• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is it just me?

tecoyah said:

None of your quotes provide proof of human activity causing global warming. If you can manage to move your brain past quotes by scientists, you'll find that their claims are based on (1) correlation studies and (2) highly dubious simulations - no proof.
 
alphamale said:
None of your quotes provide proof of human activity causing global warming. If you can manage to move your brain past quotes by scientists, you'll find that their claims are based on (1) correlation studies and (2) highly dubious simulations - no proof.


Well now....as I was in no way TRYING to say mankind is the cause, that would make sense now wouldnt it. It would be rather silly of me to Give you proof of something I myself dont believe to be true. As for moving my Brain past the opinions od scientists....uh....why the hell would I ignore a scientist, when I am trying to gain information on...well....science. Obviously this is a pointless attempt to discuss an issue, as the Big picture is lost to the petite nature of your mind.
 
tecoyah said:
As for moving my Brain past the opinions od scientists....uh....why the hell would I ignore a scientist, when I am trying to gain information on...well....science.

If you'd gotten your brain past, say, half of a Logic 101 course with at least a grade of "C", you'd know that that is argumentum ad autoritatem and is illogical, and hence, you are illogical.
 
Well if I lived in the USA. Observed people driving themselff and stuff all over the place in a F150. But there the stuff and places they went didn't need a F150 or in many cases not even a car. And at the same time though I only needed smart ideas to change people actions. Then I also probably would be enoying.

That it is easy to understand that some americans get enoying that there see a growing scientific and global consesus on the human impact on the climate. At the same time most fellow country man don't seem to care.
 
Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit.
- Juvenal, xiv.321.

The cause of global warming has been much disputed. The establishment view, supported by corporate-funded research (ExxonMobil), holds that global climate changes are cyclical, over which man, for all his science and invention applied to master the universe, has no control. Opposing this conventional wisdom, there is a growing, and increasingly vocal, opposition that point to pollution (specifically hydrocarbon emissions) in the atmosphere as the cause, and accuse the industrialized nations of “trashing the planet.” And in the politics of the issue - which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money - the establishment has thus far prevailed. Still, the evidence is mounting; and we cannot long afford to turn a blind eye to what can be plainly seen. The earth is speaking to us, and we should listen - “for wisdom ever echoes nature’s voice.”
 
alphamale said:
If you'd gotten your brain past, say, half of a Logic 101 course with at least a grade of "C", you'd know that that is argumentum ad autoritatem and is illogical, and hence, you are illogical.

Ever notice that by attacking the individual....rather than the Data, people tend to brush you aside as irrelevant.....Just sayin'
 
tecoyah said:
Ever notice that by attacking the individual....rather than the Data, people tend to brush you aside as irrelevant.....Just sayin'

Uh, I said you are using a logical fallacy - don't you understand anything?
 
alphamale said:
If you'd gotten your brain past, say, half of a Logic 101 course with at least a grade of "C", you'd know that that is argumentum ad autoritatem and is illogical, and hence, you are illogical.

Ahh...now I see, I guess it was the Pathetic use of Language that had me confused. Or perhaps your inherent inability to express anything other than Sarcastic Unuendo when communicating what you think is a point.


Uh....I said you need to work on your people skills.
 
tecoyah said:
Ahh...now I see, I guess it was the Pathetic use of Language that had me confused. Or perhaps your inherent inability to express anything other than Sarcastic Unuendo when communicating what you think is a point.


Uh....I said you need to work on your people skills.

"People skills"??? :lol: I have to live in the same polity as an idiot-with-a-vote, and he tells me about "People skills"???

BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE
 
alphamale said:
"People skills"??? :lol: I have to live in the same polity as an idiot-with-a-vote, and he tells me about "People skills"???

BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE


Interesting reply....pointless but interesting.
 
Simply amazing....comes off a temp ban, floods the place with bandwidth-wasting ineffectual, inane remarks that have no bearing on anything at all.....
and calls OTHERS (out of the side of his mouth as to not be accused of out and out flaming) stupid....but I digress...

This is sort of the mentality behind the whole 'global warming' naysayers: without so much of a page read of any scientific data, they declare it all to be 'moronic hystrionics'.
Had things been left alone from the start of the Industrial Age, I think we'd be a lot closer to doom than we are now. Several factors in the last 100 years that have been observed coincide with the warming trend,ie; loss of rainforest growth, increased use of fossil fuels, industrial and private development, especially on sensitive ecosystems such as beachfronts, causing massive erosion and changes to the natural coastlines.
One of the more (what I feel at least) dumb ideas was implemented here in NJ: the farmland preservation act. Farming destroys mini-ecosystems by levelling land, losing trees and introducing chemicals into the water run-off. Somehow, the brains in Trenton think it is better to level forests for development than to re-use farmland. But, I notice that when farmland IS used for housing, etc., trees are added, landscaping and water retention ponds are included, which welcomes at least some wildlife into the mix.
Humans can only do so much, but doing nothing makes things so much worse. and doing ill-thought out planning is worse yet.
In parts of South America, global warming is such a reality that people use umbrellas in daylight, swath in sunblock or just stay indoors. Here, one can almost tell where someone is from-they use umbrellas in the sunlight in this area as well.
I know we're raping this world. I try not to contribute to the crime, I just don't know how to be totally crime-free just yet.
 
You are the sort of uninformed person the ecofascists depend upon. You have no clue what you're talking about - you wouldn't recognize valid scientific proof if it raped you! :lol:
 
alphamale said:
Yes, but you don't know what percentage of global warming is due to CO2 production and what due to non-human natural processes. Another human cause of increased CO2 that is mostly the fault of third world countries is deforestation.

Lieing again I see. I already prooved you completely wrong in all the other global warming threads.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051121/full/051121-14.html
The current CO2 spike is 100% caused through anthropogenic origins.
 
alphamale said:
I didn't say there was no global warming, O reading impaired one, I said there is no proof that it's caused, or significantly caused, by human activity. Also, O logic-proof one - the burden of proof is on the asserter, which is the global warming nuts, not me.
Here you go then, human cause. Source 1,
Source 2
AS well as what will happen if nothing is done. Source

Now let's see what you're sources say. Ohh that's right, you have no sources supporting your fallacies, only oil coorperation rhetoric.
 
jfuh said:
Lieing again I see. I already prooved you completely wrong in all the other global warming threads.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051121/full/051121-14.html
The current CO2 spike is 100% caused through anthropogenic origins.

I have to subscribe to some ecofascist site to see your article? No thanks. If what you say is fact, it should be readily available on a number of credible sites. Try again. And you haven't proven me wrong anywhere - stop lying to mislead people.
 
alphamale said:
I have to subscribe to some ecofascist site to see your article? No thanks. If what you say is fact, it should be readily available on a number of credible sites. Try again. And you haven't proven me wrong anywhere - stop lying to mislead people.
You think that the Nature publishing group is an "eco-facist" site? lol. Let me fill you in here. The Nature publishing group is the top scientific journal publisher in the world. A single acceptance for publication on Nature is often enough for a thesis to receive a doctorate.
How does that foot taste? Oh and I'm still waiting for your sources.
 
jfuh said:
You think that the Nature publishing group is an "eco-facist" site? lol. Let me fill you in here. The Nature publishing group is the top scientific journal publisher in the world. A single acceptance for publication on Nature is often enough for a thesis to receive a doctorate.
How does that foot taste? Oh and I'm still waiting for your sources.

Show your "proof" on a free site. And my sources? Why can't you numbskulls get this into your head - YOU ARE MAKING THE ASSERTION - YOU PROVIDE THE PROOF!
 
alphamale said:
Show your "proof" on a free site. And my sources? Why can't you numbskulls get this into your head - YOU ARE MAKING THE ASSERTION - YOU PROVIDE THE PROOF!
So you take back your accusation then that Nature is a "eco'facist" website?
:fyi: - top scientific journals are rarely ever free. Free sites are popularists websites, those had been provided for you, but you dismissed them as irrelevent.
 
Last edited:
alphamale said:
You are the sort of uninformed person the ecofascists depend upon. You have no clue what you're talking about - you wouldn't recognize valid scientific proof if it raped you! :lol:
Give some that contradicts. Valid...not your version of it.
 
jfuh said:
So you take back your accusation then that Nature is a "eco'facist" website?
:fyi: - top scientific journals are rarely ever free. Free sites are popularists websites, those had been provided for you, but you dismissed them as irrelevent.

No, you didn't provide me anything. Cut and paste excerpts from your Nature article, including the methodology and conclusions.
 
alphamale said:
No, you didn't provide me anything. Cut and paste excerpts from your Nature article, including the methodology and conclusions.
Very well.
NewsPublished online: 24 November 2005; | doi:10.1038/news051121-14 Greenhouse-gas levels highest for 650,000 years

Climate record highlights extent of man-made change.Michael Hopkin
051121-14.jpg


Tiny bubbles in ice hundreds of thousands of years old hold the key to understanding greenhouse gases, past and future.
© W. Berner/University of BernCurrent levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, say researchers who have finished cataloguing air bubbles trapped for millennia inside Antarctic ice. The record, which extends back over the past eight ice ages, shows that today's concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane far outstrip those in the past.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen 200 times faster over the past 50 years than at any other time during this period, says Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern, Switzerland, who led the analysis.

The researchers studied air bubbles preserved in ice drilled from the Antarctic ice sheet as part of the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA). The ice core represents a logbook of the state of the world's climate (see 'Frozen time') and goes back 210,000 years further than previous records.

After searching ice spanning the period of 390,000-650,000 years before present, Stocker's team has discovered that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere did not exceed 290 parts per million during that time. Today, that figure is around 375 parts per million.

The situation is similar for methane: during this period, levels hovered around 600 parts per billion. Today's atmospheric methane concentration is well over 1,700. Stocker and his colleagues report the results in Science1,2.

Unprecedented push

The burning of fossil fuels in the industrial era has pushed greenhouse-gas levels far beyond their natural fluctuations, says Stocker. "This is really something unprecedented," he says. Humans, by releasing fossil fuels from their imprisonment underground, are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere on top of those released as part of natural climate cycles.

The news comes as world leaders plan to attend a United Nations climate change conference in Montreal, Canada, which begins on 28 November. Delegates will discuss current efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, and what plans should follow on from the initial phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which ends in 2012.

The past four ice ages and their intervening warm periods are thought not to have been typical. Glacial cycles before this had longer, cooler intervening periods than more recent ones. Researchers are unsure why this is, although they hope the ice cores may hold some clues.

Unnatural changes


The newly analysed ice does show that although the climate is in constant flux, it is capable of producing extended warm phases even when carbon dioxide levels are stable, says Stocker. Two places in the record, for example, are marked by periods of almost 30,000 years when temperature hardly changed at all. And the beginning of these 'interglacial' phases was not linked to rises in carbon dioxide.

That's not to say that current rises in temperature are due to natural shifts, as some climate-change sceptics have claimed. "The CO2 emitted now is not part of the natural cycle," Stocker points out.

"In the palaeorecord there's no human activity driving the change," says Chris Jones, of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, UK. The current challenge facing climate modellers is to work out the one-way effect of the huge spike in greenhouse gases now being pumped into our skies by human activities.


References SiegenthalerU., et al. Science, 310. 1313 - 1317 (2005). SpahniR., et al. Science, 310. 1317 - 1321 (2005).[/HTML]
 
Last edited:
ngdawg said:
Give some that contradicts. Valid...not your version of it.

Uh, I can't contradict anything when you haven't given me anything. (Note: Ecolunatic slogans for idiots doesn't count as "anything".
 
alphamale said:
Show your "proof" on a free site. And my sources? Why can't you numbskulls get this into your head - YOU ARE MAKING THE ASSERTION - YOU PROVIDE THE PROOF!

Heres the thing little puppy....in order to provide proof to an individual, in any aspect of science, the individual in question must be capable of comprehending at the minimum, what science is. For this to happen a measure of intellegence is required which you have proven to lack. Reading comprehension aside, there seems to be a misfiring of Synapsis going on here, that places any attempt at education in the realm of the impossible.
Eventually anyone tires of slamming the perverbial head into a brick wall, but the attempts by those here are admirable if futile. Even making you seem a fool has lost its draw for me, as it seems you do so with no needed assistance, and in fact I dont even need to point it out anymore due to the obvious defunct nature of your opinions.
The amount of Data provided for you in this thread should be adequate for anyone truly interested in debating this issue, but that is not your intent now....is it? Instead you continue to attempt debasing the people trying to discuss something you cannot understand because of either a limited imagination, or complete, all encompassing stupidity. What I am saying here....(and I will use words which even you cannot misunderstand) is simple:


You Are Out of Your League


Cut your losses and go home
 
alphamale said:
Uh, I can't contradict anything when you haven't given me anything. (Note: Ecolunatic slogans for idiots doesn't count as "anything".
Well, since you seem to think I'm 'clueless' (like you know squat about anything besides throwing insults, let alone what the Farm Preservation Act is), and you have previously posted about the human factor in global warming, something I opined about then you called 'clueless', refute it past pre-adolescent slurs. Let's see how your debate here is going, Grasshopper. So far your refutations have included, in this thread alone:
Warning....warning...you are entering the sci-fi zone.....
and as such is just somebody's idle speculation - more properly located in a sci-fi publication
If you can manage to move your brain past quotes by scientists,
If you'd gotten your brain past, say, half of a Logic 101 course with at least a grade of "C",
don't you understand anything?
BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR HEE HEE CACKLE YUK GIGGLE BLAAAAH HAR
You have no clue what you're talking about -
have to subscribe to some ecofascist site to see your article? No thanks.
Why can't you numbskulls get this into your head -
(Note: Ecolunatic slogans for idiots doesn't count as "anything".

Now, considering that link after link has been provided to you by others, conversation taking place that involves those links, the content within and conclusionary opinions, exactly WHERE do you fit in besides tossing insults about?
If your 'comments' could be converted, you'd be labelled a toxic dump for all the hot air you've spewed since being allowed back.:roll:
The idea of refutation, Oh One of Little Value, is to present something ANYTHING to dispute what's being said. If all you wish to do is place yourself on a pedestal by knocking down others who actually SAY something worthy, go right ahead....your enlarged cranium merely shields the rest of us from the UV rays...it does little else.
 
alphamale said:
Uh, I can't contradict anything when you haven't given me anything. (Note: Ecolunatic slogans for idiots doesn't count as "anything".
Now you're lieing, because I gave you a clear source prooving my position.
 
Back
Top Bottom