Software

General discussion

Locked

What About Global Warming?

By FluxIt ·
I read through several Global Warming threads and saw many things that were curious. Then I came across this article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

While I have not made a decision on the human contribution to Global Warming, I have a tendency towards a neglible impact. I believe that Global Warming is a natural process and that the natural has a greater impact on the climate than human influence. Certianly, humans cause an impact but it is usually a whisp in the spanse of time and space.

What do you think about the article?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Obviously.

by Absolutely In reply to Nerve endings

Oz_Media, to sn53: "You are obviously unable to engage in rational dialogue with anyone who isn't wholly agreeing with you, as your previous posts demonstrate."

I challenge you to review my exchanges with sn53, beginning in the thread he started called "Preemptive Surrender Disorder", where you will see that he is obviously very able to engage in rational dialogue, with someone who, to put it mildly, "isn't wholly agreeing with" him.

Collapse -

Abso and me

by sn53 In reply to Obviously.

abso wrote, "I challenge you to review my exchanges with sn53, beginning in the thread he started called "Preemptive Surrender Disorder", where you will see that he is obviously very able to engage in rational dialogue, with someone who, to put it mildly, "isn't wholly agreeing with" him."

What? We didn't agree? I suppose we didn't. But that is okay. I enjoyed it and learned a few things in the bargain. Among the things I learned is that every one is at least as complex as I am.

For those who have not come by I invite you. I do not expect many of you to agree with me. If many did the Democrats would not have won, not even by the slim margins they managed, and we would not be in a position where the Dangerous party would control this nation.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=211753&messageID=2174443

Collapse -

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

by deepsand In reply to Obviously.

But, in that same discussion, and elsewhere, is clear evidence to the contrary as well.

Collapse -

deepsand: Was that ad hominem, or do we need to use the Latin...

by Absolutely In reply to Obviously.

for "squirrel"? Perhaps you have invented a brand new category, the argumentum ad rodentum fallacy!

Collapse -

Absolutely: Sorry, but my Latin's a bit rusty.

by deepsand In reply to Obviously.

And, there is no fallacy in my statement re. sn53.

That he may occasionally give the appearance of engaging in rational discourse does not mean that he generally, let alone always, does so.

Collapse -

Re. "A claimed "fact" based on less than 100% certainty is a lie."

by deepsand In reply to Not at all.

Really? Clearly you fail to understand the scientific method.

Furthermore, do you in fact live your life based only on those things which are certain, i.e. 100% guaranteed to be true, to happen, to have happened, etc.? I think not.

Most importantly, as re. the matter at hand, using your own stated criteria, since it is not 100% established that man bears no responsibility for climate change, the claim that such is the case is false.

Collapse -

What is important?

by sn53 In reply to Now you're really out on ...

oz wrote, "At first the debate was man-caused global warming. Well nobody has stated that we CAUSED global warming..."

Really? Isn't that the whole point of the global warming crowd? After all, if we are not causing global warming then there not much to fear-monger over is there?

"Man's emissions INCREASING the natural effects is the real debate, get on track."

You go where you want. I will do the same. A radio talk show host mentioned, today, while I was driving home, that humans are responsible for less than 4% of all of the carbon dioxide emissions. I don't know if that is a valid number or not. It really doesn't matter. We have important matters to resolve. This is not one of them.

Collapse -

Re. "We have important matters to resolve."

by deepsand In reply to What is important?

Yes; and, perhaps one of these days you'll figure out what they are. For the present, however, you are, by your own self-imposed ignorance of the facts, clueless.

Collapse -

You can't say that the amount is too small to

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to What About Global Warming ...

have an impact because of the butterfly effect.
How much of anything you need to tip the currently stable system into an other pattern is something we are incapable of quantifying.

We can't say whether other human influenced factors add or decrease the risk of change.

We can't say how big a change, we can't say how long it will last.

We can't say what other cyclical influences may impact and how they will.

So given that level of ignorance, what worth is a politically inspired guess to either outcome?

Nil ,nada, nothing, print it out on soft paper, wipe your arse with it.

The only sensible position in my eyes is to look at limiting our impact on the environment, because that only risks certain vested interest's current profits.

Collapse -

Chaos Theory and American-made Global Warming

by sn53 In reply to You can't say that the am ...

Tony said, "You can't say that the amount is too small to have an impact because of the butterfly effect."

Chaos theory says that very minor changes in the initial state of a complex system can lead to major changes over time. It does not take a stand on whether the changes will be positive or negative. For all we know, giving carbon tax money to the United Nations will result in world-wide catastrophe and the next ice age. On the other hand, given human nature it is unlikely that giving additional power and control to corrupt politicians will have anything but an ill-effect.

"How much of anything you need to tip the currently stable system into an other pattern is something we are incapable of quantifying."

It is not stable. The earth has been in a warming pattern since the end of the last ice age. It is a good thing. We ought to recognize that changes in climate are an inherent part of the very complex solar system (with emphasis on that great nuclear furnace, Sol).

"The only sensible position in my eyes is to look at limiting our impact on the environment, because that only risks certain vested interest's current profits. "

Chaos theory suggests, since you brought it up, that there are many sensible positions, an infinite number in fact. And what do you have against profits? They are the reason you can interact on this forum.

Related Discussions

Related Forums