Bold political leadership!

Started by Harvey Birdman, June 22, 2007, 09:02:17 am

Previous topic - Next topic

nvseal

Quote from: Will on July 11, 2007, 05:01:09 pm
I think its technically a theory which is much stronger then a hypothesis and has more research and "proof" behind it. I say "proof" because nothing can ever be proved as fact in science (nothing have be proved but everything can be disproved).

edit: spelling


It is not a theory. A theory would mean that it was a hypothesis which has been tested again and again and proved correct over others. Global warming has not. As I have said before, global warming climate models based on the manmade hypothesis have been proven wrong several times. At the same time, non-manmade global warming models have been correct.

Will

the data from ice cores seems to indicate that we are in the warmed time in five and a half million years by a small amount but an amount large enough to not correspond with the rest.
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

nvseal

Quote from: Will on July 11, 2007, 05:23:47 pm
the data from ice cores seems to indicate that we are in the warmed time in five and a half million years by a small amount but an amount large enough to not correspond with the rest.


1) I don't believe the earth is five and a half million years old. 2) Are you saying that there was once a time that the earth was at the currect temperature without mankind to screw it up? And 3) Even if that is what ice cores suggest the question is is mankind to blame and the ice cores don't tell us the answer to that question.

old_blaggard

Just to hop into this a little....
I do believe in global warming, but I try to keep an open mind.  All of the scientific data that I have seen points to it.  I agree that it's not a fact - everything about it is based off of statistical analysis.  However, the numbers do seem to be showing a significant increase in worldwide temperature, as well as an increase in greenhouse gasses, which would seem to imply that global warming is reality.  However, if you have/have seen some data that challenges this analysis, I would definitely like to see it and would give it serious consideration.
http://www.terragen.org - A great Terragen resource with models, contests, galleries, and forums.

Will

First, well then how old do you think it is? Second no the earth does go though cycles of heating and warms and there are variations in these (ice ages, really warm periods, etc) But ours is continuing to climb much higher than the rest. From what I've seen is seems that the rate of warming really started to increase around the time of the industrial revolution. By the amount of oil we burn its really not that surprising that we would have at least a noticeable effect. That being said we have became much more efficient as of late and what we are feeling could be that of fifty years ago.

edit: I'm along with O_B on this one so far I have looked at everything you have shown and given it thought.
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

nvseal

The question is not, does global warming exist (it does, but it is not as drastic as the hype would have you believe)? The question is, is man to blame. I would say the answer is no. There are other explanations (for example, see the global warming swindle). The sun, for example -- the giant ball of gas, many times larger than earth from which we get all energy -- is to me a much better explanation for global warming than something as small as industry and automobiles.

Will

well global warming does come from the sun but its more of a thing about how the earth lose heat.  Green house gases are a wonderful thing, they allow life to exist and keep the earth form being an ice ball but too much of a good thing can be bad in our case it the build of of these gases that are trapping the heat from the sun and thats whats warming us up.
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

nvseal

Quote from: Will on July 11, 2007, 05:41:34 pm
First, well then how old do you think it is? Second no the earth does go though cycles of heating and warms and there are variations in these (ice ages, really warm periods, etc) But ours is continuing to climb much higher than the rest. From what I've seen is seems that the rate of warming really started to increase around the time of the industrial revolution. By the amount of oil we burn its really not that surprising that we would have at least a noticeable effect. That being said we have became much more efficient as of late and what we are feeling could be that of fifty years ago.

edit: I'm along with O_B on this one so far I have looked at everything you have shown and given it thought.


First, I think the earth is somewhere in the area of 10,000 years old. Second, an example. During the post World War 2 period, when carbon dioxide emissions (the supposed cause of global warming) rose dramatically during the following economic boom, the temperature decreased -- even though it had been increasing prior to 1940. If carbon emissions are in fact to blame for global warming as its advocates would have us believe, the tempearture should have increased.

nvseal

July 11, 2007, 06:12:05 pm #83 Last Edit: July 12, 2007, 01:54:09 am by nvseal
Quote from: Will on July 11, 2007, 06:03:38 pm
well global warming does come from the sun but its more of a thing about how the earth lose heat.  Green house gases are a wonderful thing, they allow life to exist and keep the earth form being an ice ball but too much of a good thing can be bad in our case it the build of of these gases that are trapping the heat from the sun and thats whats warming us up.


Mankind's emission of green house gases is very small incomparison to other things such as volcanoes, animals, bacteria etc. Solar activity and global temperature shifts have also correlated very very closely over the past century -- much more closely than mankind's carbon emissions.

Will

July 11, 2007, 06:15:03 pm #84 Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 06:37:07 pm by Will
or it could be delayed I don't have proof of this but it could be true. frankly I don't care to much about how big our effect on it is I just think we should try to find more efficient forms of energy even for the fact that we wouldn't have to rely on such unstable areas as the middle east for it. Also if the earth was 10,000 years I don't think we would have so much oil though I could be wrong about that and its your own option.

P.s.  yea and I'm not saying those don't have an effect but we could be the straw that break the camel's back.

P.S...S. for fun I made a Planetside Debate club logo.
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

Volker Harun

Hey Will,
Scientists have two ways to judge earth's age.
By the sediments and by fossils.
The geologists judge the age of a sediment by the kind of fossils found.
The paleontologists (?) judge the age of fossils with help of the sediment.

But - after Mount St. Helens has its last eruption, they were able to find fossils of trees and they found oil. After 10 years.

I like that logo, by the way ,-)

rcallicotte

I think we've talked about all of this as much as we can without driving it in the ground. 


Quote from: nvseal on July 11, 2007, 04:46:51 pm
Quote from: calico on July 11, 2007, 09:15:22 am
The choice isn't between extreme left and extreme right, but common sense.  This is otherwise known as balance...something our political system has drifted ashore from.


What does that have to do with what I said? Capitalism is common sense.
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

rcallicotte

Cooool.  Fits right in.   :D

Quote from: Will on July 11, 2007, 06:15:03 pm
P.S...S. for fun I made a Planetside Debate club logo.
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?