, but in the results of actions taken. |
|||
|
|
|
Hmm, I’m not sure how much I like being called a bad guy simply because I have a different opinion and don’t take evidence at blind faith. Again, this is a forum and whether I say here won’t hurt me in real life. I could just as easily shout 'it’s all true, we must do something now’ and then go back to drinking my coke out of a Styrofoam cup, use a paper plate to put my snack on and then open up my windows to air my apartment while I let the Centralized Heating running on high so that I don’t get cold. I ‘could’ do that. I ‘could’ state different than I really think, but what would the justice be in doing that, Justice? I thought the point of this topic was to discuss things, and not to see how fast we cal all agree? Am I mistaking? With that being covered... All of you, keep in mind that in this post I am arguing for the sake of arguing. I’m just proving that no evidence is clear and the things mentioned by me here are NOT necessarily my personal opinion. And with that being covered as well, let the fun begin.
Oh, no. That won’t work. (And from here on out, please know that with 'you' I mean the genral you and not the you you.) Every hear of ‘innocent until proven guilty’? If you state that we are killing the world than it’s also up to you to proof this in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. The scientist that are saying that it’s not so bad don’t have to proof a thing. You are making the claim, you have to proof that claim.
Ah, but see, that’s where you go wrong. The true art of distorting evidence is to NOT distort the evidence itself, but switch the words around that go with the evidence. So, below I will not put in the reference sources, but I will simply not do that because I don’t see the point and this post will be long enough as it is. I promise that I will only use the evidence provided by you, and I also promise that I will not alter it in any way, not even change a single comma or point in any tests. So, again, no need to post the sources since the sources are still fully true and the same as they were in your post. However, I don’t know yet, but I might use parts of statements and deliberately let out the rest. But, that’s fair since this is part of presenting evidence the way one likes it. A lawyer will also say ‘and there is the proof that my client could not have fired the gun.’ And not ‘and here is the proof that my client could not have fired the gun because he was busy killing this other person with a knife.’ And now, on to the evidence posted in you post. I would like to bring your interest to this very clear, and very all saying graphic. 
As you can see, here is my proof that not only did ice ages happen before,, but also the high CO2 values. Today the CO2 level is at 310. But look, 150 000 years ago it was at 290. And 300 000 years ago it was at 305. See that? 305. That’s basically exactly the same as it is today. And this is 300 000 years ago. Long before humans COULD even leave an impact. There is my clear proof that what we have today is totally normal; it DID happen before. Or how about 400 000 years ago? 280. But let me take the 305 since it’s so close. We have a spike of 305, 300 000 years ago and a big spike every 100 000 years after that. This clearly proofs beyond any doubt that we are right on schedule, we MUST have a spike today because its 100 000 years since the last one. See, we are simply in a totally normal 100 000 year cycle of Earth. In fact, looking at this evidence, I even dare to state that we should be extremely worried if we did NOT have a huge CO2 spike nowadays. This is exactly on Earth’s rhythm. But in case you are still not convinced, let me bring in some other evidence; the following ghraphic: 
Two things. If you read the info in the quote you will find that the present interglacial is relatively cool compared to previous interglacials. So this once again clearly states that all this hype is for nothing because it is actually now cooler than it has been before. Second thing, if you look at those graphic you will once again notice that we are clearly going though a normal cycle. Not just a normal cycle, but a normal cycle that has been at at least four individual occasions much worse than it is today. Again, clear evidence that all of this global warming and the CO2 is perfectly normal. But let me bring in even some more evidence to back up my claim. 
Unfortunately this graphic is only of the last 10 000 years, so it will not who how evens were BEFORE the last ice age. That is in fact a possibility as well. Not many people know this, but a prelude to an ice age is normally actually a warm period. This is bad because it interrupts the water flow in the oceans, which results in after the extremely short warm period, an ice age setting in. (Alright, so now I’m quoting the movie ‘the day after tomorrow, which I would of course not admit if this was a for real exercise.) But again, this graphic clearly shows that we are right on average for the last 10 000 years. Actually a little below average. You will also notice that there is a proxy on there of a sharp rice in the coming years, but we can ignore that because it’s just a guess, and that can be countered by my guess that it’s actually going to drop sharply in the next couple of years. 
This whole graphic can be ignored (I’m just leaving it in because I don’t want to be seen as ‘accidentally’ forgetting a graphic.) The reason it can be ignored is because it only goes back 2 000 years, so that’s just one fifth of back to the last ice age and therefore has absolutely no baring on cycles that are measured in thousands, ten thousands or even hundred thousands of years. In fact, the graphics before clearly show that it has been much warmer then it is now, and also that CO2 levels have been as high as they are now. And the reason why temperature is suddenly so high in present years is because exact temperature keeping (talking tens of degrees here) is only something of the last decades. And again, even if that measurement is correct, it still is not a clear comparison. It is not a comparison to how it was before the last ice age. It might have been much higher then; we don’t know that. Just saying that because it’s so high in the last decades, it’s higher than it ever was, once again being in recorded history. It’s only higher (and even that can be debated) than it has been in recorded history. Just because it didn’t happen ever since Christ was born doesn’t mean it didn’t happen when cavemen were still hitting women over the head with a bad and dragging them off into caves.
Exactly my point. Thank you for pointing it out. We can clearly see that what we have today is normal has happened numerous times before.
Scientists can think all they want; where is the proof? I think that I will win the lottery this month. Does that mean I’m correct? We will only know the day after the lottery has been.
As interesting as that is, where is the proof that we humans are doing that? As stated before, CO2 has risen in the past. Temperatures have risen in the past. So, this must have happened in the past as well. As much as we appreciate nature, nature can also me a mass murdered. History is full of cases of animas that were killed off because nature decided to change the weather.
Once again a summery of ‘we think’ ‘likely’ and not to forget ‘the last century.’ Still does not proof that it never happened before. Where is the clear proof that this did not happen exactly the same 10 000 years ago, or 100 000 years ago, or 1 000 000 years ago. I once again see the very preposterous human reaction of ‘it never happened in the time we know and since it never happened in human history, it never happened at all. On the timescale that Earth exists, Human time measured up to about one second out of a day (wild guess to get the point across.) How do we know, and I still see no evidence, that on ‘earth time scale’ one hour ago the same didn’t happen. Where is that proof? Now, I’m the first to admit that proving that something did NOT happen is 10x more harder then proving that it did. All I’m saying is, just because no evidence is found that happened in the last minute, still doesn’t proof that it never happened before. Again, stupid example. I can honesty tell you that I did not drive my car in the last 24 hours. But then you can speak up, ‘hah, wait a minute you had to go to work, you have to drive there, so that is proof that you used your car.’ Wrong, it’s an assumption that is based on the facts that you know. If I have to go to work, I need a car to get there. The little fact that you didn’t know is that a colleague of mine lives in this very same apartment building I live in and we carpool to work. He drives 3 our of 6 word days, I drive the other 3. And yesterday it was his turn to drive. But, if you did not know about that evidence, if you did not know that we carpool, you would know for absolutely certain that I HAD to use my car to get to work, and therefore I HAD to use my car in the last 24 hours. You would have gotten the totally wrong impression simply because you did not have all the evidence. And I’m saying; we don’t have all the evidence yet. We can assume things on the evidence we have, yes, but we should not assume that simply because we do not have any counter evidence that what we are saying is by definition true. No, it’s simply not disproved.
You mean they think/assume that humans are the main culprit and are conveniently ignoring that such high temperatures and CO2 levels have existed before? And with that being said, let me remind of what I said in the beginning: All of you, keep in mind that in this post I am arguing for the sake of arguing. I’m just proving that no evidence is clear and the things mentioned by me here are NOT necessarily my personal opinion. H.W. The real intelligence of mankind is not measured in IQ, but in the results of actions taken. |
|||
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply
not got time to read it now, just caught this while scrolling:
I hope you realise I was joking... Freedom - a mountain in the distant sky, love in the grass, birds on the vast plains of the sea... Freedom - I treasure your name, I love your sweet sound, I smell your dreams. I see you - when I turn away I hold you -when my hands are full Freedom - Never shall you be more than a name to me |
|||
|
|
|
So was I. Please note that I sometimes have an extreme dry sense of humor, and I just Had to get one word play in there about the Justice of Justice...  That’s two word plays now.H.W. The real intelligence of mankind is not measured in IQ, but in the results of actions taken. |
|||
|
 |
@ Justice
While I appreciate your efforts to bring to light the problems of global warming...I consider myself to be an above average intelligent person, but I have NO CLUE what those graphs are intended to represent. :O) Aftonian, Mindel-Riss, Riss-Wurm, Holocene Interglacial....all mixed up with references to Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kansas and Illinois? No clue what that's supposed to represent. Epica, Volstok, Temperature Anomalies, Climatic Optimum....it's like they're TRYING to purposely make those graphs un-readable. :O) I'm mostly messing with you, but be honest, could they have made those graphs MORE unclear? *grin*  "The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the Third Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose in the Mountains of Mist. The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings or endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning." |
|||
|
|
|
First, this has nothing to do with the posts I made before.
I think it’s simply the result of trying to get too much data across to make the point seem more important.   It’s kinda like an ice-cream maker wanting to proof just how good his ice-cream is. He doesn’t just say, here, look Johnny loves my ice-cream. No, they bring out this whole schematic. See, Johnny is eating it for so many years now, and he ate so much of this flavor then, and so much then. And here, Betty also loves it. See, she ate so much then, and that flavor then. And here. Davit, and here, Carl, and here Sam, and here Tom, and here ****, and hare Harry.  And the end result? Instead of one clear line showing, say an average, you get ten color coded lines all trying to outdo each other and crossing each other to have an end result of one colored mesh that looks like a two year old got his hands on a box of colored crayons. H.W. Edit. I totally forgot that the name Di** is also a dirty word and now I suffered the curse of the sensor.  The real intelligence of mankind is not measured in IQ, but in the results of actions taken. |
|||
|
|
|
And we have to assume, we cannot wait for all the evidence. We may never have that evidence at all. Even you do it yourself; claiming that all this is natural for earth. You do NOT know it, you assume. It is important to draw conclusions from the data we have. One shouldn't resort to saying that because you are enable to reach statistics from a million years ago all results of the research are invalid. Then when we have that information you will say that you don't have evidence from 5 million years ago etc. This issue is highly complex, the climate is a gigantic mechanism that is affected by hundreds, maybe thousands of variables. No one said it would be easy to draw conclusions, therefore committees have been arranged and major scientific bodies have been working on the matter. And I can just say that you read the charts differently from 90% of the scientists (don't know the exact number, but a clear majority). And you are free to do that. Now if someone came and insisted me whether I am 100% sure that they are right. I would say no, of course not. But I would say it is very LIKELY that they are right. The word you criticised the scientific community for using but they are not entirely stupid. We do not have the luxury of knowing things for sure; we simply don't have all the evidence that is required at our disposal. That does NOT mean that we should just forget about the issue for next 100 years and see what we can do then. If we do alter the climate by our actions, it is better to start steering the boat to a different direction now than some time in the future. "The surest sign that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, is that none of it has tried to contact us" -Calvin & Hobbes |
|||
|
|
|
That I fully agree with. I think that with all the back and forth, the point I made, and have repeated several times, has been missed.
I fully agree that something(s) have to be done. Even if there is no absolute proof. Some thing(s) have to be done if for nothing more than the age old saying ‘better safe than sorry.’ We might not be certain if it’s man’s fault, but even if it’s not it would certainly not hurt to stop rapi** the planet we live on. All that I have been saying from the beginning, and what really gripes me, the presumptuousness of people, scientists included that state things like ‘it didn’t happen in the last 2 thousand years, so it never happened before. And then I said, baloney if you say something you first have to proof it before I believe it. (general you.) Those are two separate facts, and should be seen as such. Do I think things should be done to lessen the impact we have on nature? Absolutely, most definitely yes, without a doubt, and I won’t believe any person that says all is fine we don’t have to do anything. But just like I don’t believe someone that says ‘it’s all right’ simply on blind faith, I also don’t believe someone that says ‘the world is going to end’ on blind faith. Also I never said that I don’t believe the evidence in those graphics, I’m just saying that I don’t simply believe the evidence in those graphics (that’s called a paradox. )It’s simply not complete, period. And while you can make an educated guess on limited info, there is no certainty that you will make the correct guess simply because you don’t have all the info. For instance, ask people when concrete was invented and most will say, well, since we started using it in the last century I would say somewhere in the last century. Which would be totally wrong. It was in fact invented over 2 thousand years before by the Romans. The process was simply lost when the Roman Empire fell and it had to be reinvented. But ask the average person and they don’t know that. And that was my point. We can assume a lot, but just how presumptuous is it of humans, (scientists included until they were proven wrong) to say, ‘we invented concrete, and since we invented it, it is absolutely certain beyond any doubt that it has never been invented before. And what I find really interesting is that everyone says that I read graphics wrong, that I don’t want to see the truth. Yet at the same time, nobody says, ‘you are absolutely right, we cannot proof that it didn’t happen before, but we still should do something now.’ So I say again, if you (general you) say that we are killing the world and that what we have now never happened before, ever. Then I simply say; proof it. H.W. The real intelligence of mankind is not measured in IQ, but in the results of actions taken. |
|||
|
|
|
I thought al but one were quite understandable, and the other one just needed the references from the site... But that's probably because I'm still studdying, and thuss used to folkes using dificult words in order to make it seem more important.- I could simplify them with paint if you want, but that'll have to wait till the weekend... You sould see my assignments book. Last week it looked so nice and easy, now it's just... Full So actually I've not even got time to write this... Freedom - a mountain in the distant sky, love in the grass, birds on the vast plains of the sea... Freedom - I treasure your name, I love your sweet sound, I smell your dreams. I see you - when I turn away I hold you -when my hands are full Freedom - Never shall you be more than a name to me |
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
I am somewhat confused about what you want. You go into long measures explaining that science is fallible, and that you detest it when people(and scientists) claim to know the truth. Then you criticise the scientific community for using words such as “likely”. It is there exactly because of the nature of science on matters such as this. (for example, there is a 66,7% change that the number you will get less is than 5 when you throw a dice. It is likely that you are getting less than 5)
I am hoping that you are not asking for the moon from the sky, but want the evidence that has lead to this conclusion - then I present it to you. But be warned, it is not light reading. I said earlier that this issue is very complex and to familiarise oneself with it takes awful lot of time. I present you the reports of IPCC. Then you can question these studies, methods and/or the summary and I will gladly discuss about them. There has been criticism on IPCC, as the subject is highly controversial, but one should not forget the scale of things. Thousands have worked for the report yet the criticism is mostly targeted at a few individuals and through them attempting to undermine the entire work of IPCC. Also, the attacks are mostly from individual scientists instead of committees or scientific institutes. "Funnily" enough, on a few occasions when it has been an institution or a bigger set collaboration of scientists, the study had been Exxon-funded. "The surest sign that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, is that none of it has tried to contact us" -Calvin & Hobbes |
|||
|
