Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, Nomander, it's happening - right before your very eyes - but you refuse to see it. You can't see the forest for the trees.
Actually, I am looking at it right now. You however are attempting to tell me that what I actually see is an illusion, that your position which is not properly supported and is contrary to observed data is somehow correct.
Can you explain that? /boggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
The evidence is that the "core" ice is melting, and at an alarming rate. What the scientists are telling us are the facts; which don't leave room for speculation. Denial won't stop the progress of the truth.
Actually, I just showed you the evidence. Where is that "alarming rate" in the data? Go ahead, point to it up there and show us the "alarming rate of loss" in the arctic.
Denial? Really? In the face of the facts I presented, you are saying I am in denial? You are asking me to "deny" the facts and accept your unsupported suppositions? I thought we were talking about science, but you seem to be focused on tenants of religion.
Im not sure what all this data is supposed to show. Reputedly good data exists only since 1979, which is nothing in the grand scheme of things.
If we're to be working in tenths or even hundreds of a degree of accuracy, as the global warming alarmists do, we need hundreds of years of PERFECT data, which doesnt exist, and probably will never exist. Ice cores and trees only give very vague indications of past climatic conditions. Regardless of your opinions, the quality of the data that exists today can neither prove nor disprove anything.
Agreed, our available records are a drop in the bucket of the entire flow of the system.
I am only using the same narrow amount of data they are using to show that their own suppositions of that data isn't fitting their claims.
The ocean isn't heating up rapidly, the arctic isn't showing a spiral and the Antarctic is actually growing above its 30 year average.
I am not saying that things can not change, we could go warmer or cooler, but the main point is they do not know either and anyone attempting to claim otherwise is a liar.
Well, Nomander, the "tenants of religion" are structurally false to facts. Your facts are not what the scientific community (both government and private) accept as probable. You can dispute the scientists; you can challenge their credibility; you can express your opinion - but none of that is evidence. The evidence is that global warming is happening - here and now - and there can be no denial of the fact.
Agreed, our available records are a drop in the bucket of the entire flow of the system.
I am only using the same narrow amount of data they are using to show that their own suppositions of that data isn't fitting their claims.
The ocean isn't heating up rapidly, the arctic isn't showing a spiral and the Antarctic is actually growing above its 30 year average.
I am not saying that things can not change, we could go warmer or cooler, but the main point is they do not know either and anyone attempting to claim otherwise is a liar.
Well, the rest of the world doesn’t agree with you. So, the question is: Do we lead? - Do we follow? - Or do we step aside, while the rest of the world proceeds to do something positive? When this becomes a "real" crisis, you can damn well "believe" that the American public will take you, and your lot, and throw it into the trash.
Actually, that is incorrect. The evidence does not support such, rather it is the suppositions of some in the field to which you speak of. Remember, model projections are not evidence.
{snip}
You first must show that these losses are directly attributed to man and not fluctuation of natural cycles. The ozone depletion due to man has already been shown through observed evidence that there is no link to man, this is why many people don't bring that up much anymore because the actual validated research (empirical studies over the past many years since the hypothesis was made) shows no such link.
The problem here is that the science isn't based on the empirical evidence, rather it is being based on modeled assumptions. Look really closely at the research you may use. How much of it is solid observed data and how much of it is actually suppositions compounded using computer models? Also, what does the raw data say when compared to that of the modeled data? Do you see a problem?
As for politics, which is exactly what you are suggesting by urging action without proper scientific verification, validation, and replication... well, that is irrelevant unless you are attempting to promote political agenda over that of scientific process.
It fits their world view that government intervention, thru the enactment of more dictatorial powers over the people, is the only answer to every perceived problem.
The mountain rumbles in disapproval, and they run out to grab a virgin to sacrifice to appease the angry fire god.
Well, the rest of the world doesn’t agree with you. So, the question is: Do we lead? - Do we follow? - Or do we step aside, while the rest of the world proceeds to do something positive? When this becomes a "real" crisis, you can damn well "believe" that the American public will take you, and your lot, and throw it into the trash.
Follow the free government money, there is trillions in free money to be made by aligning yourself with the government, and all you need to do is sacrifice virgins to the fire god.
Well, Nomander, the "tenants of religion" are structurally false to facts. Your facts are not what the scientific community (both government and private) accept as probable. You can dispute the scientists; you can challenge their credibility; you can express your opinion - but none of that is evidence. The evidence is that global warming is happening - here and now - and there can be no denial of the fact.
They are not "my" facts, they are THE facts.
Are you under some illusion that the graphs I posted are from some nefarious source? They are from the actual agencies. So explain how what they show is not what they are showing? By all means.
As for their creditability, I could give a flying flip about that. If you have even a remote and infantile understanding of scientific process, then you know that their creditability or that of their "opinion" is irrelevant.
What matters is what they can show to be evident through proper scientific process. Now when you want to discuss science little boy, you get back to me, otherwise you can take your propaganda BS and ship off!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
