"Unequivocal Proof" Global warming real and man made

[ma_guy]

By the way, what you quoted says nothing about only trying to prove a hypothesis. It mentions confirming or ruling it out, both.

My original comment that you followed up on didn't say anything about proving proving a hypothisis either. It said "The theory gains strength by research that either supports it directly or research that disproves other possibilities.".

How is "confirming" (your word) any different than "supports it" (mine).????

 

[*******]

Too many are trying to prove a foregone conclusion instead of saying, "Hmmmm, that's very interesting. We really should research this further." Instead they have gone to the capitols of the world and put the issue into the hands of politicians.

I ask you, "What possible good can come from that?"

 

[RobDownSouth]

LMAO No they aren't "rejected by most legitimate scientists." Only by those that reject their conclussions. (Obvioulsy the group you belong to Rob "the idiot" Troll.)

Their measured data has been challenged by NO ONE. Only the conclussions that they have drawn from those measurements.

And you're still left with the problem of the melting Martian ice caps.

Ishmael

If you want to posit that global warming is good for the environment, feel free to indulge your opinion.

Most legitimate scientists reject that opinion.

No one is doubting the measured data, and I never claimed otherwise. Like you said, the real issue is the spurious "conclussions" sic of your industry-funded scientists.

And *I* am not the one with a melting Martian ice cap problem. That's your strawman argument, comparing Earth apples to Martian oranges.

 

[ma_guy]

By your specious definition, Albert Einstein was an "idiot" because he proposed his Theory of Relativity without whippin' up a batch of experiments to prove his theory (which is, of course, the bedrock of quantum physics research today).

Ma_guy....classic wingnut in denial.

Yeah. Ok. Except Einstein DID test of his theory before releasing it you dolt. The first test was conducted in 1919 when he, along with Sir Arthur Eddington, measured the bending of light from the Hyades star cluster during a solar eclipse. The results of that test were published with his theory in 1920.

Back to 2nd grade science class for you. As usual you are shooting your mouth off and nothing is coming out but hot air (which is adding to the global warming problem!).

 

[John Doe]

My original comment that you followed up on didn't say anything about prvoing proving a hypothisis either. It said "The theory gains strength by research that either supports it directly or research that disproves other possibilities.".

How is "confirming" (your word) any different than "supports it" (mine).????

The basic premise of scientific research is to come up with a plausible theory to explain an observed event and then then find your "proofs".

5 Characters.

 

[Ishmael]

Too many are trying to prove a foregone conclusion instead of saying, "Hmmmm, that's very interesting. We really should research this further." Instead they have gone to the capitols of the world and put the issue into the hands of politicians.

I ask you, "What possible good can come from that?"

You can either follow the money or go dig up my old thread about the "junk scientists" replacing the priests of old proclaiming the end of the world and demanding money for salvation.

Ishmael

Environmentalism, the last bastion of the hard-core collectivists.

 

[ma_guy]

5 Characters.

Maybe you need a basic English class then??? A proof can either support or refute.

proof n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

2. b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

2. c. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.

3. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.

 

[John Doe]

Maybe you need a basic English class then??? A proof can either support or refute.

proof n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

2. b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

2. c. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.

3. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.

Okay fine, but you're still [insert RobDownSouth's insult(s) here].

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yeah. Ok. Except Einstein DID test of his theory before releasing it you dolt. The first test was conducted in 1919 when he, along with Sir Arthur Eddington, measured the bending of light from the Hyades star cluster during a solar eclipse. The results of that test were published with his theory in 1920.

Back to 2nd grade science class for you. As usual you are shooting your mouth off and nothing is coming out but hot air (which is adding to the global warming problem!).

Nice try.

Wrong as usual, though.

Einstein published his Theory of Relativity in a series of papers between 1905 and 1916.

Without first whippin' up a batch of experiments.

Just like I said.

 

[ksmybuttons]

You can argue the point of what causes global climate change, but there are ways people can help. That's what Kyote was all about. It is also a global way of addressing coal and oil emissions, which, no matter how you look at it, isn't a bad thing. We need to come up with alternatives to coal and oil just because they are in finite supply.

Maybe there are things that the US can do and will do, but, instead, they just walked away: there was no negotiation, there was no compromise.

I would think that global good will and need for diplomacy would have been enough to take part. It's just another way to make the rest of the world resent the US at a time when we need to support each other.

The political fall out is much worse than any emissions control for the US.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Okay fine, but you're still [insert RobDownSouth's insult(s) here].

Today's RobDownSouth insult o'the day is slack jawed, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing wingnut

 

[John Doe]

Today's RobDownSouth insult o'the day is slack jawed, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing wingnut

oh good, I like that one.

 

[Cheyenne]

this news article isn't the report but assuming the reporting is true (knowing the newspaper i'm sure it is) then they're claiming theres unequivocal links between the pollution levels and sea level temperatures

I wouldn't be so rude as to call you an idiot like Ish did, because I like you.

But if you honestly believe what you wrote, that you're sure the report is true based on which newspaper wrote about it, I have to question your judgement.

And in this thread, I'd say Ish and ******* are handing you your ass.

 

[Ishmael]

You can argue the point of what causes global climate change, but there are ways people can help. That's what Kyote was all about. It is also a global way of addressing coal and oil emissions, which, no matter how you look at it, isn't a bad thing. We need to come up with alternatives to coal and oil just because they are in finite supply.

Maybe there are things that the US can do and will do, but, instead, they just walked away: there was no negotiation, there was no compromise.

I would think that global good will and need for diplomacy would have been enough to take part. It's just another way to make the rest of the world resent the US at a time when we need to support each other.

The political fall out is much worse than any emissions control for the US.

Could it be that those 100 senators that refused to vote on Kyoto might actually know something?

As far as the supplies being finite, so what? We'll have alternatives. They just probably won't be what you think they'll be. I can assure you they won't be inefficient windmills or such. If you're really interested in potential power sources you might want to look into "zero-point" energy production.

Your post also implies that we SHOULD be doing something and the juries still out on that one.

Ishmael

 

[John Doe]

Zero-point would kick ass. In the meantime though, nuclear fission is the way to go IMO.

 

[zipman]

This thread perfectly exemplifies everything I despise about lit because instead of actually discussing the issues and what they mean, it has come to be either about America versus the rest of the world or about conservative versus liberals with the usual idiots on both sides throwing out insults instead of participating in an actual discussion about global warming.

 

[Ishmael]

Zero-point would kick ass. In the meantime though, nuclear fission is the way to go IMO.

It's the most obvious alternative for large scale production. It's not useful for transportation purposes though.

Fuel cells are attractive there, but come with their own set of limitations and problems.

Zero-point research is moving ahead rapidly. There's been two patents issued already.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

This thread perfectly exemplifies everything I despise about lit because instead of actually discussing the issues and what they mean, it has come to be either about America versus the rest of the world or about conservative versus liberals with the usual idiots on both sides throwing out insults instead of participating in an actual discussion about global warming.

Haven't read the thread huh Zip?

Who's the only one that's linked in actual scientific data and research so far?

Or are you going to answer the question about Mars?

Ishmael

 

[John Doe]

This thread perfectly exemplifies everything I despise about lit because instead of actually discussing the issues and what they mean, it has come to be either about America versus the rest of the world or about conservative versus liberals with the usual idiots on both sides throwing out insults instead of participating in an actual discussion about global warming.

Which side am I on?

 

[ma_guy]

Nice try.

Wrong as usual, though.

Einstein published his Theory of Relativity in a series of papers between 1905 and 1916.

Without first whippin' up a batch of experiments.

Just like I said.

lol I just love it when you provide evidence to support youself yet it refutes your own claims.

What exactly do you think he was doing in all of those papers? They were all parts of the entire theory of relativity and outlines for testing methodology. That testing was done from the time he started writing his doctoral thesis in 1905 and continued right up until he released his complete theory in "Relativity: The special and general theory, by Albert Einstein. Translated by Robert W. Lawson." PUBLISHED: New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1920.

 

[zipman]

Haven't read the thread huh Zip?

Who's the only one that's linked in actual scientific data and research so far?

Or are you going to answer the question about Mars?

Ishmael

Actually I have read the thread and I find it interesting that you assume I was referring to you with my post.

Although since you assume I disagree with you based on the fact that I tend to favor liberal viewpoints with regard to government certainly strengthens the validity of my initial post, doesn't it?

 

[zipman]

Which side am I on?

I don't think you stated which side of the debate you fall on.

Personally I think Rob has shown himself to be the worst offender as far as throwing out insults without backing them up.

Sexy-girl's comments actually come in a close second.

 

[sexy-girl]

I wouldn't be so rude as to call you an idiot like Ish did, because I like you.

But if you honestly believe what you wrote, that you're sure the report is true based on which newspaper wrote about it, I have to question your judgement.

And in this thread, I'd say Ish and ******* are handing you your ass.

i have found the newspaper to be a trustworthy source of news ... that doesn't mean i believe everything i read ... but the report isn't just from a small group of scientists ... i'm familier with a few of the places mentioned ... i posted it here for discussion and to see if anyone was willing to be open minded about it ... i'll be looking forward to finding out more about it

i sort of agree with zipman ... thats the problem with these sorts of threads ... Ish and ****** are apparently handing me my ass ... what does that mean and why would i care?

to them these types of threads are just games about increasing ego's ... and calling other people idiots ... i posted this to have an interesting discussion but i don't have the energy or inclination to try and "win" these type of arguments

 

[lavender]

Sexy-Girl, the Pentagon has made various studies and sent out warnings in the last year or so regarding the impact of global climate change. Yes, the Pentagon that bastion of liberal philosophy has said that global climate change poses more of a threat to the United States and the world than terrorism.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4864237-102275,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0224-01.htm

 

[John Doe]

I don't think you stated which side of the debate you fall on.

No, I mean am I on the liberal or conservative side, the American or Anti-American side?