• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Global Warming ???

Sententia

Well-Known Member
The US Senate didn't make this stuff up.

Pointless.

This is information received by them FROM a large segment of the scientific community.

LOL.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is caused by anthropogenic causes and your argument is sure but there is a large segment of dissenters...

So lets focus for a second on this. Do more people believe climate change is caused by man or not? We can quote studies and have a link fest but the point is some of us have done our homework. You have not. When you are arguing from ignorance you do this weird confirmation bias posting and your critical thinking skills seem to fly out the window.

More scientists think that climate change is being driven by anthropogenic causes but you want to use the descriptive term of "LARGE SEGMENT" in terms of the community. And by Large you mean like 700.

How do you accurately represent a group which is clearly smaller then then the consensus as large? You just think 700 is large?

Why are you so strongly opinionated on something you clearly have not spent a lot of time looking into? Why do you care so much to repeat other peoples arguments that I'm not convinced you understand.

Rick, I keep posting this report, which has over 700 prominent, very well respected scientists worldwide commenting IN DETAIL about their reservations and even outright denial of the theory of global warming - but so far not one person has commented on this information.

This is what I mean... Confirmation bias... You found a link your gonna keep harping on that represents the opinion you apparently already hold. Like a doctor in the 1800's going along with the widespread belief that bloodletting cured sickness.

Oh, by the way - it's supposed to snow again tonight and then again on Wednesday here in east Texas.

That will be the fifth and sixth snowfall we've received in less than one year.

Unprecedented!

Because Unprecedented snow fall somehow supports your point of view? This type of ignorant clown car nonsense is why I try to steer clear of people who take a religious view that opposes a scientific theory. You do not have the respect or class to research a topic but will happily bash it with pompous silliness I presume you think is clever.

How do you want someone to respond to oh and btw more snow...

There's that phrase "climate change" rather than "global warming" again

:facepalm: Your not going to familiarize yourself with why one would use the name "climate change" over "global warming", the controversy itself, the IPCC etc etc but you want everyone else too and then come back and tell you your wrong so you can point out that there are respected scientists that disagree with the scientific theory.

Sure Kathryn... there are also respected scientists that disagree with evolution. (Perhaps even more the 700!) Other respected scientists spend all their spare time UFO hunting and working on anti-gravity machines. I do thank you for your amusing statement though:

Being the skeptic that I am - in general - I immediately started googling the names of these particular scientists, and from what I could tell, they are indeed well respected and legitimate scientists.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
When you are arguing from ignorance you do this weird confirmation bias posting and your critical thinking skills seem to fly out the window.
I urge caution against accusing others of arguing from ignorance. How do we know you aren't doing the same? Are you a climatologist?
Confirmation bias dogs both sides. How often do we hear that a warm winter is evidence of GW...a cold winder is evidence of GW....a
hot summer is evidence of GW....a wet summer, fewer hurricanes snowy winter, etc, etc.
 

Noaidi

slow walker
...it would still be naive and dangerous to let the matter go.

I agree, Luis.

The Precautionary Principle:

"Environment management rule that if a threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment or human health exists, a lack of full scientific knowledge about the situation should not be allowed to delay containment or remedial steps if the balance of potential costs and benefits justifies enacting them. In other words, "prevention is better than cure." Also called preventative principle."

I think there is enough evidence for the climatic effects of CO2 and methane to suggest that we show restraint in their emission, despite not knowing all the evidence.
 

Sententia

Well-Known Member
You have to admit, they did not remain sick much longer. :p

I guess if your goal is simply just eradicate illness quickly. Reminds me in a similar fashion of how some claim to have 'shrunk' the number unemployed. (Well their not getting unemployment checks so therefore they are employed compared to well their not breathing anymore so I guess their not sick)

I urge caution against accusing others of arguing from ignorance. How do we know you aren't doing the same? Are you a climatologist?
Confirmation bias dogs both sides. How often do we hear that a warm winter is evidence of GW...a cold winder is evidence of GW....a
hot summer is evidence of GW....a wet summer, fewer hurricanes snowy winter, etc, etc.

I said ignorant clown car nonsense. I remember being at a circus as a kid and listening to a few people explaining to their kid(s) how 23 clowns can fit in such a little clown car and the "BTW unprecedented snowfall argument" presented as some kind of support that the scientific of theory of climate change is false just kinda reminded me of that. ;)

But the argument presented is like this:

stop-global-warming-cartoon.gif


Compared with this:

Horsey-hoax_t620.jpg


Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. The current theory of climate change does not preclude unprecedented snowfall.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. The current theory of climate change does not preclude unprecedented snowfall.
No argument here. It makes sense to study the issue, & not jump off any cliffs prematurely.....wait, that didn't come out right.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Kathryn, here's the thing: You, Rick, and the other climate change deniers can preach pseudoskepticism all you want to us. What I don't think you understand about our reaction is that WE DON'T WANT CLIMATE CHANGE TO BE TRUE. We would much rather it if CO2 were nothing more than a harmless, odorless gas that helps maintain life as we know it. Unfortunately--and this is a well-documented fact, no matter how much you try to deny it--in the concentrations it is in, and especially in the concentrations it is projected to be in, we simply have too much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. That is a fact, as well-established as gravity and the roundness of the Earth.

Wait, wait, wait a damn minute.

I am not denying climate change is occurring. I have never once denied that.

All that I have done is answer the challenge to provide evidence that many credible members of the scientific community question the theory of global warming.

My issue with the entire subject is that it IS so politically charged, and that's unfortunate because it makes finding the truth challenging.

Being the skeptic that I am, I take a hard look at topics like this one, and I try to determine the agenda of those touting their opinions.

That doesn't mean I bury my head in the sand and deny facts, and in particular one fact that I think is obvious is that we are experiencing climate change. What I am trying to do is determine the reasons, and to put this particular change in historical perspective.

I am not a scientist specializing in this field, so unfortunately all I can do is gather facts and information from those who are. The distressing thing is that their voices can be hard to hear over the cacophony of those who would use climate change to further their own personal agendas.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Some of you are real goobers. Please show me one post in which I've denied the the existance of climate change.
 

Alceste

Vagabond

RealClimate: A brief history of knowledge about Antarctic temperatures

"Ryan O’Donnell: Our paper in the Journal of Climate shows a somewhat better way to look at the same data. Antarctica is warming a bit more in summer, and a bit less in winter in the Ross Sea region. In fall it is cooling a bit more too, and so the overall trends are smaller. Still, West Antarctica is definitely warming significantly, as Steig et al. found. That’s interesting.
Eric Steig: Nice paper Ryan. Thanks for sending along a pre-print.
Steve McIntyre: Hey, we got published in the Journal of Climate! Another paper showing that the “team” made up the data again! (Sotto voce): Ryan says it it is warming a bit more in summer, and a bit less in winter in the Ross Sea region. In fall it is cooling a bit more. Otherwise we get the same results, though the magnitude of the trends is smaller. But West Antarctica is still warming significantly. But I really don’t care. The peer review process is broken, which is why.. umm…our paper was published in the leading climate journal.
Liberal Media: That paper wasn’t published in Nature, so we’re not very interested.
Conservative Media: Antarctica is cooling. Global warming is a fraud.
Public: zzzZZZzzz
————-


Sorry, Rick, but you're missing the point. Do you or do you not concede that the AGW concept is coherent and, if properly understood, accounts for your bad winter?

I'm not interested in a he said, she said review of terrible science reporting in mainstream publications. Give me peer reviewed, published research or articles written by climatologists or just write your own opinion. There's no reason for me to take the ramblings of unqualified bloggers and journalists any more or less seriously than your own. :)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Some of you are real goobers. Please show me one post in which I've denied the the existance of climate change.
That's the main problem I see with the GW debate....it you challenge a tenet, then you challenge the whole faith.
Too many people with no background in science, let alone climatology, are overly protective of their beliefs.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I agree, Revoltingest. The very fact that I pay some attention to conflicting viewpoints is suddenly grasped upon as rank ignorance - when in reality it's healthy to weigh the agenda of those touting something as truth while determining whether or not to believe in the information they're presenting.

I am skeptical of people on both sides of the question of global warming. And I'm at a disadvantage, because I'm NOT a scientist.

And I don't know of any other RF members who are professional scientists either.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Alceste, Balance, and others - care to show me where I've denied the evidence of climate change?
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I agree, Revoltingest. The very fact that I pay some attention to conflicting viewpoints is suddenly grasped upon as rank ignorance - when in reality it's healthy to weigh the agenda of those touting something as truth while determining whether or not to believe in the information they're presenting.

I am skeptical of people on both sides of the question of global warming. And I'm at a disadvantage, because I'm NOT a scientist.

And I don't know of any other RF members who are professional scientists either.
Kathryn, again you've been bamboozled into posting a PR industry generated tract in place of credible source. This isn't "listening to the other side". Can't you tell just from reading the first few pages that it is nothing more than an exercise in disingenuous quote mining, like the creationists lists?
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Alceste - my post was in response to the challenge presented to Rick to provide names of credible scientists who question the theory of global warming.

I listed several sources - not just one.

I did not claim that they are right or wrong - I simply posted the names of many scientists who question the theory. As I did, you can google their names for further information on each one and make up your own mind as to whether or not their questions or challenges hold any water.

I think that you will find that many of them do indeed question global warming. Now - whether they are right or wrong really isn't the issue. The challenge was not to prove whether or not global warming exists - it was simply to provide a list of scientists who question the theory.

I have not argued for or against actual global warming. However, I do find it ironic and sort of humorous that we're discussing it when snow is forecast for east Texas, not once, but TWICE in the upcoming week - and when we've had the coldest winter here in years, with record snow and ice.

It's just FUNNY, Alceste - it's called HUMOR and IRONY. Now - you may not find it funny at all, but humor is subjective.

I think it's hilarious myself.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Just google for "global warming cold" and you will see that things aren't nearly as controversial as you want to believe them, Kathryn.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Kathryn, Rick claimed that scientists are predicting an ice age. How does your list support that claim?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think we're already doing all we can to keep the globe warm.

Leave the coal out, though. It pollutes everything with mercury and causes acid rain, to say nothing of the environmental impact of the mining itself.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Do you believe Al Gore's claim that climate change is irreversible?

Pretty much. I'm a bit surprised that so few people share his worries. We ought to expect this predatory stance to Earth to have consequences, after all.

In fact, we have antecedents, such as the destruction of the Aral Sea.

The History of the Aral Sea :: About the Aral Sea disaster. Map of the Aral Sea. Pictures of the Aral Sea. Tourism & travel to the dying Aral Sea. The Aral Sea basin. Where is the Aral Sea?

One of these days I must read that book from Al Gore, but even if he turns out to be full of BS (which he certainly isn't to any degree comparable to what his detractors claim), the environmental challenges are certainly serious and urgent.

It took me a while to realize that Rev Rick thought I was kidding about hoping to see him elected. I was deeply disappointed with GWB way back when he suggested the commerce of air polution quotas among countries.

It is simply not reasonable to expect this ever-growing approach to natural resources not to collapse, after all. In all sincerity, we should be discussing how to estabilize population levels and how to better exploit eolic electricity already.

But from what I have seen, it is a hard message to sell to Americans. Some of you apparently believe that preserving wealth levels is not only a valid political goal, but even the main one.

Sorry, folks, but the reality of the world just ain't gonna support that. You should have a taste of what true poverty is one of these days. Brazil has one of the most serious spreads of wealth in the world, and let me tell you, it is really troubling.
 
Top