Niocan wrote:After a side is picked, it seems, faith is at play.

You sound more and more like a creotard every time I skim through these topics. It's not about picking sides or faith it's about making informed judgements based on the available evidence. Now I wont pretend to to have a vast knowledge on the subject, but I know enough to know that human activity is contributing to the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, be it CO2 from cars and industries or methene from intensive farming. To what extent it is contributing I wouldn't presume to say, but evidence certainly points at a continuous human impact since the industrial revolution.

It takes a hell ofa lot more faith to dismiss the evidence than to acknowledge it.

Niocan wrote:

scalyblue wrote:http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

not the only one either...but it's not going to stop you from being a fucking idiot

I'm confused, what does an opinion poll say of the actual main researchers and why do you think anything in science is based on a democracy? What I'd most like to know from that poll, is why the people on the extremes picked the side they picked.

RichardMNixon wrote:Back on topic:"There isn't any science to argue against;" For the second time: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?rlz=1 ... =en&tab=wsgo nuts."It's interesting to see how you internally justify this position."How exactly did he justify it or even make it seem justifiable?

To specify, I'm looking for the supposed evidence behind *anthropogenic* climate change; It's of no surprise that the Earth is warming after the last little ice age, but why do you think human caused CO2 is the one specific factor behind the supposed acceleration in heating and why do you think the climate can't stabilize itself?

As for the other question, Joe's comments are strawman in nature and it's how he justifies the lack of critical inquiry into the matter at hand. After a side is picked, it seems, faith is at play. We all do this, and it shows us the intellectual priorities we hold at the time; He chooses to blindly defend, because it isn't worth the time to do otherwise; Which is fine, because he's not the only one here capable of responding and we all do this for different reasons

Regardless of whether or not the current warming trend is caused mostly by humans or not, getting CO2 out of the atmosphere isn't a bad thing. We lose nothing by betting that we are the cause.

creamcheese wrote:Regardless of whether or not the current warming trend is caused mostly by humans or not, getting CO2 out of the atmosphere isn't a bad thing. We lose nothing by betting that we are the cause.

The amount of regulations and restrictions applied to us just for the sole reason of lowering a natural life giving catalyst in our atmosphere far exceeds the 'good' it will bring. It's important to keep things in perspective.

australopithecus wrote:You sound more and more like a creotard every time I skim through these topics. It's not about picking sides or faith it's about making informed judgements based on the available evidence.

I'm a spiritualist in the most basic of meanings, and it sounds like you're just looking for problems To make informed decisions we must have perspective, do we not? Because we're talking about implementing global regulations on resources here, not some little choice a CEO makes that'll only effect his customers and company.

australopithecus wrote:Now I wont pretend to to have a vast knowledge on the subject, but I know enough to know that human activity is contributing to the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, be it CO2 from cars and industries or methene from intensive farming. To what extent it is contributing I wouldn't presume to say, but evidence certainly points at a continuous human impact since the industrial revolution.It takes a hell ofa lot more faith to dismiss the evidence than to acknowledge it.

Why look at the trace gases in the air when you can view the destructive means in which we 'care' for our environments? Who cares about the by-product when the cause is reversible?

I'm not talking about extreme pro-environment / anti-human activities; Self sustainability and the cultivation of environments should be the highest priorities of individuals if we actually want to see some change. Grow your own food, collect your own water, etc; It sounds rather primitive but it's not like we can't apply technology here >.>

Niocan wrote:I'm a spiritualist in the most basic of meanings, and it sounds like you're just looking for problems To make informed decisions we must have perspective, do we not? Because we're talking about implementing global regulations on resources here, not some little choice a CEO makes that'll only effect his customers and company.

I'm not looking for any problems, but if evidence points to a problem, then there is a problem whether I like it or not. Of course a sense of perspective is needed, but perspective has never been defined as "dismissing evidence you don't like or dont understand".

Why look at the trace gases in the air when you can view the destructive means in which we 'care' for our environments? Who cares about the by-product when the cause is reversible?

Because like it or not the gases in the air are a problem, as much as a problem as their cause.

I'm not talking about extreme pro-environment / anti-human activities; Self sustainability and the cultivation of environments should be the highest priorities of individuals if we actually want to see some change. Grow your own food, collect your own water, etc; It sounds rather primitive but it's not like we can't apply technology here >.>

We have applied technology to those things. It's the technology that needs rethinking, not what the technologu is used for.

My apologies for overstating the obvious, but are we all just searching for truth? In any task we undertake, we seek to find the reality of reality.
When we find that truth, we must accept it regardless of how much it agrees or disagrees with our subjective perception. This is anti-fundamentalist and anti-denialist in nature, knowing what will convince you otherwise or what will shatter your perception of reality.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Albert Einstein

Evolution is wrong? Okay, show me a fossilized rabbit in the Cambrian and you will have my undivided attention.

The Big Bang theory is wrong? Alright, explain how the red shift observed in the Cosmos is made up and I will have to listen.

A rise in global temperature due to human's excess release of CO2 through industrialized means thereby harming life is wrong? Ok, show how a rapid increase in atmospheric C02 does not increase temperature and/or negatively impact existing life.


To my knowledge, no climate scientist, or even general scientists has said all life would end or even call for the end of our species. What I have read and seen is an overwhelmingly majority of scientists accepting the reality that a sudden increase in global temperature will impact (and possibly destroy) a lot of life on earth.
Yet denialists ( I'm referencing those who refuse to change their opinion and/or explain what would) try to assert that "its all natural and nothing bad will happen" glaze over the decades of research and apparently have never been in a man-made greenhouse-not all plants can survive more heat.


As a skeptic, I beg to be proven wrong. I want to see evidence contrary to my observable reality. I want to be able to spend more than just 60 years with my daughter and wife. I want to have of peace of mind that all the industries do not harm the only home we ever know to harbor life.
But so far, there has been no evidence presented before me that stands to any repeatable testing.


And finally, philosophically speaking, the conspiracy about the gravy trains profited from 'the AGW scam' fall apart quite quickly. How can people make so much money off a political scam, when they are dead? I am referencing, of course, that the first scientists to suspect increases in human industrialized activity would increase greenhouse effects, published their findings before any us were born ( unless we have some serious seniors around here) Is the theory claiming that people are spending/have spent their entire adult lives on lies so people could potentially benefit later?


Whatever the truth may be, I will accept it no matter how hard it punches me in the face...

(edit) A rather easy and unbiased brochure from NOAA http://www.climate.noaa.gov/education/p ... inalLR.pdf

Cyberdraco wrote:A rise in global temperature due to human's excess release of CO2 through industrialized means thereby harming life is wrong? Ok, show how a rapid increase in atmospheric C02 does not increase temperature and/or negatively impact existing life.

Look into the CO2 released by the Iraqi oil field fires and the Mount Pinatubo Eruption; Both in 1991, and bring up a graph for the CO2 recorded at the start and end of that year whilst comparing that to the surrounding years. Now, how much do we as humans contribute to the global CO2 level? What is defined as a rapid raise? Do you know of the counter-balancing variables at play within Earths biosphere?

Cyberdraco wrote:To my knowledge, no climate scientist, or even general scientists has said all life would end or even call for the end of our species. What I have read and seen is an overwhelmingly majority of scientists accepting the reality that a sudden increase in global temperature will impact (and possibly destroy) a lot of life on earth.

The media tells you of the 'overwhelming numbers', and nothing else needs to be said about the inherent problems of this claim

Cyberdraco wrote:Yet denialists ( I'm referencing those who refuse to change their opinion and/or explain what would) try to assert that "its all natural and nothing bad will happen" glaze over the decades of research and apparently have never been in a man-made greenhouse-not all plants can survive more heat.

Ironically enough, plants need less water, grow far faster, and can survive hotter climates with increased CO2 levels; Almost like it's a natural catalyst of life for them Google is your friend here.

Cyberdraco wrote:As a skeptic, I beg to be proven wrong. I want to see evidence contrary to my observable reality. I want to be able to spend more than just 60 years with my daughter and wife. I want to have of peace of mind that all the industries do not harm the only home we ever know to harbor life.
But so far, there has been no evidence presented before me that stands to any repeatable testing.

Companies and industries will always harm the environment in our current system of commerce, because they always need the dependence of their market share to continue their survival. Grow your own food, collect your own water, power your own house, etc; These are the changes that'll effect the entire system, and not some crazy carbon scam trying to control the very resources of this world.

Cyberdraco wrote:And finally, philosophically speaking, the conspiracy about the gravy trains profited from 'the AGW scam' fall apart quite quickly. How can people make so much money off a political scam, when they are dead? I am referencing, of course, that the first scientists to suspect increases in human industrialized activity would increase greenhouse effects, published their findings before any us were born ( unless we have some serious seniors around here) Is the theory claiming that people are spending/have spent their entire adult lives on lies so people could potentially benefit later?

Why assume that the dead seek to collect this money, when the current people sitting in all of the ever increasing 'carbon credit' companies are the ones relying on the current AGW hypothesis *and it's supposed extent of damage* to be true? There have always been reports of the earth warming and cooling, because that's just what it does; We were in a warming trend because of the last ice age, and we're in a cooling trend right now because of the last increase which is based of the previous decrease! Natural fluctuation much?

Interestingly one of the first results on a Google search for CO2 and plant growth was this: Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals

Aught3 wrote:Interestingly one of the first results on a Google search for CO2 and plant growth was this: Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals

However, when higher amounts of CO2 gas were added to plots with normal temperature, moisture and nitrogen levels, aboveground plant growth increased by nearly a third.

Why would elevated CO2 in combination with other factors have a suppressive effect on plant growth? The researchers aren't sure, but one possibility is that excess carbon in the soil is allowing microbes to outcompete plants for one or more limiting nutrients.

"By applying all four treatments, we may be repositioning the ecosystem so that another environmental factor becomes limiting to growth," Field observed. "For example, by increasing plant growth as a result of adding water or nitrogen, the ecosystem may become more sensitive to limitation by another mineral nutrient such as phosphorous, potassium or something else we hadn't been measuring."

They had to increase 3 other variables before the retardation was shown, and these increases for the plant imply that growth will be limited by *other factors*. They gave the plants super growth atmosphere conditions and expected them to survive off the same trace minerals/nutrients/microbes in 'normal' conditions.

The study says nothing, because there are way too many factors at play here though if you find any others let me know.

Niocan wrote:though if you find any others let me know.

Why? I just posted that link to show other people where you were wrong so they don't get confused. Other people reading this will understand that CO2 causes the other factors that the researchers applied. I don't care what you think anymore.

Aught3 wrote:Why? I just posted that link to show other people where you were wrong so they don't get confused. Other people reading this will understand that CO2 causes the other factors that the researchers applied. I don't care what you think anymore.

Because the study you linked only proves my point wrong if you're a poor journalist who judges a book by it's title.
The researchers themselves said they weren't sure why, only with all 4 factors increased, the plants showed retardation; On top of that when I try and find a source for this research to check the comparison and elevation of the 4 factors in question here I can't find it.
"Story Source:
Adapted from materials provided by Stanford University."
How much where they increased? Under what model or assumption are these levels increased by? What about all the other factors at play here in regulating these sources of nutrients?

I'd actually love to see the original research behind this; If this isn't a ghost article like I suspect it to be at this point.

Cyberdraco wrote:To my knowledge, no climate scientist, or even general scientists has said all life would end or even call for the end of our species. What I have read and seen is an overwhelmingly majority of scientists accepting the reality that a sudden increase in global temperature will impact (and possibly destroy) a lot of life on earth.

"The media tells you of the 'overwhelming numbers', and nothing else needs to be said about the inherent problems of this claim"

Thank you for making general assumptions, I do not watch media so they can 'tell' me what to believe. I have multiple subscriptions to scientific journals/magazines, I go the library, I speak with my college professors etc. Your hyperbolic stereotype does not fit me, sorry for your lose.

Cyberdraco wrote:And finally, philosophically speaking, the conspiracy about the gravy trains profited from 'the AGW scam' fall apart quite quickly. How can people make so much money off a political scam, when they are dead? I am referencing, of course, that the first scientists to suspect increases in human industrialized activity would increase greenhouse effects, published their findings before any us were born ( unless we have some serious seniors around here) Is the theory claiming that people are spending/have spent their entire adult lives on lies so people could potentially benefit later?

Why assume that the dead seek to collect this money, when the current people sitting in all of the ever increasing 'carbon credit' companies are the ones relying on the current AGW hypothesis *and it's supposed extent of damage* to be true? There have always been reports of the earth warming and cooling, because that's just what it does; We were in a warming trend because of the last ice age, and we're in a cooling trend right now because of the last increase which is based of the previous decrease! Natural fluctuation much?[/quote]

For supporting such an extraordinary conspiracy, you are very thin on any evidence. Stop dodging questions and answer them truthfully.

Cyberdraco wrote:Thank you for making general assumptions, I do not watch media so they can 'tell' me what to believe. I have multiple subscriptions to scientific journals/magazines, I go the library, I speak with my college professors etc. Your hyperbolic stereotype does not fit me, sorry for your lose.

It isn't my loss, as I'm glad your someone who doesn't subject themselves to psychological trash. I would like to inquire though, as to why you're standing on a democratic position for scientific matters.

Cyberdraco wrote:For supporting such an extraordinary conspiracy, you are very thin on any evidence. Stop dodging questions and answer them truthfully.

I've said it before, this isn't some ground breaking conspiracy here. A group of scientists under an international banner (not subjective to Freedom of Information Acts and the like) claim one thing, while independent researchers from many fields say the observations don't match the models. Then, instead of openly releasing their data and code for honest debate, they [The IPCC] disregard them and what their independent research implies?

Just how many scientists actually have their names on papers related solely to AGW? There's many for climate change, for both cooling and warming trends, but for the actual connection between just one atmospheric gas and the dependence of human activities to sustain this threat... I think you'll only find the IPCC researchers. There's a core of truth being used (Climates change, humans pollute), but then it's hijacked and distorted into a world threatening disaster that we must throw billions at and implement countless regulations for.

All under the egocentric and narrow sighted view that we can disrupt the global climate engine with trace amounts of the catalyst for plant life. My seemingly absolute position on this isn't a reflection of my misunderstanding of science, it's my recognition that this threat is psychologically born into the political and commercial arena under the same guises that religion uses to further support it.

Niocan wrote:

Cyberdraco wrote:Thank you for making general assumptions, I do not watch media so they can 'tell' me what to believe. I have multiple subscriptions to scientific journals/magazines, I go the library, I speak with my college professors etc. Your hyperbolic stereotype does not fit me, sorry for your lose.

It isn't my loss, as I'm glad your someone who doesn't subject themselves to psychological trash. I would like to inquire though, as to why you're standing on a democratic position for scientific matters.

Truth has no position.

Cyberdraco wrote:For supporting such an extraordinary conspiracy, you are very thin on any evidence. Stop dodging questions and answer them truthfully.

I've said it before, this isn't some ground breaking conspiracy here. A group of scientists under an international banner (not subjective to Freedom of Information Acts and the like) claim one thing, while independent researchers from many fields say the observations don't match the models. Then, instead of openly releasing their data and code for honest debate, they [The IPCC] disregard them and what their independent research implies?

Just how many scientists actually have their names on papers related solely to AGW? There's many for climate change, for both cooling and warming trends, but for the actual connection between just one atmospheric gas and the dependence of human activities to sustain this threat... I think you'll only find the IPCC researchers. There's a core of truth being used (Climates change, humans pollute), but then it's hijacked and distorted into a world threatening disaster that we must throw billions at and implement countless regulations for.

All under the egocentric and narrow sighted view that we can disrupt the global climate engine with trace amounts of the catalyst for plant life. My seemingly absolute position on this isn't a reflection of my misunderstanding of science, it's my recognition that this threat is psychologically born into the political and commercial arena under the same guises that religion uses to further support it.

Again, the hyperbole is cute, but we need actual evidence.

Then find it yourself:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/taxonomy/term/97
Google the importance of treering #YAD061
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ (There are many links in the comments as well)
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRU_emails_re ... _behaviour
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Rese ... _1996-2009




And for fun


Only when you listen to the King and the peasants, will you know if there's unrest in the town; So read everything, but trust only what you can prove yourself. Also these are just general places to get information of this like, and I don't expect to bend or change any minds here with these sources; It's only additions of other perspectives into the matter at hand.

If the AGW hypothesis is false at its roots, then you must understand that you're not proving science right or wrong; You're fighting against social conditioning.

Niocan wrote:yadayadayadayada links to corporate tools, shills, conspiracy theorists and other dubious sources yadayadayadaya

Oh for fuck's sake

OnkelCannabia wrote:Oh for fuck's sake

Don't expect to remain rational if your mind is closed from the start..

Niocan wrote:

OnkelCannabia wrote:Oh for fuck's sake

Don't expect to remain rational if your mind is closed from the start..

don't be so open minded your brains fall out!

Our viewpoints may be different but I assure you my mind is very much intact.
Read everything, trust no one but yourself.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming ... -timeline/
This is a beautiful chart made to show the evolution of the lie that is AGW; Enjoy, and if you want to concentrate on anything this gem would be a great start.

Niocan wrote:http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/
This is a beautiful chart made to show the evolution of the lie that is AGW; Enjoy, and if you want to concentrate on anything this gem would be a great start.

From your posts here I take it you don't believe that humans have had a noticeable effect on the climate.

I'm here to ask you, so what?

It is a fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising. You can't dispute that, you can even measure them yourself. It is also a fact that global average temperatures have risen dramatically recently. This is also an undisputed fact. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, also a fact. You can do the experiment your self if you want. Humans spew out CO2 into the atmosphere, also a fact.

Now, given all of the above as fact, the only question that remains is:
Is human-emitted CO2 the primary cause of the warming we see? [don't even try to question that it is at least part of the warming, no matter how tiny a fraction]

The above question is essentially where the "controversy" thrives. Now I ask, even if humans aren't primarily causing global warming, aren't all the solutions to global warming beneficial to us anyway? In other words, even if humans have nothing to do with global warming, and it's all a hoax; we should still be using renewable energy sources and protecting our environment.

Coal, oil, and natural gas will run out sooner or later. Some predict as early as 2050. Sure, we might find even more remote sources of those fuels, but eventually it will be cheaper to build wind farms and solar panels than to drill 20 miles into the crust for oil. By converting now, we save ourselves the pain of doing it later.

Also... although I admit this would take a very long time to happen, but it could: Carbon dioxide is a toxin [to humans], and if atmospheric levels rise too high, zomg zombie apocalypse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity
Admittedly we would have to have around 20x-30x what we currently have, but I like to take the long view.