i do not have the time nor the patience to plow through this whole thread, but i found this on drudge:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20060804c.html

public perception of how hot or cold it is in any given season is isn't scientific. it's conjecture based on emotion.

as you were.

true, but frankly there are enough stubborn folks here in the US who don't believe that global warming exists despite all of the evidence that it does. But their own perceptions that this summer has been particularly hot and the idea that this might have something to do with global warming is starting to convince them it does exist. I am glad that this portion of the general public's refusal to believe things they don't experience firsthand is paying off for once. Getting people to take global warming seriously may not be something you care about but here in the US people need to stop being so freekin selfish.

btw, it really has been exceptionally hot for most of the northern hemisphere. Though its been kind of average as far as Georgia summers are concerned, the rest of the country and the UK have been suffering record breaking temps.

So one has nothing to do with the other, which is my point. My original perception of your behavior stands. You're a little brat who likes to make him/herself out to be smarter than you actually are by throwing in big words that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. I've never heard a single environmentalist or scientist argue that humans' contributions to global warming were a threat to the universe at large, nor have I heard anyone even express concern that it might.


No, I really don't, but they were certainly bigger than the conversation warrants, particularly since they were irrelevant. And I have no doubt that you know many big words, the difference is that I know what all of the words in my vocabulary mean and can use them properly in a sentence and only bring them up when relevant.


You are aware that Michael Crichton is a fiction writer, are you not? Just because he did a little research for his latest book doesn't mean that his opinions on global warming are as valid as scientists who have been studying the environment as objectively as they can.

Environmentalists are not the ones doing the study, so they really shouldn't have to worry about what local dynamics are; that's for the scientists to do. I appreciate your skepticism, I really do, but I can't help but think you probably don't hold the scientists and/or fiction writers who happen to support your position to the same standards.

I'll remember that as long as you remember that the people who hold your position do the same damn thing.

That's an opinion article.

Ahh, a pre-copernican I see.

Thanks for taking the time out to respond to my posts. I see you’ve paced yourself and even taken some gestation time to produce a formidable response. Once again, thanks for the time and effort, especially since you said you were above it.

My previous conviction that no words I’ve used are particularly “big”, stands. The only possible exception I can see is that they might appear to be big to a very small mind.

I have never heard a scientist express fear that “humans' contributions to global warming were a threat to the universe at large, nor have I heard anyone even express concern that it might.”, either. In fact the point I was making earlier was precisely the opposite; that the universe has a destiny of its own which humans are impotent to alter.

Here, ill condense it to a syllogism:

The universe is determined.
The Earth is part of the universe.
The determinacy (we can go into all the Stephen Hawking shit if you like) of the universe has more influence on the earth and its atmosphere than anthropogenic c02, which are miniscule in comparison.

Well, most likely. As I’ve already stated I have no firm convictions about the matter one way or another.

Sure, though I wonder why ask me to do than when I’ve already demonstrated that I understand the GW debate is politicized from both sides, as this quote demonstrates:

“the global warming dispute is complicated by the sophistry of various coal and oil interest groups and the paid boffins that credit them”

In fact, the unfortunate partisanisation of this complicated scientific issue was, I believe, a main theme in previous posts.

Unfortunately, that kind of response demonstrates why the debate over the theory of "human caused global warming of a catastrophic dimension" aka "Global Warming" is indeed an ideological debate, i.e., pseudo-religious, rather than a scientific debate, particularly in the lay mind. You snort that Crichton is a science fiction writer, as if that disposed of the points he raised in his lecture. Crichton could have been a plumber, for what it's worth, and his points about global systemic complexity and the inability of science to predict human caused effects on a small scale - Yellowstone Park - could still have been valid. But, also, Crichton is an M.D., which means that he is not without some background in real science, unlike, say, most philosophers, and, I'm quite certain, you. Anyway, I just found the lecture a particularly good summation of key issues, if you want to find arguments from people who cannot be glibly dismissed with ad hominems, see the petition against Kyoto or just browse wikipedia.

Well, first you might want to note that being an environmentalist and being a scientist are not mutually exclusive. Having noted that, it might be easy for you to understand that environmentalist scientists interpret data differently from shell oil scientists who interpret data differently from postgrad researches etcetera. Second you should note that the data is not conclusive, thus, not surprisingly, environmentalist emphasize data that underscores their political objectives and the chamber of commerce does the same. Politics aside, I think the most sophisticated gauging comes from research satellites which have shown an increase in some of Greenland's glaciers as well as some in the Antarctic. As of yesterday, there was no reported increase in the mainland temperature of the Iceshelf on mainland Antarctica, so I’m not joining the bandwagon of zealots of Global Doomsaying just yet.

Not at all babe, I've just had other shit to do.

You mentioned some belief in astrology in your reply. I just didn't want to get into a debate about scientific things with someone who still believes the the gravitational pull of the planets shaped its personality, and I still don't. I'm not above backing up my arguments.


Sweety, I've taken the GRE. I can assure you I've seen plenty of big words. I don't know how many ways I can say this but those words were out of place in this discussion.

And my question is why is that relevant? Would you like me to make a list of all the other things that will not be affected by humans in a discussion that is supposed to be about the effect of humans on this planet? What's the point of that?

Sorry, that quote must have been buried in all of your other quotes that pretty much do nothing but point out the inadequacies of the environmentalists and/or the scientists who provide evidence that global warming does exist.

And the fate of the universe wasn't, so I still question why you brought it up.

But seriously, here's the thing, generally speaking, there is very little partisanship on the global warming issue outside of the US. When scientists around the world pretty much come to the same conclusions, it's pretty easy to ignore the partisans here in favor of what those outside of our crony capitalist society are saying.



I consider this further evidence that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. My undergraduate degree was in a "soft science" and I'm working on a master's/phD in a completely unrelated "hard science" now. And even though neither of my degrees are (or will be) in the part of science that deals specifically with this issue, I've taken geology, environmental science, planetary sciences, and plenty of other things that make me feel quite comfortable in this debate. What is the source of your arrogance?


(1) Why would I go to wikipedia when I can go directly to sources that I know are fairly trustworthy, like the EPA or union of concerned scientists? (2) Just because someone is against the Kyoto treaty does not necessarily mean they don't think global warming is caused by humans or that it's not damaging in the long term.


Gee, I never thought of any of that.

You know, I'm almost beginning to like you, you're every bit as pedantic as I am. However, I have tried to curb my tendency to explain every detail of my thought processes on any given matter unless it is specifically required. You apparently think you're talking to a moron, hence another reason I don't desire engaging in discussion of cosmology (and perhaps any other topic) with you. If I'm going to have to explain every thought about every subject
lest you assume I didn't think of it, we won't get very far, now will we? AS you said to someone else: "Please, condescend to someone whos below you." I wouldn't normally say something like that because unlike someone like yourself who has a false sense of thinking they're so much smarter than every person in the world, I've realized I know nothing. I firmly believe the more that you know, the more you realize you don't know, and apparently you haven't reached that benchmark in your life yet. But since you're a classist pig, I'll go ahead and repeat it back to you. I don't think there's any way you could have spent more time studying science than I have, or you would at least have the good sense to pretend you don't believe in astrology.

It's a shame you don't want to debate astrologists about cosmology (and either do I as a matter of fact, as I don’t believe in astrology, I was being droll), because, as you've admitted you know nothing, they could after all be right. Or at least offer some insights on some things you never thought of. The admission that you know nothing also makes your knee-jerk defensiveness about the anthropogenic GW theory that much more preposterous since, as any scientist worth his salt will admit, while there might be evidence in support of GW as I've defined it, i.e., anthropogenic global warming in a catastrophic range, and that Global Warming might actually be true, the empirical data doesn't support that theory to any degree of certainty. My position that the theory yet requires more confirmation is more emblematic of a moderated, humble mind than yours. Rather arrogant too is your assertion that the fate of the universe is the big freeze out as opposed to a heat death, as though that matter has at all been decided. Why so confident?


You could do that. I mean as a self confessed doubter, it might be a good thought exercise. Nevertheless, the point is not about what will be affected by humans, but what effects universal physics have on the earth’s atmosphere and our inability control them. I'm sure you’re aware that the earth doesn’t exist in a vacuumed. Or are you still questioning that? Nevertheless, my argument is that certain astrophysical phenomena wrought by the "logos" bear more influence on earth’s climate and ecosystem than co2 or any other human pathology. I'll happily dilate that argument and describe in detail what those astrophysical phenomena are, just as soon as you make the small mental leap for dumbkind and see how the line of argument is relevant. Basically, I'm on board with Peter Ward/Donald Brownlee, who have lots of papers on the subject. I pretty much borrowed the phrase from them, actually. I urge you to read their literature, it could be a rapturous experience for your yearning mind.

You obviously don't understand what I meant by that. I mean that compared to all of the knowledge that is to be had, I know nothing. And that's what a good education should do for you. There's so much more to learn. But apparently you already know it all, so I assume you're fresh out of high school?

I've already told you enough about myself, but you avoided the subject of what is your arrogance based on.

But no, it has been pretty much decided as far as we can tell today. It's funny how you throw the name Hawking around yet overlook one of his most important contributions to physics- Hawking radiation. The last energy of the universe will most likely be of this form.

Please, tell me, I'm dying over here, you must be a first or second year philosophy student?
You say "self confessed doubter" as though it were a bad thing. It is always good to question what you've been taught- isn't that part of your argument for why people shouldn't just accept what the global warming "doomsdaysayers" are telling them? Yes, I question almost everything. I consider the fact that you don't as yet more proof that you're a pseudo-intellectual fraud.
I don't have all of the answers, and neither do you. But there are some things that I'm quite certain I have studied more than you, and I'm sure there's a vice versa to that.


Actually, I'm quite sure that was the point here.

This was part of the point only in your mind.

You can really stop with the condescending. All it does is assure me that you're a little pissant who's not worth the time. Write again when you've grown up.

fucking ho

I live in Australia, and seeing as how we've had up to 90% of our country in drought lately, I think that anybody who hasn't realised that global warming is a reality has seriously got something wrong with them. We may be one of the driest places on earth, with a big desert in the middle of our continent, but it's gone beyond ridiculous when water catchment areas & dams are so low that governments are considering recycling sewerage & treating seawater to top them up in order for people to have water to drink.
Personally, I blame all the fucking retards that water their footpaths for the dams being so low. It's concrete! It's not going to fucking grow!!!
Besides, it's not like recycling poo water is new. ALL water has had some sort of poo in it, at some point in time, since the beginning of time.
It's not like when you flush the poo away, God takes that water, puts it on Poo Water Planet, and puts fresh water in the dams & rivers from Fresh Water Planet.



Oh, and congratulations, book bbq, on receiving that thesaurus from your nanna. Make sure you remember to send her a thank-you card, to let her know how much you appreciate it. Hopefully now that you've learned some new "big words", you can learn how use them in a grammatically proper way.

Your profile says that your date of birth is August 18th, which would make you a Leo (which I am - Leo is July 13th to August 22nd). Aries is March 21st to April 19th, which I know cause my dad is an Aries.
With all of your apparent research into the different subjects that you are attempting to use in order to debunk the "myth" of global warming, and therefore to attempt to "win" your argument with various other posters in this thread, that is a MASSIVE mistake to make.
Seriously, who the fuck gets confused about their star sign?