Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record... - Page 11

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

That's what most scientist are concerned about, exploring and discussing right now.

yes. they need to focus more on impact of global pollution, not global warming. The politicians need to focus more on pollution control & investment in green technology, not Cap-and-Trade.

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

From the government site:

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

Kokonut still denies.

from the same link.... interesting find -

Quote:

4. Are El Niños related to Global Warming?

El Niños are not caused by global warming. Clear evidence exists from a variety of sources (including archaeological studies) that El Niños have been present for thousands, and some indicators suggest maybe millions, of years. However, it has been hypothesized that warmer global sea surface temperatures can enhance the El Niño phenomenon, and it is also true that El Niños have been more frequent and intense in recent decades. Whether El Niño occurrence changes with climate change is a major research question.

plus - many of answers for each question says "little change" and "it is not clear...."

**deafskeptic** · 07-28-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

hence 99.9% instead of 100%. I don't see many of them speaking out about Earth being round or Earth rotating around the Sun.... you know blasphemy was punishable by death at that time

99.9% I think the number may have been a bit lower than that.

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Oh.. Perhaps thats why the plants evolves into bonsais every year...

but bonsai plant is so pretty! <3

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

99.9% I think the number may have been a bit lower than that.

nah. cuz they were persecuted for blasphemy

flip · 07-28-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

what dies comes a new life. nature's cruel like that.. yet it's magically beautiful

The beauty of nature depends on where you live in this case I guess... If we cared for the nature and was stricter on pollution, I belive the climate would be more stable and famine could be avoided. The environment would also give back more as it was less toxic.

netrox · 07-28-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

from the same link.... interesting find -

plus - many of answers for each question says "little change" and "it is not clear...."

They are NOT the same thing. It merely said that El Nino has nothing to do with global warming. Many people mistakenly assume that El Nino has to do with global warming.

flip · 07-28-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

from the same link.... interesting find -

plus - many of answers for each question says "little change" and "it is not clear...."

Yes, the careful interpreting of information show us how serious those climate researchers are. It's far from political driven as some skeptics belive. This is called SCIENCE.

flip · 07-28-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

yes. they need to focus more on impact of global pollution, not global warming. The politicians need to focus more on pollution control & investment in green technology, not Cap-and-Trade.

I think the scientist know very well themselves know what needs attention. Or do you know something that thousands of scientists don't know? As long the focus is on pollution control and green technology I don't care what people belive. I just don't want politicans and shitty corporations to ruin my world.

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

The beauty of nature depends on where you live in this case I guess...

true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

If we cared for the nature and was stricter on pollution, I belive the climate would be more stable and famine could be avoided.

the famine has been around far far long before this global warming happened. The famine happened not because of vengeful nature but because of failure to plan ahead on man's part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

The environment would also give back more as it was less toxic.

It is up to us on how to use what Earth has given us. It is us who made our living area toxic so it is up to us to continue to make our environment more or less toxic. Toxic or not - the Earth does not care.

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

I think the scientist know very well themselves know what needs attention. Or do you know something that thousands of scientists don't know?

They have their own singular focus and a specific agenda. They are as dirty as politicians and corporations

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

As long the focus is on pollution control and green technology I don't care what people belive. I just don't want politicans and shitty corporations to ruin my world.

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Yes, the careful interpreting of information show us how serious those climate researchers are. It's far from political driven as some skeptics belive. This is called SCIENCE.

lol science is always politically-motivated, monetary-motivated, religiously-motivated, etc-motivated. No such thing as pure innocent science.

flip · 07-28-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

the famine has been around far far long before this global warming happened. The famine happened not because of vengeful nature but because of failure to plan ahead on man's part.

Drought in africa and global warming is a known connection. It's next to impossible to plan ahead when one never knows how the weather will be, and this problem is increasing. A Google Scholar search resulted in 7770 articles on this problem (search "famine africa global warming").

flip · 07-28-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

They have their own singular focus and a specific agenda. They are as dirty as politicians and corporations

Shit. That's scary. My uncle is a scientists. I should perhaps stop visiting him.

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Shit. That's scary. My uncle is a scientists. I should perhaps stop visiting him.

too late

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Drought in africa and global warming is a known connection. It's next to impossible to plan ahead when one never knows how the weather will be, and this problem is increasing. A Google Scholar search resulted in 7770 articles on this problem (search "famine africa global warming").

it's impossible to know when the rain will come. it's impossible to know the locust swarm will come. it's impossible to know when the thief will steal all your food. the list is endless but a man who prepares for failure is a very wise man.

flip · 07-28-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

lol science is always politically-motivated, monetary-motivated, religiously-motivated, etc-motivated. No such thing as pure innocent science.

Everyone have belifs, and it's hard to create an 100% objective hypotheisis, but I think we are exaggerating now. It's a consensus among climate scientists, and according to you, they must share some motivations since the results points in the same directions. Care to elaborate what secret brotherhood they all are belonging to? Or is this consensus accidental?

kokonut · 07-28-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

It was as sucessful and accurate as a scientific survey can be.

"climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role"

"..the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments."

See? 97 percent of the finest scientists you can find.

Your attempt at disinformation and why.
1) You copied and pasted a section about 97% agreeing.
2) Next, you copied and pasted another section in that same article that includes the number 10,200 experts that were contacted.

With those two sections side by side as you have undoubtedly done you NEVER clarified that the actual number of people who responded was actually 3,146, and not 10,200. That is what we call "intellectual dishonesty" as way to get people to think that 10,200 experts responded that resulted in a "consensus" of 97%. Was it your intention to make the number appear bigger by not clarifying to the readers that poll results was actually from 3,146 respondants....not the 10,200 experts? Yet you ended with a clarifying but snooty remark by saying, "97 percent of the finest scientists you can find." I made a point again and again that by saying "97%" is meaningless and doesn't tell the story nor an accurate picture. And so you if appears you attempted at intellectual dishonesty by purposefully disinforming the readers just so they think it was 97% of the 10,200 experts who concurred.

I ain't dumb so stop playing that game for once. You got caught. At least your error was caught.

flip · 07-28-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

it's impossible to know when the rain will come. it's impossible to know the locust swarm will come. it's impossible to know when the thief will steal all your food. the list is endless but a man who prepares for failure is a very wise man.

Sure, but he still will die, because he has nothing to prepare with.

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Everyone have belifs, and it's hard to create an 100% objective hypotheisis, but I think we are exaggerating now. It's a consensus among climate scientists, and according to you, they must share some motivations since the results points in the same directions. Care to elaborate what secret brotherhood they all are belonging to? Or is this consensus accidental?

good. now you're aware of ulterior motivation behind their stance. You'll have to ask them what their ulterior motivation is. I cannot answer that on behalf of them.

kokonut · 07-28-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

This is a standard scientifical run survey, and 1/3 replying is quite normal. You claim I am "exercising gross intellectual dishonesty here to try and make it sound like the 97% consensus result came from those 10,200 experts.", while I never tried to impy that 10.000 replied. Is it something wrong with your cognitive skills? Koko - another ad hominem attack. A feedback from 1/3 is considered a success in scientifical surveys and quite normal. It's common knowledge.

Yes, how significant is the question that's interesting, not if man have influenced at all or not, glad you have discovered it. It did sure take some time for you to gasp, but you are welcome. So, now, how significant do you think the man made global warming is?

My response here - Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

Next time, make absolutely clear of your numbers.

It's not a matter of "discovering" the meaning and significance of the word "significant" or that it took me time to grasp it. Again, like I told you, this is a word that has a qualitative meaning and it's meaning varies. There was nothing to discover on my part, it was a well known issues among use scientists who write these reports to be aware of using qualitative words because it could make a difference for a project to be litigated based on those words. Which is why a quantitative measure is necessary to go with it in support of it.

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Sure, but he still will die, because he has nothing to prepare with.

hence.... the nature's cruel...

kokonut · 07-28-2009, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

it's impossible to know when the rain will come. it's impossible to know the locust swarm will come. it's impossible to know when the thief will steal all your food. the list is endless but a man who prepares for failure is a very wise man.

Actually, regarding rain, that depends on the time scale when rain will come. If you're talking about predicting years, months or even in some cases days ahead, sure. At what time scale are you talking about for rain?

flip · 07-28-2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Your attempt at disinformation and why.
1) You copied and pasted a section about 97% agreeing.
2) Next, you copied and pasted another section in that same article that includes the number 10,200 experts that were contacted.

With those two sections side by side as you have undoubtedly done you NEVER clarified that the actual number of people who responded was actually 3,146, and not 10,200. That is what we call "intellectual dishonesty" as way to get people to think that 10,200 experts responded that resulted in a "consensus" of 97%. Was it your intention to make the number appear bigger by not clarifying to the readers that poll results was actually from 3,146 respondants....not the 10,200 experts? Yet you ended with a clarifying but snooty remark by saying, "97 percent of the finest scientists you can find." I made a point again and again that by saying "97%" is meaningless and doesn't tell the story nor an accurate picture. And so you attempted at intellectual dishonesty by purposefully disinforming the readers just so they think it was 97% of the 10,200 experts who concurred. Not so.

I ain't dumb so stop playing that game for once. You got caught.

Calm down, Kokonut. I did not at try to make it look like everyone who got a request, replied. This is a survey for gods sake. It's illogical that everyone that is asked will reply in a survey. It's common knowledge. My point with 10,200 is to show how many and what kind of scientist they sent requests to, as we know how many who replied from earlier posts. One of three is very good. The partipants was also careful picked, to avoid favoring a specific group of same minded scientist.

Your rambling about 97% beeing meaningless and pointless don't make any sense. Following that thinking, all scientific surveys would render meaningless and pointless.

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Actually, regarding rain, that depends on the time scale when rain will come. If you're talking about predicting years, months or even in some cases days ahead, sure. At what time scale are you talking about for rain?

for example - you're raising crop or livestock in Texas or mid-western state. You're waiting.... and waiting.... and waiting for rain to come. One must be prepared for drought or a certain period of no rain. One also must prepared for excessive rain as well.

It is months, not years due to seasonal change.

flip · 07-28-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

good. now you're aware of ulterior motivation behind their stance. You'll have to ask them what their ulterior motivation is. I cannot answer that on behalf of them.

I am not tough enough to ask a hidden brotherhood about their evil plans for the earth. Perhaps you are tough to the bone? Do it Jiro. You are the man!

flip · 07-28-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

hence.... the nature's cruel...

Let me finish ....cruel because we did put gases in the atmosphere, and

1. the earth corrects itself

2. the earth goes bananas

3. a mix of those

Pick your choice, but somehow, we have made the nature more cruel than it need to be here.

kokonut · 07-28-2009, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Looking around... All surveys points toward an increase in agreement that global warming is for real. What was your point really?

Temperature is rising. 97 percent of climate scientists see no signs that we are cooling down, but that we go a bit down, then soar up, a bit down and then soar up. Let me suggest some real stats from real scientists, not some .org or .com sites.

"Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

Graphs have the tendency to look impressive when you reduce the scale to very small sizes. Secondly, I was referring to changes in global temperature in the last 10 years which have been essentially static and not rising.

No one is disputing that global warming has been occurring. Not I. However, the dispute has to do with the notion that it was all human caused and we're the main culprit and driver on global warming with our additional introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere. Here, let me help and borrow a graph to illustrate this point about global temperature over the last 10 years (1998 - 2007, and this was before a cool 2008 year, too).
http://www.roanokeslant.org/GlobalWa...-1998-2008.jpg

It's all about scale. Time. Magnitude.

Once more, it is misleading to present that 97% claim. I've explained why and how you got caught with that display of intellectual dishonesty. Make a clarifying comment about the 97% claim.

netrox · 07-28-2009, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

High CO2 concentrations see crop yield improve by 30%.
Yeah, some plants do hate higher CO2 concentration.

Not if the plant cannot survive the heat. It's pointless to argue about CO2 concentration if plants die due to heat and lack of water thanks to global warming. Duh!

netrox · 07-28-2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

No one is disputing that global warming has been occurring. Not I. However, the dispute has to do with the notion that it was all human caused and we're the main culprit and driver on global warming with our additional introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere. Here, let me help and borrow a graph to illustrate this point about global temperature over the last 10 years (1998 - 2007, and this was before a cool 2008 year, too).
http://www.roanokeslant.org/GlobalWa...-1998-2008.jpg

You contradict yourself, as usual. You're saying we are having a global warming but cited a graph to prove that we're not warming up. Make up your mind!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com