| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 4:54 AM
Location: D-brane
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| MockingGods wrote: | | CET wrote: | | MockingGods wrote: | | runlikehell wrote: | | It is faith, but it's the same kind of faith that makes me think that if I drop something, it will accelerate towards the earth's center at 9.8 meters per second. |
Chris, aka Todangst, used to call your kind of faith contingent (based upon valid evidence and reason). Personally, I don't like the term faith at all. It's a word often used to describe religious beliefs that I'd sooner distance myself from. |
There are 3 definitions for faith, and they're often used interchangeably in argumentation.
1. Belief WITH evidence.
"I have faith that my plane will land safely at its destination."
2. Belief WITHOUT evidence.
"I have faith that the universe is eternal."
3. Belief AGAINST evidence.
"I have faith that Earth is flat."
I have "faith" (type #1) in the scientific process.
A theist may hear that and say, "HA, you have 'faith' (type #2 at best, but usually #3) just like me! Science is your religion!" |
Yes... good points.
1. would be contingent faith
2. would be non-contingent faith
3. Not sure I’d exactly call this a type of faith, more like denial. |
#3 is what we call on AF, delusional.
The word "faith" in #2 has been hijacked by religion, and we, atheists, often see that as synonymous as "blind faith". However, there are beliefs that we take -- in math, for instances -- as axiomatic. They are without evidence. Example: Euclid's fifth postulate -- Given any straight line and a point not on it, there "exists one and only one straight line which passes" through that point and never intersects the first line, no matter how far they are extended. Now, in the 19th century, that axiom was removed to give non-Euclidean geometry, what Einstein used to develop his General Theory of Relativity.
The #1, belief on evidence, is the backbone of empirical science. Of course, the tricky part is what constitutes as evidence. Court cases often illustrate that what we might think as evidence is not foolproof. Even evidence from eyewitnesses is known to be not very reliable. DNA samples were vigorously debated in the famous OJ Simpson's trial, as the lawyers wrangled over whether the crime scene had been contaminated. IOW, when do we reach the point that we can consider that evidence is sufficient to tip the balance in one way rather than the other.
One can debate ad nauseam. We live in an imperfect world, and certainty is always measured in percentages. However, in the case of global warming, it's the survival of our species that is at stakes. Perhaps, the science is wrong, and nothing catastrophic will happen. But then, the science could be right -- that is, we are contributing to global warming. Do we do nothing and wait it out?
It's my opinion that we should err on the side of caution. We should do what we can to minimize our impact on this planet. But that takes effort, discipline and a certain amount of cooperation. So convincing the doubters will be a heck of a job, and history shows that humanity is fickle. However, it seems now that the tide has turned with more governments willing to walk the walk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 2:54 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good points Joe.
I've always said, regardless of whether or not human generated CO2 warming is a real threat, we should start moving away from fossil fuels as soon as possible. One of the biggest reasons we (humanity as a whole) should do this is fossil fuels are a limited resource and will become increasing less viable as an energy source. So either we use a little foresight and prepare for this eventuality before it becomes catastrophic or wait until decreasing amounts of fossil fuels cause more serious human suffering.
There’s also the known fact that breathing combusted fossil fuels are dangerous to biological life forms. I think the extent of this danger will become more widely known as we move away from fossil fuels.
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 2:54 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | This is meaningless. We have established that he knows very little about global warming. Meaning he has no evidence. The only reason he believes in global warming is because scientists say so. Scientists being right or wrong or having a good record means nothing. |
I was thinking about posting this earlier...
Nasa on building a climate model
| Quote: | Building a Climate Model
Next, to understand how sunlight, air, water, and land come together to create Earth’s climate, scientists build climate models—computer simulations of the climate system. Climate models include the fundamental laws of physics—conservation of energy, mass, and momentum—as well as dozens of factors that influence Earth’s climate. Though the models are complicated, rigorous tests with real-world data hone them into robust tools that allow scientists to experiment with the climate in a way not otherwise possible. For example, when scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA’s division spearheading climate modeling efforts, put measurements of volcanic particles from Mount Pinatubo’s 1991 eruption into their climate models well after the event, the models reported that Earth would have cooled by around 0.5°C a year or so later. The prediction matched cooling that had been observed around the globe after the eruption.
As the models reconstruct events that match the climate record, researchers gain confidence that the models are accurately duplicating the complex interactions that drive Earth’s climate. Scientists then experiment with the models to gain insight into what is driving climate change. By experimenting with the models—removing greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of fossil fuels or changing the intensity of the Sun to see how each influences the climate— scientists can use the models to explain Earth’s current climate and predict its future climate. So far, the only way scientists can get the models to match the rise in temperature seen over the past century is to include the greenhouse gases that humans have put into the atmosphere. This means that, according to the models, humans are responsible for most of the warming observed during the second half of the twentieth century. |
runlikehell may not personally have the evidence, but apparently it exists nonetheless.
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 4:54 AM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I've always said, regardless of whether or not human generated CO2 warming is a real threat, we should start moving away from fossil fuels as soon as possible. |
Sigh this is so silly.
It isnt that CO2 is caused by humans or not. We already know humans only generate like 3% yet we have a giant increase in CO2.
The fact is that the correlation of CO2 to global warming isnt very great.
| Quote: | | One of the biggest reasons we (humanity as a whole) should do this is fossil fuels are a limited resource and will become increasing less viable as an energy source. |
Actually humanity is a very slowly changing group. There are many places in the world who use leaded gas out of that they havent changed. Not because they are enthusiasts.
Demand for gas even given the largest increase of non-gasoline ventures... will only increase. While supply of gas will only dwindle and become less; as you say.
Infact I just put 10,000$ into a GIC for 2 years. After 2 years I will then be buying an all electric Smart car. Assuming ofcoarse my insurance rate isnt completely insane.
| Quote: | So either we use a little foresight and prepare for this eventuality before it becomes catastrophic or wait until decreasing amounts of fossil fuels cause more serious human suffering.
|
The price of gas will rise to a level that makes driving more ridiculous much sooner then the amount of oil is left. Infact you can bet that when the price of oil gets so ridiculous that the USA-Canada-UK-Europe worlds will bite the bullet and change. The middle east and such wont switch over and instead will self-destruct because of it.
| Quote: | | There’s also the known fact that breathing combusted fossil fuels are dangerous to biological life forms. I think the extent of this danger will become more widely known as we move away from fossil fuels. |
Actually we saw this already when moving to unleaded rather then leaded. The problem is that we may drop fossil fuels completely... it wont make a great deal of difference.
| Quote: | | runlikehell may not personally have the evidence, but apparently it exists nonetheless. |
Ya I read about Nasa working on this. I didnt know they actually had anything yet. Even given this.. they dont have a Boinc setup for this purpose. I really doubt they've crunched it using a super computer. Hence the reason why they use boinc for their other projects. I dunno I'll have to remember to look into this again in a year or 2.
As for runlikehell. The point I was making is that he has blind faith in scientists. He hasnt studied the subject and thusly really should just sit back and say "I dont know" It's a very reasonable position.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canid
LVPVS IN SCRIPTORIO
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 106
Local time: 4:54 AM
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
*whispers* It's more than 3%!
| munky99999 wrote: | It's when you just plainly believe something without understanding anything about it. Rather then simply say "I dont know, I havent studied it, I will venture to learn about this topic; I will then make my own opinion after studying the cold hard facts.
...
| Quote: | | Of course, it could be wrong. Still I believe the scientists. So is that blind faith? Absolutely not. It is faith, but it's the same kind of faith that makes me think that if I drop something, it will accelerate towards the earth's center at 9.8 meters per second. |
That is not the same faith. You wish it was because you dont want to spend time studying the topic. |
It's not the same?
Tell me, munky, do you believe that if you drop something (in a vacuum - for accuracy's sake here) it will accelerate toward the earth at 9.8 meters per second?
I mean, you know it will fall toward the earth - that, you have seen demonstrated, but at 9.8 meters per second, why should you believe that? Have you tested it yourself, or are you taking the word of those fallible scientists again?
The fact is, that you, like the rest of us, take many of those everyday scientific facts for granted, without personally proving them.
When you study a topic, as you suggested would make your opinions valid, you are reviewing the work of scientists, and usually assuming a certain level of accuracy and understanding in their methods and conclusions.
Why is 9.8 meters per second a reliable number? Because it has been tested many times, by many people, in many different ways. The effect of gravity, is reasonably well understood, and can be casually observed by anyone.
It is great if you can read and/or test everything you talk about, but this isn't practical, and scientific consensus is reasonable grounds for belief. The scientific method is a good way of figuring things out, and when applied by hundreds upon hundreds of people to the same problem with similar results, it is reasonable to believe that they are probably right.
Now personally, I don't take things for granted, and when I find an issue interesting, or relevant, such as global warming, I will make an effort to understand it better and draw my own conclusions. If a number, such as 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere for example, doesn't seem to correspond with other things I've read, I'll take what I know and work out what makes the most sense, if I don't know enough to do this, I'll do some more research.
But should one not have the opportunity to do this, "Faith type 1" in the scientific community, is not misplaced.
None of us are scientists in this discussion, and ALL of us (yourself included) are basing our arguments on their research - not knowing how much we have read about the topic munky, you can't claim a superior understanding. You can only reveal your own knowledge through your posts.
_________________
I like arguing, just not with brick walls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 4:54 AM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | *whispers* It's more than 3%! |
*yells* PROVE IT THEN! You're the moron who keeps posting without any kind of evidence or backing of any kind.
| Quote: | It's not the same?
Tell me, munky, do you believe that if you drop something (in a vacuum - for accuracy's sake here) it will accelerate toward the earth at 9.8 meters per second? |
I have empirical evidence and a causal link for gravity. Just to nitpick your claim further... you just said it to be dropped in a vacumm. Meaning this object it outside the atmosphere and pretty far from the ground. Meaning gravity's strength is more around 9.25 meters/second or so. I'm just cracking out the equation in my head.
Did we just discover that you lack any real knowledge of gravity also now?
| Quote: | I mean, you know it will fall toward the earth - that, you have seen demonstrated, but at 9.8 meters per second, why should you believe that? Have you tested it yourself, or are you taking the word of those fallible scientists again?
|
The empirical evidence already exists. It has nothing to do with me testing it out or going on the word of scientists.
| Quote: | | The fact is, that you, like the rest of us, take many of those everyday scientific facts for granted, without personally proving them. |
You see. This is a strawman. As you misrepresented my position so you could more easily defeat it. In my position... the non-strawman. There's nothing at all to do with personally proving anything. If you want the data which proves gravity's strength across different distances... it exists. You dont have to go throw a projectile around to prove it yourself.
Furthermore I fail to see how I take scientific facts for granted... do I wear a shirt around saying... "Gravity is just a theory; not a scientific fact." hmmm actually that isnt a bad idea. I can then put on the back of the shirt a FSM with a noodle on my head.
In reality anyway... i'm not taking anything for granted. I have either studied the topic or if the subject comes up... I will simply say "I dont really know about that and I'll look into it"
I dont presume to know stuff just because some scientists happen to say 1 thing... or a politician making a movie...
| Quote: | | When you study a topic, as you suggested would make your opinions valid, you are reviewing the work of scientists, and usually assuming a certain level of accuracy and understanding in their methods and conclusions. |
Depends on the situation. Currently I am having significant trouble in getting ahold of the equations and such for m-theory/string theory. So yes I moreso have studied the final works and the opinions of such scientists. So I am lacking in the department... but you dont see me going to any string theory thread or discussion and start talking about it in any reasonable point. Now I have gone to forums and discussed it from a point of view that I am still learning and I did make a valid point. Global warming on the otherhand is 100% data accessible and you can even punch the data into a spreadsheet and graph everything yourself. Not only that... the spreadsheet program can calculate variables in the graph that generally arent available on the websites and everything. Where you yourself can prove that the CO2 and global warming relationship is a weak correlation at best. In some spots global warming increased while CO2 decreased for a good period of time. Infact we just saw this in 2008. We havent decreased our CO2 emissions obviously... yet the global temps from the 4 big data sources all show a giant drop in temp.
| Quote: | | Why is 9.8 meters per second a reliable number? Because it has been tested many times, by many people, in many different ways. The effect of gravity, is reasonably well understood, and can be casually observed by anyone. |
Also causally linked.
| Quote: | | It is great if you can read and/or test everything you talk about, but this isn't practical, and scientific consensus is reasonable grounds for belief. |
No sorry. We are still talking about blind faith or not. If you have blind faith in scientists on evolution, global warming/cooling(ya we are still going to a mini-ice age) etc etc... then so be it... but it doesnt change the fact that it is blind faith.
| Quote: | | The scientific method is a good way of figuring things out, and when applied by hundreds upon hundreds of people to the same problem with similar results, it is reasonable to believe that they are probably right. |
Reasonable or not... it is still blind faith.
| Quote: | Now personally, I don't take things for granted, and when I find an issue interesting, or relevant, such as global warming, I will make an effort to understand it better and draw my own conclusions. If a number, such as 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere for example, doesn't seem to correspond with other things I've read, I'll take what I know and work out what makes the most sense, if I don't know enough to do this, I'll do some more research.
|
Yet you outright deny the fact without any evidence of any kind. Blind faith and then on top of that... you outright deny facts just because they happen to contradict your beliefs... hmm global warming sure has become a new religion and al gore seems to be the prophet.
| Quote: | | But should one not have the opportunity to do this, "Faith type 1" in the scientific community, is not misplaced. |
So just saying... "i dont know" isnt acceptable... you demand belief in your religion of global cooling/warming.
| Quote: | | None of us are scientists in this discussion, and ALL of us (yourself included) are basing our arguments on their research - not knowing how much we have read about the topic munky, you can't claim a superior understanding. You can only reveal your own knowledge through your posts. |
Yet I have proven that you lack even a basic knowledge of the topic and that I do have applicable knowledge. So really you must concede....
You may believe whatever you like. I respect the freedom of religion. However you seem to be lacking any real knowledge of the subject and instead of simply admitting you have no evidence to believe in global warming... you just want to have blind faith in science. Just because they have a good track record... oh wait they dont.
Early 1900s Global warming will destroy the world and make the surface of the planet uninhabitable by the 1940s.
WRONG
1974 We are fucked we are going to an ICE AGE!!! OMGZ TERRIBLE!!! @ time magazine. Fossil Fuels are causing global cooling
WRONG AGAIN
1990s WE ARE SOOOO FUCKED WE ARE DESTROYING THE PLANET. Praise be to the prophet al gore. Global warming is caused by fossil fuels.
YEP WRONG STILL
2008 MINI ICE AGE!!! OMGZ BURN THE FORESTS AND GET THE CO2 RUNNING OR WE ARE FUCKED.
We shall see if this is wrong or not.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 2:54 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | It isnt that CO2 is caused by humans or not. We already know humans only generate like 3% yet we have a giant increase in CO2. |
We know that humans generate billions of metric tons of CO2 annually, and that gas is released into the atmosphere. We know that humans are responsible for destroying a significant amount of the natural carbon sinks. We know that CO2 concentrations have increased 35 percent in last several hundred years. We know of no other naturally occurring phenomena that accounts for this increase. We know the rate of increased concentration and warming affect directly parallels the increasing rate humans are inputting the gas into the atmosphere.
This is what the science tells us. I doubt the scientist are lying about their findings they seem so convinced is correct, and they’re in the position to know. Science has found no other reasonable theory to explain these events.
I’m not sure what you mean by “generate like 3%”. Three percent as compared to what? Three percent of the 35 percent increase?
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 4:54 AM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We know that humans generate billions of metric tons of CO2 annually, and that gas is released into the atmosphere. We know that humans are responsible for destroying a significant amount of the natural carbon sinks. We know that CO2 concentrations have increased 35 percent in last several hundred years. We know of no other naturally occurring phenomena that accounts for this increase. |
Um... no I already said the department of energy from the USA just to state 1 source has proven that we account for very little of the increase. The increase has been significantly of natural reasons. Furthermore I have a fleeting feeling that you guys are nitpicking with this so as to avoid the argument that the CO2 and global warming relationship is a weak correlation.
Even if humans account for 100% of all co2 in the atmosphere... it means jack shit; so as long as CO2 is just correlative.
| Quote: | | We know the rate of increased concentration and warming affect directly parallels the increasing rate humans are inputting the gas into the atmosphere. |
HEh wow what a bullshit way of saying that you have at best correlation... Might you want to also explain that the relationship in sub 60%. Where CO2 concentrations decrease while global warming increases or global warming increases and then afterwards CO2 concentrations increase?
Would you also like to explain why virtually all the planets in the solar system also have global warming? Are those annoying mars rovers generating that much CO2?
| Quote: | | This is what the science tells us. I doubt the scientist are lying about their findings they seem so convinced is correct, and they’re in the position to know. Science has found no other reasonable theory to explain these events. |
blind faith + argument from ignorance.
You basically dont know and the current evidence is pretty damn weak... "That's good enough"
Wow how sad is your religion?
| Quote: | | I’m not sure what you mean by “generate like 3%”. Three percent as compared to what? Three percent of the 35 percent increase? |
It is a 3% total. If you discount water vapour which I do. It is a total of the entire CO2 concentration. The difference between pre-industrial and to now.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 4:54 AM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Regardless of the debate that global warming is caused or not caused by human activity, it still makes sense to move away from carbon fueled energy resources for the following reasons:
1. It's a non-renewable source, and a dwindling resource can only go up in price.
2. Billions of dollars end up in countries where the political situation is volatile, and many of those governments feed petro-dollars to extremist ideology.
It would be in our interest to develop solar, wind, and nuclear power, notwithstanding better fuel efficiency, and educate and encourage the public in conserving energy where that is feasible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 4:54 AM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 1. It's a non-renewable source, and a dwindling resource can only go up in price. |
indeed.
| Quote: | | 2. Billions of dollars end up in countries where the political situation is volatile, and many of those governments feed petro-dollars to extremist ideology. |
You realize Canada is the largest exporter to the USA? Canada isnt exactly in a volatile situation nor feeding much money to extremist ideologies.
| Quote: | | It would be in our interest to develop solar, wind, and nuclear power, notwithstanding better fuel efficiency, |
Which is already happening. Not exactly something that we as people are going to do. It's the people with the real big bucks who can do this.
| Quote: | | and educate and encourage the public in conserving energy where that is feasible. |
Dumb as shit... even in the highest amount of energy consumption for peak times in the year... we are still only peaking at like 60% consumption... which is coming from niagra falls which is roughly the capability of 3 nuke plants or dozens of coal plants. Using good old dam-water power. Toronto uses 3 nuke plants. Ohio has a nuke plant. Generally speaking... we have plenty of power and all "green"
we dont need to conserve energy.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canid
LVPVS IN SCRIPTORIO
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 106
Local time: 4:54 AM
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | Quote: | | *whispers* It's more than 3%! |
*yells* PROVE IT THEN! You're the moron who keeps posting without any kind of evidence or backing of any kind. |
You keep saying that, but you've yet to back up your claim of 3%. Burden of proof, munky.
I've provided references for all the numbers I've used, or worked with the numbers you gave me.
| munky99999 wrote: | | Quote: | It's not the same?
Tell me, munky, do you believe that if you drop something (in a vacuum - for accuracy's sake here) it will accelerate toward the earth at 9.8 meters per second? |
I have empirical evidence and a causal link for gravity. Just to nitpick your claim further... you just said it to be dropped in a vacumm. Meaning this object it outside the atmosphere and pretty far from the ground. Meaning gravity's strength is more around 9.25 meters/second or so. I'm just cracking out the equation in my head. |
Or perhaps, just perhaps, I was suggesting the experiment could be performed in a vacuum tube, since air resistance would otherwise reduce the acceleration.
| munky99999 wrote: | | Quote: | | The fact is, that you, like the rest of us, take many of those everyday scientific facts for granted, without personally proving them. |
You see. This is a strawman. As you misrepresented my position so you could more easily defeat it. In my position... the non-strawman. There's nothing at all to do with personally proving anything. If you want the data which proves gravity's strength across different distances... it exists. You dont have to go throw a projectile around to prove it yourself. |
And if you want the data that proves we are putting greenhouse gases into the air at quantities that make a significant difference to global weather, it exists too, I don't have to go and take the measurements myself to prove it.
| munky99999 wrote: | | Quote: | | Why is 9.8 meters per second a reliable number? Because it has been tested many times, by many people, in many different ways. The effect of gravity, is reasonably well understood, and can be casually observed by anyone. |
Also causally linked. |
So is CO2 and global warming. However the numbers do not show a direct correlation, because there are a lot of other factors besides GHGs that affect temperature. These include smog, cloud-cover, reflective properties, heat sinks, and air and ocean currents. However, the causality HAS been proven.
| munky99999 wrote: | | Quote: | | The scientific method is a good way of figuring things out, and when applied by hundreds upon hundreds of people to the same problem with similar results, it is reasonable to believe that they are probably right. |
Reasonable or not... it is still blind faith. |
Okay.... this is just semantics now... fine, call it whatever you want.
| munky99999 wrote: |
| Quote: | Now personally, I don't take things for granted, and when I find an issue interesting, or relevant, such as global warming, I will make an effort to understand it better and draw my own conclusions. If a number, such as 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere for example, doesn't seem to correspond with other things I've read, I'll take what I know and work out what makes the most sense, if I don't know enough to do this, I'll do some more research.
|
Yet you outright deny the fact without any evidence of any kind. |
Mocking Gods already provided statistics refuting your claim. I'm still waiting for a source on yours.
| MockingGods wrote: | From the EPA
| The EPA wrote: | | Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. |
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | Quote: | | None of us are scientists in this discussion, and ALL of us (yourself included) are basing our arguments on their research - not knowing how much we have read about the topic munky, you can't claim a superior understanding. You can only reveal your own knowledge through your posts. |
Yet I have proven that you lack even a basic knowledge of the topic and that I do have applicable knowledge. So really you must concede.... |
You've SAID you've proven it... but apart from pointing out a typo, I don't see anything I've said that you've falsified with verifiable facts.
Your claims on the other hand have shown a consistent lack of understanding.
| munky99999 wrote: | | Considering the fact that Ice melting takes up less space. Meaning that if water levels are rising... it means that ice caps are actually getting larger rather then melting. |
Basic science, ice takes up more space but displaces the same volume of water. Melting sea ice does not change water levels. Melting land ice makes them rise.
| munky99999 wrote: | | the numbers I have calculated put livestock farming near to 55% of all greenhouse gases. Humans breathing account for around 5% more. |
| munky99999 wrote: | | However on earth where CO2 is so small... it certainly isnt a factor. |
"Earth's average surface temperature is around 15° C (59° F). Without the greenhouse effect, it would be about 30° C (54° F) colder than that!"
"Carbon dioxide % of Greenhouse Effect 9% to 26% "
_________________
I like arguing, just not with brick walls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 4:54 AM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MockingGods wrote: | | Quote: | | It isnt that CO2 is caused by humans or not. We already know humans only generate like 3% yet we have a giant increase in CO2. |
We know that humans generate billions of metric tons of CO2 annually, and that gas is released into the atmosphere. We know that humans are responsible for destroying a significant amount of the natural carbon sinks. We know that CO2 concentrations have increased 35 percent in last several hundred years. We know of no other naturally occurring phenomena that accounts for this increase. We know the rate of increased concentration and warming affect directly parallels the increasing rate humans are inputting the gas into the atmosphere.
This is what the science tells us. I doubt the scientist are lying about their findings they seem so convinced is correct, and they’re in the position to know. Science has found no other reasonable theory to explain these events.
|
When Munky says we don't need to conserve energy, then we know he's either paid by the oil industry or is a sell-out. So no matter what evidence you'll put out there, he will deny. The idiot is a total waste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canid
LVPVS IN SCRIPTORIO
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 106
Local time: 4:54 AM
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I mainly argue with him for the benefit of anyone reading the thread, to be perfectly honest.
_________________
I like arguing, just not with brick walls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 2:54 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Canid wrote: | | Mocking Gods already provided statistics refuting your claim. I'm still waiting for a source on yours. |
I've much more mojo yet to come 
This is in PDF format so I can't copy the data and paste it in. This is direct from The U.S. Climate Change Science program and completely backs up my claims that in all probability humans are responsible for the warming climate we're currently experiencing.
Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States
| Quote: |
1.2 Causes of Climate Change
Our understanding of the climate change continues to grow, enabling scientists to draw increasingly certain conclusions about its causes and impacts. For example, in their most recent assessment of climate change science, the IPCC concluded that it is unequivocal that the average temperature of the Earth’s surface is warmed recently and it is very likely (greater then 90% probability) that most of this global warming is due to increased concentrations of human-generated greenhouse gases. Several lines of evidence, including those outlined in the following sections, point to a strong human influence on climate. Although these individual lines of evidence vary in their degree of certainty, when considered together they provide a compelling and scientifically sound explanation of the Earth’s climate - including changes in surface temperature, ice extent, and sea level rise – observed at global and continental scales of the past few decades.
(snip because I'm getting tired of typing)
Of the greenhouse gases that are increasing in the atmospheric concentration as a direct result of human activities, carbon dioxide is contributing most to the recent warming.
|
After reading much of this official scientific document(I plan on reading more), I no longer have any qualms with my stance on this issue. As far as I'm concerned, people like our friend Munky here do not have a leg to stand on and are simply blowing smoke.
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program official website
A treasure trove of information on this subject, including almost 20 years of research.
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home
Last edited by MockingGods on Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 2:54 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
More from the same report...
| Quote: | IV.2.a Attribution of observed climate change to anthropogenic emissions and land use / land cover.
There is clear evidence that human-induced warming of the climate system is widespread (Hegerl et al., 2007). Studies to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed changes in temperature show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (Karl et al., 2007).
Temperature
The IPCC has strengthened its statement on the linkage between greenhouse gases and temperatures with each assessment report over the past two decades. The IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 contained little observational evidence of a detectable anthropogenic influence on climate (IPCC, 1990). In its second Assessment Report in 1995, the IPCC stated the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on the climate of the 20th century (IPCC, 1996). The Third Assessment Report in 2001 concluded that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations (IPCC, 2001). The conclusion in the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (2007d) is the strongest yet:
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations |
.
Please excuse any typoes
I learned a new word, anthropogenic. I will use it frequently
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
