by Nathan Natas 86 Replies latest jw friends
:I made no argument, I merely advised my friends not to waste thier time.
:Farkel the fossil accuses petrifaction. L'chaim!
Beks: the person who has been proven countless times as being incapable of making a real argument resorts to insulting me because am in the position where I cannot help when I was born. I guess THAT is my fault, too. Eh, beks, you hater?
I wonder how it feels to live in your hate-filled shoes.
Farkel
Beks: the person who has been proven countless times as being incapable of making a real argument resorts to insulting me because am in the position where I cannot help when I was born. I guess THAT is my fault, too. Eh, beks, you hater?
I wonder how it feels to live in your hate-filled shoes.
Farkel
Oh goodness, you're right! When you in your very first post on page 2 of this thread said:
Great argument. Worthy of you and your rapier sharp mind.
No, wait! That DEFINES your rapier sharp mind, with a ton of oxidation added in, that is. Not to mention petrification.
Farkel
I should have meekly said "Please sir, may I have some more?"
I am still trying to find a Manbearpig.
JK
1 - The Air Temp Anomaly map also shows significantly lower temperatures over North America, Russia, and Northern Europe. It's only supportive evidence if one starts with the assumption that temps that are still well-below freezing matter, and that temperature anomalies are in some way related to increased CO2 levels.
2 - The UAH chart shows a minor anomaly, about one-fifth of a degree. That sort of change, much like the increase of one part per million that has occured in the pct of CO2 in the atmosphere, isn't anywhere near enough to effect anything. Further, as the chart itself shows, there have been significant anomalies that have nothing to do with human causes.
3 - Regressions in science have the same problem as regressions in the social sciences - they show past trends, but don't show anything about the future unless one operates with a supposition that the future will be like the past, which is frequently untrue.
Look at the very end of the graph. You'll notice a fairly precipitous drop in temperatures, about one-fifth of a degree in one year. If you compare that drop with the regression line, it took from 1989 to 2007 for the temperature to increase by the same amount.
4 - You rightfully mock skeptics for taking isolated portions of climate history and portraying it as the whole. Meanwhile, we seem to have to presume that there was no climate before 1979, as that's when our similiarly isolated data starts. ;-)
Man, there's a world of difference between villabolo and beks. One can formulate rational responses to opponents while apparently operating under the assumption that they are neither dishonest nor stupid and one, well, can't.
First they called it "the coming ice age" Then they called it "Global Warming." Now they call it "Climate Change" All within a span of less than 50 years. You are not supposed to question it.... If you do, you must be stupid or evil or both.
Reminds me eerily of those who question the "New Light" of the wt. If you question it you must be stupid or evil or both... questioning makes you an apostate, after all. Yet that questioning got a lot of us out of the borg...and we can now see it for what it is. Skepticism is a good thing. Questioning is a good thing. I apply the same principle that got me out of the borg...to everything...including the belief system of "Climate Change"
Of course the climate is changing. It has always been changing. There is nothing new here...except the hysteria inspiring slogan. The earth has survived numerous ice ages and warming periods long before a single SUV or power plant existed. Do you honestly think that the temperature of the earth has been consistent throughout the history of the planet? Seriously?... the earth itself has always been changing...heck, the continents themselves have shifted...huge shifts...mountains and canyons have formed, volcanos have changed the landscape and atmosphere... The one thing you can count on is change.
Coffee
Excellent response, Coffee Black. Very well written.
CB, just a few things:
First they called it "the coming ice age"
Im sorry to say, but you are falling for a lie. back in the 60s and 70s when the science was not settled, a few scientists believed smog may block out sunlight and cause cooling, and furthermore, that this cooling effect would be greater than that of the CO2. The large majority, however, believed the warming effect from CO2 would ultimately "win". When better models was developed and better data became avaliable it became clear the warming effect was ultimately much larger, and that settled the matter.
there was never anything like a consensus that the earth was moving into an ice age amongst scientists. it was a minority position held by some until the science was settled.
Then they called it "Global Warming." Now they call it "Climate Change"
both words has been used in the scientific community right from the onset. this kind of terminology, you will find, is not something scientists care about, they care if the earth is warming or not. The latter term, "climate change", was made popular by the bush administration because "global warming" sounded to much like something someone should be doing something about -- you can find an interview on youtube with the spin doctor who popularized the term.
All within a span of less than 50 years. You are not supposed to question it.... If you do, you must be stupid or evil or both.
not true. my university has a scientist the global-warming deniers like to quote for hire. he is not harassed and is respected for his work. I could go over in the opposite building and ask him if he believed his peers thought he was stupid or evil, and im sure he would say no.
Framing it as "us vs. them and they hate us" IS NOT HEALTHY FOR THE DEBATE.
Sorry, Bohm... I was in college when the "coming ice age" was first talked about and the news media had a field day with it. It is from the media that the majority of people get information and ultimately their world view...including environmental issues... and it the media that has been pushing this...and they are still pushing the climate agenda. If your professors said that there was nothing to the fact that "the coming ice age" was heavily promoted...then they are changing their history.... kind of like the wt did regarding 1975.
I'm not saying it's us vs them.... it's the media that promotes this...it's good for their business to stoke the fires. The subject tends to get both sides slinging insults at one another. That is not healthy.
Incidentally, I'm not denying "global warming"... (there have been many warming cycles in the history of the earth) I'm just not on the sky is falling bandwagon
Coffee
