Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2012, 03:30 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(26-03-2012 03:26 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Seriously? I thought this was a place of intellectual discussion? This person has 13 positive reputation points, and has given me -1 for simply stating a fact regarding Ron Paul? On top of that, now he is threatening me with personal violence, and though I am not the least bit threatened it is rather sad.

I guess I was wrong about this community.



It is. But you came here to argue. And your comment was an indirect insult at someone you disagreed with but were too passive to come out and say it. You want reps? Make a quality post and I'll think about it.

No, I don't actually care about such a thing. I just find it ironic that a community regarded as intellectual thinkers would think so highly of someone so immature and childish. You obviously have neither debate or reasoning skills, and even go as far as to deny scientific theories. It is quite absurd when you sit and think about it.

So, you can give me -10 points if you wish, as their true worth is evident to me now. Nothing!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 03:46 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 04:35 PM by DeepThought.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(26-03-2012 03:17 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Do not mistake my casual grammar for ignorance. I'm well aware of the evidence. I'm also well aware that the last time this happened there were no SUVs pumping out greenhouse gases.

There is a difference between last time and now... The difference is time period. This time changes are happening over a period of 100 years as a pose to last recorded times when the changes took much MUCH longer.

The times in the past when it happened faster were due to other causes like continent size volcanoes. For obvious reasons that does not apply to the last few hundred years.

If you are are going to continue propagating misinformation like in the previous examples then that's a disgrace. I treat that sort of thing with the same contempt I give young earth creationists who should know better, have their crap debunked thousands of times over. Still they continually misrepresent science and lie to children. They continue on pretending like no-one has debunked their assertions. That sort of thing sickens me.

I think generally you seem reasonable otherwise I wouldn't bother posting anything. If I say anything that contradicts science and current evidence I would want to know and be corrected on that.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 04:16 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(26-03-2012 03:17 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I'd probably crush your fuckin skull if you were here. Did you feel like you were safe on this forum engaging the person you disagree with most?
Excl


Angry

Grrrr. At least he stood up to you. Seems like he can look after himself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 04:54 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 05:13 PM by germanyt.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&c...k8SSqc7ekM
(26-03-2012 03:46 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  
(26-03-2012 03:17 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Do not mistake my casual grammar for ignorance. I'm well aware of the evidence. I'm also well aware that the last time this happened there were no SUVs pumping out greenhouse gases.

There is a difference between last time and now... The difference is time period. This time changes are happening over a period of 100 years as a pose to last recorded times when the changes took much MUCH longer.

The times in the past when it happened faster were due to other causes like continent size volcanoes. For obvious reasons that does not apply to the last few hundred years.

If you are are going to continue propagating misinformation like in the previous examples then that's a disgrace. I treat that sort of thing with the same contempt I give young earth creationists who should know better, have their crap debunked thousands of times over. Still they continually misrepresent science and lie to children. They continue on pretending like no-one has debunked their assertions. That sort of thing sickens me.

I think generally you seem reasonable otherwise I wouldn't bother posting anything. If I say anything that contradicts science and current evidence I would want to know and be corrected on that.


Fair enough. I don't feel like you are attacking me personally and I don't question your logic in regard to climate change. I admit that the science is ther but submit that its coincidental. Not all widely accepted scientific theories are true. There was a time when people thought the earth was flat. It made perfect sense at the time because general observation led one to believe it. In this case observation leads you to believe that man via CO2 is causing the planets temp to rise.

I really don't see the point in this anymore. I've admitted the science and understand why you have come to your conclusions. I've then explained my position. None of you however can even admit the possibility of the science being wrong. So it is you and not I that are like YECs.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&c...fHW7KR33IQ
http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&c...B0aFPXr4n4

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 05:15 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(26-03-2012 04:54 PM)germanyt Wrote:  http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&c...k8SSqc7ekM

Fair enough. I don't feel like you are attacking me personally and I don't question your logic in regard to climate change. I admit that the science is ther but submit that its coincidental. Not all widely accepted scientific theories are true. There was a time when people thought the earth was flat. It made perfect sense at the time because general observation led one to believe it. In this case observation leads you to believe that man via CO2 is causing the planets temp to rise.

I really don't see the point in this anymore. I've admitted the science and understand why you have come to your conclusions. I've then explained my position. None of you however can even admit the possibility of the science being wrong. So it is you and not I that are like YECs.

Just checked out your video. It has a guy - John Coleman claiming that "The climate is going to change with the cycles of the sun and we are all going to do just fine."

He is a self proclaimed "climate expert" who got his journalism degree in 1957 from the University of Illinois. There is a qualitative difference between this video and the videos I posted in that this video is some guy talking who just expects to be believed without providing evidence. The videos I posted actually have the science, and links to all the sources/peer-review literature that can be investigated at your discretion. More work yes, but learning is never easy.

You say I can't even admit to the possibility of science being wrong. I can take you back to an earlier post:
(25-03-2012 02:15 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  I'm having trouble making sense of this statement. Science doesn't work like this and you of all people should know that. There is no 'completely ruled out of possibility' since that is not science.

It's possible that evolution is wrong but best evidence and data suggests that it isn't. It's the same with man-made climate change. Best explanation we have is that our actions are effecting earth's climate.

Debunking your claims one topic at a time is different and really quite easy, as demonstrated in the above short videos thoroughly picking apart each of your quotes with science.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 05:22 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
That guy happens to be the founder of the weather channel. And the 30000 scientists he speaks about aren't imaginary. The 9000 phds that disagree with climate change aren't made up.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 05:35 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 05:46 PM by DeepThought.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(26-03-2012 05:22 PM)germanyt Wrote:  That guy happens to be the founder of the weather channel. And the 30000 scientists he speaks about aren't imaginary. The 9000 phds that disagree with climate change aren't made up.
What kind of scientists are they? Mathematicians? meteorologists? (there is a difference between studying local weather patterns and studying climate)
Argument from authority. What does that say? Where is the science?

An interesting breakdown of his claims:
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/Global_W...th_Science

Probably not the best but at least it gives another perspective.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 08:16 AM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2012 08:41 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(26-03-2012 01:51 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(26-03-2012 01:44 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If you mean that the current evidence is not enough to convince you that humanity influences global temperatures in a substantial amount, then I do have a problem.


Well that's me. It's funny though because I'm actually willing to load my roof up with solar panels (assuming I can afford them), buy a Nissan Leaf, and even lobby for clean energy. So if it makes you feel better, my eagerness to ease dependance on foreign energy will still indirectly affect the climate change you are so convinced of.

Different roads, same destination.
I am "convinced" of this theory because top NASA scientists even accept it.

I suppose that is true.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: