UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm sorry, you'll have to excuse me for being a dumbass lefty, but when did i say the ice caps would melt?
January to June 2012 warmest first half of any year on record
- Thread starter FlyLikeAnEagle
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Nota bene that I didn't say it either. I offered it as the extremum. Just in case I'm to be creatively quoted again. cn
canndo
Well-Known Member
Actually, not even close unfortunately, you see the right tends to insulate itself by actually believing (I think they believe it) that there is ideological and behavoiral symetry between right and left. This is not the case, belief systems are not interchangeable and are not mirror images of each other. If according to the right, everything is interchangeable then their behavior is ok, because it is no different in anything but degree certainly, than the way the left behaves. I see you have not acnkowleged that vulcanism is a dot of CO2 when compared to the effluent of human activity. This would be typical of the right, an abject inabililty to accept reality when that reality does not conform with one's preconceived view of the world.
But we can see for ourselves. Here is your statement:
"volcanos" Volcanoes can produces more co2 in a day than man releases in thousands of years. So much they cause catastrophic global climate change and major extinction level events. Stating " they are background noise in that system as they are intermitent and easily compensated for by other mechanisms." is foolish."
I and another posted facts about the actual comparison between man released and naturaly released carbon. In short, your statement is false and is based upon either your projection of reality (it happens, we all do it, we make things up because we are all victims of our own common sense or what "should be" and have never done the research on something as obvious) or your believing what has been told to you (we all do that as well, I've been known to post leftist myth much to my embarassment - simply because it SHOULD be right or I really really want it to be right).
Now you can continue to question my sources of information but I did post numbers and a link to the source, and I believe the link is fairly unbiased.
but until you can come up with actual numbers that dispute mine, your statement has been debunked.
Now what are you going to do about that? Will you indeed publicly acknowlege that you were wrong and henceforth not use that particular argument again?
You see, were I in your position I would, and that is the difference between rightist and leftist intellectuality.
Hey, you followed Bucky's claim of paying 25% in fed income taxes, will you or Bucky publicly acknowledge that he was wrong and henceforth not use that particular argument again?
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
this is about temp rises not tax's are you lost . .. . . you do know that people are allowed to have ideas that are not necessarily connected by any ideology
Are you insinuating canndo cannot defend himself, or that bringing up a leftest has more integrity than a rightest is not open to question?
canndo
Well-Known Member
Now hang on beenthere. Firstly, your conforming to reality should not be dependent upon anothers behavior - something that is fairly obvious. You seem to be willing to make a "bargain" with me in order to preserve some sort of intellectual integrity - is that really the place to go? This portion of the global warming debate is either true or it is not. it is not true or false based upon my actions or inactions.
Secondly, I did not say anything at all about Uncle Buck's claim true or false and can not verify in any way. Had I said outright "Uncle buck paid 25 percent in fed tax" and it was proven he did not do so then you would certainly have me and you would not need to call me to task.
This thread morphed into a variety of things, one was my contention that the right has an inability to accept facts and let those facts guide their behavior, it is also about rightist myth and the distribution of such myths among the loyal believers.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Now Sam I believe has a place in this discussion as he was also a "debunker". i don't think he is insinuating such a thing but I really would rather not have this go to personalities or individuals. I don't want to give anyone on the right a chance to eel out of this simple confrontation with a typical tactic on both sides - "getting all huffy an shit" and then taking their toys and going home. It is pretty simple really, Beenthere? Is vulcanism a minor contributor of co2? and was your argument on that basis wrong? finally, will you refrain from using it again? (if this seems like some kind of scold it is not, I just want to see how close I am in my assessments of rightist arguments).
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
dude take your assumptions to a personal conversation with the mirror, i never said anything close to he cant defend himself, i was talking about you and your attempt invalidate his statement with the results of a previous argument where he(im also assuming) was wrong
there is plenty being said here that can lead to a quality discussion
im not on either side, both have good and valid arguments
man is creating an effect a CO2 foot print, does it affect the earths warming as much as normal co2 output from various sources, will it tip the scales , or is it just another balancing effect
for the earth to handle .. . . . id say its not conclusive either way, but with the more than avg increase in avg temps all over the world id say we are having an effect, what that is cuasing
is up for debate . .. .
Fair enough, since you brought up the subject of "intellectual honesty"
In your opinion, do you believe anyone making $28k a year would pay any where close to 25% in federal income taxes?
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
de rail . . alert
canndo
Well-Known Member
Now let us look at this. Beenthere, firstly I can understand your feelings about being presented with something you know to be true being portrayed as false (or vice versa). I know how that sort of thing sticks in one's craw (love that term). I can see that you may see that this is a perfect and oportune place to finish off that argument but that argument is not with me. I am not willing yet to believe that you are using this issue in order to avoid the issue of CO2. I do have another question about it though - could you tell me where you got the notion that vulcanism dwarfs human activity with respect to co2?
And in answer to your question, no, I do not believe that someone making 28k would be forced to pay 25 percent or 7,000 dollars given all of the preferences offered to lower income folk.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
"In the past several weeks as much of the nation suffered under a massive heatwave, global warming-obsessed media depicted the high temperatures as evidence of Nobel laureate Al Gore's favorite money-making scam.
A new study published in the journal Nature Sunday completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic demonstrating instead that things were much hotter on this planet during Roman times:
"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."
The UK Register observed Tuesday:
The Register continued:
Face buried in the MSM? You probably didn't even hear about this, did you?
REMEMBER THE SPOTTED OWL
A new study published in the journal Nature Sunday completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic demonstrating instead that things were much hotter on this planet during Roman times:
For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."
The UK Register observed Tuesday:
This thoroughly debunks the claim that temperatures on the planet today are in any way historic or unprecedented.
The Register continued:
Just as many climate realists have been saying for years."
Face buried in the MSM? You probably didn't even hear about this, did you?
REMEMBER THE SPOTTED OWL
First of all, you will rarely find me in global warming threads for the simple fact I understand little about the science behind it, I may post something to rile things up, but I don't know shit about climatology and will admit it. With that said, I do see an agenda behind the support on both sides and also believe there's not a single one of us on this forum that can refute either side scientifically. Global warming for the average person is just another ideological issue to argue about, just like the Trayvon Martin threads, it's obvious none of you know the facts but you've somehow managed to take an ideological position and will fight to the end to defend it.
Props to you for being honest!
canndo
Well-Known Member
Links please?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I note that canndo met beenthere more than halfway and answered his derail question. it is now beenthere's clear moral duty to answer canndo's vulcanism question directly and to point. cn
canndo
Well-Known Member
And thank you for supporting my hypothisis, that the right is incapable (or in this case nearly so) of simply acknowleging fact for what it is and correcting their arguments in light of those facts.
4 posts and you have yet to:
Admit that the numbers reflect realtiy
Admit that you were wrong in your assertion
state that you will not use that particular assertion again
explain where you got the notion that vulcanism produced less carbon than man
This sort of discussion is not new to me, I have seen those more conservative folk go dozens of posts without every accomplishing the simple act of admitting that they were arguing using false or misleading information. After they finally admit that they "made a mistake", after they squirmed and kicked, most left, some in a huff, many simply ignored the posts, a number, as you did, changed subjects or made their acknowlegement conditional on some non related topic and in many cases, they simply called me a name - homosexual is a favorite.
All this goes to. show what you are saying, it will never be possible to prove to you anything that does not align with your ideology. We are not in this instance talking about global warming but CO2 changes in our current atmosphere and to an even more specific item, vulcanism produced carbon vs human produced carbon.
You have, knowingly or otherwise avoided that plain, simple and obvious point in our discussion. the other vulcanism is king representer has failed even to show up so I give you credit for having done so.
As for your thanks for my being honest - I am always honest on a website where there is no real advantage for me to lie.
I said earlier that there may well be an agenda on both sides - but the agenda is simple - one one side, the agenda is truth and a warning of the consequences of our continuing down our present path.
the other agenda, if the motivation of money is any indicator - is to delay any attmepts at correcting or compensating for the problem for as long as possible.
What concerns me and what I have already spoken over is your statement "for the average person global warming is just another ideological issue...". The point here is that truth, science and scientific evidence is not ideological and it was made so by those who feel that their situations are in danger. I can even trace this conversion from the dispasionate and non-political (at least outside of the scientific community) to the vehiment and partisan and I have been describing this for the last few months here - again, check out the GCC to start.
Now what have you done in the last sentence - you have attempted to indicate that it is obvious that we don't know our facts - and yet we have been presenting facts - the FACT is that CO2 rates have risen, and the FACT is that Vulcanism.... well I've typed that a dozen times already. Now why would you place that there except to somehow either escape responsibility for your having promulgated an incorrect statement or, you will admit that you are wrong, but none of us know anything anyway so it won't make much difference, you are still "right" in principle. One more time, this is not an ideological issue, it is an issue of fact, it is an issue of evidence and in this case it is an issue of the ability of those on the right to deal with facts, something you are demonstrating quite clearly.
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
big problem with that article in my mind, the data it say it disproves," "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper." are based on what?, tree rings, artic core samples or computer models of our time and our CO2 levels in relation to the temps and Co2 levels back then?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoroughly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice#ixzz20cmdCoAu,
and Co2 levels have a much different way of cooling warming the earth then just developing in our atmosphere, heavy CO2 levels in our oceans also lead to a heating and cool effect in worldwide water temps . .. . . the thing these scietnist need to prove is that our C02 output is not effecting the world any different, and its plain to see as our output rises and the co2 toxicity of the worlds oceans rises that there is a problem and we are a part of it
has anyone brought up the acidification of our oceans in conjunction to another Co2 rise effect "However, there is growing evidence that the gravest peril for ocean species may be posed by what Victoria Fabry of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory has termed “the other CO2 problem”—acidification of the world’s oceans as a consequence of the influx of carbon dioxide generated by human activities."
http://www.terrain.org/articles/21/burns.htm
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoroughly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice#ixzz20cmdCoAu,
and Co2 levels have a much different way of cooling warming the earth then just developing in our atmosphere, heavy CO2 levels in our oceans also lead to a heating and cool effect in worldwide water temps . .. . . the thing these scietnist need to prove is that our C02 output is not effecting the world any different, and its plain to see as our output rises and the co2 toxicity of the worlds oceans rises that there is a problem and we are a part of it
has anyone brought up the acidification of our oceans in conjunction to another Co2 rise effect "However, there is growing evidence that the gravest peril for ocean species may be posed by what Victoria Fabry of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory has termed “the other CO2 problem”—acidification of the world’s oceans as a consequence of the influx of carbon dioxide generated by human activities."
http://www.terrain.org/articles/21/burns.htm
canndo
Well-Known Member
I found some things as well, but I don't understand how evidence of cooling has any bearing on our present warming so it makes sense what you are asking - did this study find correlations between co2 content, polar conditions and the like to be wrong? I don't understand.