Positive effects of Global Warming?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Sadistic-Savior, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Again we ask - what opposing evidence? Please post some and we will review it
     
  2. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And what does this have to do with my post about your10 quotes and your idiotic implication that AGW must be wrong because 10 scientists came to incorrect conclusions?

    Deflection, perhaps?
     
  3. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Wow, you guys sure don't pay much attention to detail. I never said that AGW is wrong or that we are not contributing to global warming.
     
  4. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what was the point of your list?
     
  5. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh yeah, I don't buy into the doomsday scenarios that most warmers do. Science is often wrong and if you look under the surface of the doomsday scenarios, you find many scientists that caution about long term predictions. You will also find that the "science" changes constantly as new things are discovered.

    I swear, the warmers act like everything is already known as fact when most of this is theory based on some fact and that theory has changed over the last ten years and will change over the next.

    So far only a few papers have addressed the sudden changes of climate and why it happens. Some think it will happen again as it has a multitude of times in the past. Some thing it can happen again soon (not soon as in a generation but soon as in some thousands of years). Some even think AGW will trigger the next glacial period sooner.

    So I keep asking the questions. What will we do when this interglacial ends? Why is warming bad (warmers can only seem to think of bad things)? Why do warmers look at warming as a bad thing when cooling is much worse? Do warmers think they can install a thermostat and control the earth?
     
  6. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Apparently you don't know either, since you are unable to cite it.

    Why don't we just agree that there is no such evidence?
     
  7. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, science is not often wrong. If you compare the number of times science is right to the number of times science is wrong you would see that science is very rarely wrong.
    Science does not constantly change. Science never changes. The conclusions derived from science occasionally, not constantly, change if, and only if, new new evidence is found. That is why the concept of "proof" is not used in science. If, and only if, new data or evidence about AGW disputes the current evidence and data, new conclusions will be accepted. Until then, science demands that the conclusions reached from current data and evidence be accepted. Deniers attempt to use unkown or uncertain speculation as a way to dispute current conclusions.
    Name that theory or fact.
    Incorrect.
    Sudden changes of climate has happened rarely in the past and the consequences have been catastrophic for the environment.
    Yes, climate change will again happen over thousands of years, just as it has happened in the past.

    If the interglacial ends over a period of thousands of years, humans and the environment will adapt. If the temperature changes drastically over a period of 100 years, humans and the environment will be forced to adapt quickly with possibly catastrophic consequences.
    This "Warmer" does not think of only bad things, but thinks that the bad things will outnumber the good things. Whether cooling or warming is worse is irrelevant. The sudden disruption in weather patterns is relevant; whether that disruption comes about from cooling or warming is irrelevant.

    One more time! No one is attempting to install a thermostat. No one attempting to control the earth. No one is attempting to control the weather. No one is attempting to control the population. Scientists are attempting to allow the earth to do what it has naturally done for millions of years. The earth has never had to compensate for a sudden increase of CO2 by humans into the air. The earth has compensated for a sudden natural increase in CO2 in the past; and the consequences to the environment were catastrophic.
     
  8. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yet another person who is confusing bad journalism with science only this time there seems to be some bad Hollywood scripting in there as well
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spoken like a true believer.
     
  10. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    OK.
    - You have ignored the fact that a top expert on hurricanes says that scientists lied, and thus the peer reviewed publications lied,
    - You have ignored the fact that he resigned because of fascists methods of suppression of any objecting and objective voice telling that scientists lied, and thus the peer reviewed publications lied
    - You have ignored the fact that everyone can see that severity and frequency of hurricanes has not increased during 40 years of “recorded” AGW and thus the and thus peer reviewed publications lied

    - You have ignored the fact top expert Israel who has the most impressive record of real, tangible achievements in the world, saying that scientists lied, did bad science,

    - You have ignored the fact that one can see that with his own eyes reading news and talking to people and recalling his own experience about hurricanes,

    you want me to site a publication which says it lies for you to believe that it does.

    The point is that all publication claiming that frequency and severity of hurricanes increased and/or it did due to GW lie according Dr. Landsea cited for you 3 times and according to everyone who lives in reality. And if there is no such publications then the top warmist has intentionally lied to the public.

    I did not intend to prove to a liar that he is a liar. I had no such intention. All I do I demonstrate and expose scientific way of thinking and acting to the general public and let the public decide who has submitted facts and who has ignored them and submitted no facts, and thus who is a liar.

    I am an old farmer and my son is an old seaman; we cannot read and understand peer reviewed publications. But our activity depends on weather and we can see. And we can see who is a liar and who is not.
    We can see that I asked to pretend that hurricane activity has increased.
    A high school drop out like myself can see that I asked you to make columns and coordinate them with observed reality, to compare apples to apples..
    You did not do.
    You did not attempt to do.
    You did not even attempt to pour dirt on the top hurricane expert as you usually do.
    You have not addressed the topic and facts.
    One does not have to know algebra to see that.
    A Mumbo Jumbo tribe man can see that.


    I do not discuss evidence. I do not care if you have tons of it. I present no evidence. I observe and present happenings of reality and state facts. They show that scientists are liars. You may have tons of evidence, but you do not address facts and observations.

    Here I started summarizing ALL possible evidence and arguments of warmists. http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...el-duped-climate-change-7.html#post1060843749

    Let me quote myself:


    http://lib.ru/ILFPETROV/ilf_petrov_12_chairs_engl.txt

    CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO


    ELLOCHKA THE CANNIBAL

    William Shakespeare's vocabulary has been estimated by the experts at twelve thousand words. The vocabulary of a Negro from the Mumbo Jumbo tribe amounts to three hundred words.
    Ellochka Shukin managed easily and fluently on thirty.
    Here are the words, phrases and interjections which she fastidiously picked from the great, rich and expressive Russian language:
    [….here I quote the 30… ] “

    When Ellochka had 30 words all Bowgirl’s arguments may be brought down to less then a dozen.

    1. You don’t understand science (evolution) (climate)(Marxism), don’t you?
    2. You should get some education.
    3. 97% of scientists are wrong and you are right?
    4. 97% of scientists believe in global warming.
    5. read this:
    somethingImyslefcannotunderstandbutitisfrommyside. com.NASA.gov
    6. You really think it is a conspiracy?
    7. scientists can be easily bough by oil companies money, scientists cannot be bought by government’s money extracted from taxpayers. Oil and government use different money.
    8. …. Not too many more are there

    now cassandrabra has came up with anew one:

    13. You have submitted 12 equations; IF I prove (using arguments listed above) that one of them is wrong, will you accept that others are wrong?
    14. I did not say that
    15. You have not proven anything.

    Still, a typical AWG believer cannot make up to the intellectual level of Ellochka Cannibal and the level of the MumboJumbo tribe is like a Nobel Prize for a warmer. I mean the Nobel Peace prize.
    end of quote

    I hope everyone sees that when facts are represented to warmists they revoke argument #15 as the last one and they always win. They all are sure they do win.

    -You have not addressed Dr. Landsea
    -you have not addressed the top academician Y.Izrael
    -you have not addressed the observations of a basic farmer or anyone who reads world’s news and follows accounts of witnesses.
    -you have not addressed the topic.
    But you quickly fall in the state of denial always winning any debate. It is not difficult for any honest person to see who is denialist. I am just appealing to common sense and common decency of everyone who is not a scientist yet and has not been completely brainwashed by scientists.

    How then can I understand a peer reviewed publication on hurricanes if you deny that the top hurricane expert can understand what Trenberth said about hurricanes and what his words “we cannot account for global warming” mean? All I do I appeal to common sense and decency of the general public, to high school drop outs like myself, to carpenters and nurses. I just hope I make it easy for them to see that I submitted a reference demonstrating that Trenberth made such statement, and there was no doubt that he made it and media did not lie, media brought it to general public accurately. It is easy to see that you're revoking argument #15 again.


    You are contradicting yourself. Either we have seen hurricane increase as Trenberth informed us or we have not as the top hurricane expert and our own observations inform us. Which one you standing for?

    If it is true that
    -we have not seeing troubling and unusual events during 40 years of scare and predictions of a certain type in spite of pumping CO2 like there is no tomorrow,
    -if the top warmists consent to the email stating that “we cannot account for global warming’’ and our sense and observations and world news confirm such a fact
    -then those who step on the same rake again and again and expect a different result are mentally handicapped. http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/227797-basic-bottom-line-argument-god-12.html#post1060795552

    Shall I remind that Bowegirl posted a deceiving graph and 3 posters posted the citations from a top hurricane expert and our own observations which can be verified by any carpenter? I shall. Does not hurt me.

    there are people who lived in 70th and followed science. Contrarily to the overwhelming evidence and data presented in today’s scientific publications they remember and know as a fact that cooling was prevailing over warming in the scientific community. The warming has won by political methods as a more impressive scare for the general public. But only evolutionists dismiss the cooling scare of 70th making the list of positive and negative of warming scare. Evolutionists call such dismissal of facts which do not fit their beliefs “homogenizing, smoothing data and cleaning noise” and “the scientific method”.

    Even if to take another warmist lie as true then 1/3 of scientists looking at the same reality were not in an error, they were not going in the wrong direction, they were 180 opposite to the truth, they devoted their life to looking at the reality upside down. Looking at the same data (up to 1970th) as it is available today they saw cooling. Now looking at the same data the same 33% of scientists see warming. You want tell me what new laws of mature climate science has discovered since 1970th, don’t you? If not I have to point again that science is makes logical conclusions based on empirical evidence, it ignores laws and happenings observed in nature, like you have been ignoring all facts and observations submitted to you and other warmers 5 times.


    I do not believe or don’t believe evidence, I completely ignore empirical evidence and I ignore logic based on empirical evidence. I discuss such things on Religion sub forum and not too often. This sub-forum is not only dedicated to religion and personal beliefs but it is also about technology.

    Why are you here?
     
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    When you get near a point please make it.

    Reading this is like trying to read an untranslated version of "War and Peace" with added blather
     
  12. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A says B lied, B says he didn't, and you assume A is telling the truth, without checking? On what basis?

    No, you have.

    [​IMG]

    Do you know where the graph above comes from? It comes from Dr. Chris Landsea. Here's the data.

    Maybe that's why nobody believes what you say.
     
  13. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63

    “ http://lib.ru/ILFPETROV/ilf_petrov_12_chairs_engl.txt

    CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO


    ELLOCHKA THE CANNIBAL

    William Shakespeare's vocabulary has been estimated by the experts at twelve thousand words. The vocabulary of a Negro from the Mumbo Jumbo tribe amounts to three hundred words.
    Ellochka Shukin managed easily and fluently on thirty.”

    I suggested that when Ellochka THE CANNIBAL managed easily and fluently on thirty, all BowgirlÂ’s arguments may be brought down to less then a dozen I listed.

    I specifically noted that my suggestion was not final and I was still working on it. Since you insist that going through my list is like trying to read an untranslated version of "War and Peace" with added blather, I will take it into my consideration. May be youÂ’re right and the dozen can be brought down to just one. It looks like setting the plank at the level of ellochka was too high for the believers in AWG. I am narrowing down to the one tentatively marked #15. Thank you for your input. I am working on it.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...past-10-years-study-shows.html#post1060844086
    (For some reason the link in the above does not work right. You can even more of a help if find my original post about Ellochka the cannibal. )
     
  14. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is 3 “NO”s for all 3 hypothetical situations….. and one “Yes” for the fact that you do not address the real situation.

    You have not heard my answers but you already question them. Warmers, flat earthers and theorists are very entertaining.


    I do. Your link is not to Dr. Chris Landsea. It is another misrepresentation and deception.

    Even if it was from Dr. Chris Landsea. – you have not addressed the facts:

    1. Dr. Chris Landsea, the top expert on hurricanes resigned and said scientists lied about hurricanes. The resignation means a lot. It is an action. He went against the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community is zealous and ill minded by the definition. His action is telling.
    2. other list of facts you have not addressed can be found here



    The overwhelming majority of the scientific community is not everybody. It is a faceless mob. Dr. Landsea and top Academician Yuri Izrael have faces and speak for themselves. I do, too. Nobodies are nobodies, zeros, no matter how many nobodies you take they all add to the same zero.
     
  15. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I may interject.

    Do some leading experts disagree with the consensus view? Sure they do. There are also some leading experts who disagree that a link exists between smoking and lung cancer too, but that doesn't negate the reality of the science. So it's disengenuous to claim, as many denialists do, that the 'jury is most definetely still out' - it's not. The truth is the science is most definetely SETTLED.

    The vast majority of climate scientists accept that AGW is a reality and this is supported by every credible scientific body in the world. This is what is meant by the consensus. Denialists cannot accept this because they are dogmatically and ideologically tied to their position.

    This, I'm afraid to say, is an inevitable consequence of being a denialist conspiracy theorist. Implicit in this, is the tendency to obfuscate and cherry-pick and twist data to fit the preconceived agendas of the conspiracy theorists concerned until, as one realist put it, "the data confesses". The same logic is prevalent in relation, for example, to the arguments of moon landing denialists and 9-11 'truthers'.

    Just because many denialists have claimed to have read some science doesn't mean that they correctly interpret it. Denialists are not climate scientists and therefore have no authority to dismiss the legitimacy of the science - a science, like I say that is supported by every credible scientific body in the world. By denying this, they put themselves firmly in the same camp as those who claim 9-11 was an inside job.
     
  16. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since there is a label for those that are not of the true belief (so you can dismiss them as crazy and not address any issue), what would you label someone that agrees there is global warming and that man is contributing to it but finds that global warming will be more benefit than hindrance to mankind and that the opposite of warming would be much worse? Or how about those scientists of the global warming community that caution predictions beyond 10 years? Are they denialists even though they fit your bill for being part of the settled science? There are really only a few scientists that will go out on that limb that can damage ones reputation and predict way into the future like James Hansen does.

    In other words, what do you call those people that do not buy into the fear mongering for immediate social change?
     
  17. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem is your assertion that 'people who do not buy into the fearmongering for immediate social change' is based on an unsubstantiated assumption and is therefore, by definition, another conspiracy theory. So, in other words, your question is a misnomer. The vast majority (97-100 percent) of the climate scientific community concur that human-induced AGW is a reality and all of the credible insitutions of the world support this view.

    That's good enough for me and, moreover, it ought to be good enough for any layman not versed in the complexities of the science. It takes a real lack of humility for a non-scientist to deny this consensus position. The thing about science, as I understand it, is that 'tempo and mode' tends to negate against the accuracy of long-term predictions. In this sense, the science of AGW can be related to say human evolution: We know its happening but we don't know the rate at which it's happening.
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Not only do you have labels for those that do not walk in lock step with you, you can't even understand what one writes or address a simple question. You are answering as if you did not read what I wrote. I agree there is global warming and that man is contributing. Capish?

    You need to break down what you are saying. Most scientists agree there is global warming. A smaller percentage but still a very large one agrees that man contributes to global warming. From that point on it goes downhill for a lot of the warmers if you really dig into the science and yes, the scientists. There are a relative few scientists, and I mean very few, that are willing to predict anything beyond 10 years. Most advise caution. Those giving wild predictions are getting the press though and some people believe everything they read.

    So do you buy into the hype that global warming is a bad thing? If so, why?
     
  19. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes it is a bad thing. On current trends, the likely negative consequences, which are currently impacting many nations of the developing world, for example, will also impact upon the developed world. The science relating to this, complete with reliable sources, has been summarized very well by George Monbiot in his book, 'Heat'.
     
  20. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet it has been warmer before with warming being positive for northern latitudes. The equatorial regions are less effected by warming than the northern ones are.

    What you are assuming is that it will be bad without considering the positive effects. At one point in time, before the earth turned cold and this ice age started 2.5 million years ago, life was very abundant and animals grew to great sizes because of the more friendly conditions. Why do you think that would not be the case if it warmed up again?
     
  21. bugalugs

    bugalugs Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    9,289
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What sort of water supply infrastructure did human societies have 2.5 million years ago.
    How large were the cites 2.5 million years ago?

    What sort of climate have our existing water supply infrastructure and large cities been designed to operate in?
     
  22. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The one thing that is constant is change, so that question is silly on the face of it since things will change, no matter what we do. For instance, will this interglacial end? If it does, how does your question apply and why would it mean anything?
     
  23. bugalugs

    bugalugs Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    9,289
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you understand the difference between change on decadal time scales and change on millenial time scales?
     
  24. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, long term predictions based on theory. We are now in a decade long lull of warming. Like the stock market, some predict it will go up, some down. We won't know until it does either. Fact is that no one predicted this lull and it has just been discovered over time. That does not mean it won't resume warming, just that even decade long predictions are not always right.

    Even if it resumes warming, why would that be a bad thing considering the one of the most likely alternatives and that is returning to a glaciation period.
     
  25. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I have listed 11 arguments of warmers. I’ve trying to see if I can bring the warmers ot the level of Ellochka the cannibal. I am still looking for one warmer who’d show to be equal in intelligence to a member of MumboJumbo tribe.

    " http://lib.ru/ILFPETROV/ilf_petrov_12_chairs_engl.txt

    CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO


    ELLOCHKA THE CANNIBAL

    William Shakespeare's vocabulary has been estimated by the experts at twelve thousand words. The vocabulary of a Negro from the Mumbo Jumbo tribe amounts to three hundred words.
    Ellochka Shukin managed easily and fluently on thirty.
    Here are the words, phrases and interjections which she fastidiously picked from the great, rich and expressive Russian language:
    1. You're being vulgar.
    2. Ho-ho (expresses irony, surprise, delight, loathing, joy, contempt and satisfaction, according to the circumstances).
    3. Great!
    4. Dismal (applied to everything-for example: "dismal Pete has arrived", "dismal weather", or a "dismal cat").
    5. Gloom.
    6. Ghastly (for example: when meeting a close female acquaintance, "a ghastly meeting").
    7. Kid (applied to all male acquaintances, regardless of age or social position).
    8. Don't tell me how to live!
    9. Like a babe ("I whacked him like a babe" when playing cards, or "I brought him down like a babe," evidently when talking to a legal tenant).
    10.Ter-r-rific!
    11. Fat and good-looking (used to describe both animate and
    inanimate objects).
    12. Let's go by horse-cab (said to her husband).
    13. Let's go by taxi (said to male acquaintances).
    14. You're all white at the back! (joke).
    15. Just imagine!
    16. Ula (added to a name to denote affection-for example: Mishula, Zinula).
    17. Oho! (irony, surprise, delight, loathing, joy, contempt and
    satisfaction)." The extraordinary small number of words remaining were used as connecting links between Ellochka and department-store assistants.".




    When Ellochka the cannibal managed easily and fluently on thirty, all warmists' bullying arguments may be brought down to less then a dozen

    1. You don’t understand science
    (evolution) (climate)(Marxism), don’t you?
    2. You should get some education.
    3. 97% of scientists are wrong and you are right?
    4. 97% of scientists believe in global warming.5
    . read this:
    somethingImyslefcannotunderstandbutitisfrommyside. com.NASA.gov
    6. You really think it is a conspiracy?
    7. scientists can be easily bough by oil companies money, scientists cannot be bought by government’s money extracted from taxpayers. Oil and government use different money.
    8. …. Not too many more are there
    …. [ I am working on it]
    13. You have submitted 12 equations; IF I prove (using arguments listed above) that one of them is wrong, will you accept that others are wrong?
    14. I did not say that
    15. You have not proven anything.




    I tried to make it easy for you and other evolutionists.

    Instead of typing all the lines you could just type, -

    My arguments are:

    1.
    3.
    4.
    6.


    Wouldn't it be a time savior?
     

Share This Page