|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Global warming- do you know the truth? - 4/30/2008 1:14:12 PM
|
|
|
Leslie35
Posts: 657
Joined: 9/6/2007
From: SW Missouri
Status: offline
|
How much do you really know about global warming? Take the test and find out if you know the fact or the hype.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
_____________________________
If I speak with the tongues of angels and have not love I am nothing but a clanging symbol. ~Love is patient and kind, Love is not ill mannered or easily angered.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 4/30/2008 2:17:21 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1007
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
That was really a good, concise rebuttal for all the chicken littles of the world. Since when has gynecologists been consulted for climatology. 
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 4/30/2008 2:43:34 PM
|
|
|
Pat-rebel_lady
Posts: 369
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Enjoyed this demonstration! Thanks!
I also enjoyed this!! Thanks!
(Even though I did get one wrong.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 4/30/2008 5:59:19 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2monkeysmom
How much do you really know about global warming? Take the test and find out if you know the fact or the hype.
I know fact from hype. This test was hype. It is also distorted or downright incorrect about several things too numerous to go into for now.
Let's just say that their facts are extremely skewed to assuage certain people's ravenous denial.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 4/30/2008 6:37:45 PM
|
|
|
1love1God1way
Posts: 1733
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
Especially given that this past year was like, the coldest year worldwide for how long?
_____________________________
-Ben-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 4/30/2008 6:53:55 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1007
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2monkeysmom
How much do you really know about global warming? Take the test and find out if you know the fact or the hype.
I know fact from hype. This test was hype. It is also distorted or downright incorrect about several things too numerous to go into for now.
Let's just say that their facts are extremely skewed to assuage certain people's ravenous denial.
You mean like Al Gore's? 
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 9:10:40 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
You mean like Al Gore's?
I've got to be honest: I've never even seen Inconvenient Truth. What I learned came from climatologists and geologists who seem to know what they are talking about. The evidence is pretty much scientifically irrefutable.
There are always crackpots out there that refute science, but they tend to keep company with flat-earthers, conspiracy theorists, and religious "sciences." Right-wing denial knows no bounds. Think about it, if we humans really did have something to do with global warming, then we might feel compelled to actually take some responsibility for it . . . eeeew!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 9:22:19 AM
|
|
|
jbow
Posts: 973
Joined: 2/16/2007
Status: offline
|
The problem with this particular science and other "science" like evolution "science" is that it is based on assumptions and not on unrefutable facts, as they would have uss believe. The facts are that it globla temps have not increased over the last decade. As far as scientists lining up behind "global warming", as in the UN statement... the vast majority of them were not in the field of climatology.
The argument that only a "scientist" can disagree with or refute a scientist is baloney... they want it that way but it is not reality. That is like saying that only a chef can critique food or only a carpenter can say if a chair is comfortable.
Global warming is not provable science. It is based on assumptions, not facts. Remember, an equation cannot be faithfully solved if it has more than one variable and most of this kind of science has more than one, and in fact has many.
It is not science, it is opinion.
J
_____________________________
"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 9:24:40 AM
|
|
|
TomTurn
Posts: 678
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
How much do you really know about global warming? Take the test and find out if you know the fact or the hype.
Well it is not "global warming" anymore, it is now being called "climate change". Socialist/marxist/communists are masters at changing words or attempting to change their meaning..
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 9:38:38 AM
|
|
|
jbow
Posts: 973
Joined: 2/16/2007
Status: offline
|
The first question completely invalidates the test by talking ablut 100,000 years of ice age. That is assumption. What we do know for a fact is that we have found wooly mammoths flash frozen with frozen buttercups still in their mouths. (The mammoths we found have no oil glans in their skin which tells us that they were no cold weather animals, but warm.) This tells us that they were frozen in an instant, not gradually. We don't know how this happened but we know that it could have happened in the flood of Noah's day when the water canopy was broken up. We know that we have found giant ferns in the artic regions, again flash frozen. They too are warm climate plants.
What probably happened was that holes were punched into the water canopy and there was an instant and great loss of warmth along with incredible winds... hence, flash freezing in the northern and southern regions... along with global flooding.
The problem with all of this is that it does not line up with scripture and that makes it false. The Bible must not be judged by science but rather science must be judged by the Bible. God was there and He is the only one who knows exactly what happened and we know what He decided to tell us in His word. If we look to His word we can know a bit about it and then it begins to make sense... unless we decide to believe the assumptions of ungodly men who do not want to consider God in their faith. Men who come up with outlandish claims based on their assumptions because they refuse to kneel and acknowledge the creator, the Lord Jesus. As Christians we should know better. Christians are by definition believers. Believers in what? God's word.
J
_____________________________
"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 10:03:39 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jbow
The problem with this particular science and other "science" like evolution "science" is that it is based on assumptions and not on unrefutable facts
This is incorrect. Scientific method cannot thrive on sheer assumption.
Where global warming is concerned we have satellite data, radiosondes, borehole analysis, glacial melt observations, sea ice melt, sea level rise proxy reconstructions, and permafrost melt. Two very important analysis of this data, NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis, and CRU direct surface temperature analysis lead to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is, in fact, warming.
It is not a baseless assumption.
quote:
The facts are that it globla temps have not increased over the last decade.
But have increased overall for the last 150 years.
quote:
As far as scientists lining up behind "global warming", as in the UN statement... the vast majority of them were not in the field of climatology.
There are many people who are neither climatologists nor geologists, and they support the data and call attention to it, but this does not disqualify the data.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 10:07:48 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jbow
The first question completely invalidates the test by talking ablut 100,000 years of ice age. That is assumption.
No, it isn't. There is much geological evidence to support it.
quote:
The problem with all of this is that it does not line up with scripture and that makes it false.
As a religious argument, this may hold water. But as a scientific argument, it is useless.
quote:
The Bible must not be judged by science but rather science must be judged by the Bible.
No, science must be judged by science. The bible is not a scientific standard.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 11:17:28 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1007
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: jbow
The first question completely invalidates the test by talking ablut 100,000 years of ice age. That is assumption.
No, it isn't. There is much geological evidence to support it.
quote:
The problem with all of this is that it does not line up with scripture and that makes it false.
As a religious argument, this may hold water. But as a scientific argument, it is useless.
quote:
The Bible must not be judged by science but rather science must be judged by the Bible.
No, science must be judged by science. The bible is not a scientific standard.
This is true and that is why 150 years worth of data with only 20 years of direct measurement through satellites is statistically meaningless when compared to a number like 4.5 billion.
All other methods are inferential which has a higher uncertainty in its measurement. In other words, it's hard to say the global temperature increased by 3 degrees when your error in measurement is equal to or greater than that amount.
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 11:38:29 AM
|
|
|
freakofnature
Posts: 323
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: jbow
The problem with this particular science and other "science" like evolution "science" is that it is based on assumptions and not on unrefutable facts
This is incorrect. Scientific method cannot thrive on sheer assumption.
Where global warming is concerned we have satellite data, radiosondes, borehole analysis, glacial melt observations, sea ice melt, sea level rise proxy reconstructions, and permafrost melt. Two very important analysis of this data, NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis, and CRU direct surface temperature analysis lead to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is, in fact, warming.
It is not a baseless assumption.
quote:
The facts are that it globla temps have not increased over the last decade.
But have increased overall for the last 150 years.
quote:
As far as scientists lining up behind "global warming", as in the UN statement... the vast majority of them were not in the field of climatology.
There are many people who are neither climatologists nor geologists, and they support the data and call attention to it, but this does not disqualify the data.
quote:
W
The baseless assumption is that it is "Man-Made" more specifically, American Man-made, more specifically than that the idiot Conservative right wing White man... and yet, to point a direct finger at it.. it is all Booooooosh's fault. The Earth takes care of itself, it is self contained and no amount of man created polution is going to change that. I suppose you propose to halt American ingenuity and creativity and throw us backwards about 100 or so years to the age of horse and buggy to counteract the man made global warming. Maybe let Al Gore be the first World President so that he can dictate to us that we can't drive SUV's and build bigger houses meantime he leaves his big 0,000 square foot house ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-27-gore-house_x.htm ) jets allover the world in private jet gets, off the jet into a SUV, (presumably because it provided better protection for him and his family) and rides to a conferance somewhere where he is speaking in a conferance room fully lit up with energy burning lights. Or would you prefer lighting that room with candles, lot and lots of oxygen eating candles.
EDIT- To add to my assertion that the earth is self contained "I beleive that God knew when He created the earth that mindless men may pollute it, I firmly beleive that God himself may have provisioned the earth to be self contained.
< Message edited by freakofnature -- 5/1/2008 11:46:06 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 11:51:21 AM
|
|
|
HighPlainsDrifter
Posts: 1069
Joined: 9/22/2005
From: Buffalo Trading Post
Status: offline
|
The concept of man-made global warming is a purely political tool designed to combat capitalism. Left-wing ideologues couldn't change the system fast enough through conventional means so they tied their wagons to this crackpot idea in an effort to guilt the next generation into changing it for them. Modern environmentalism is much more of a man-made religion than a science.
_____________________________
Most folks are like a barb-wire fence. They have their good points.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 12:27:57 PM
|
|
|
phreddy
Posts: 285
Joined: 3/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
The facts are that it globla temps have not increased over the last decade.
But have increased overall for the last 150 years.
Let's see what occured in the climate around 150 years ago? The end of the little ice age. It seems to me that we would expect global tempertures to naturally warm after the end of an ice age (even a little one).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 12:52:02 PM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 908
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
Socialist/marxist/communists are masters at changing words or attempting to change their meaning.. Well, we learned all we know from the right wing extremists.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 6:18:48 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 70
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phreddy
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
The facts are that it globla temps have not increased over the last decade.
But have increased overall for the last 150 years.
Let's see what occured in the climate around 150 years ago? The end of the little ice age. It seems to me that we would expect global tempertures to naturally warm after the end of an ice age (even a little one).
I can't count the number of times i have had to make that exact point.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 6:33:23 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
This is true and that is why 150 years worth of data with only 20 years of direct measurement through satellites is statistically meaningless when compared to a number like 4.5 billion.
What does the total age of the earth have to do with the last 150 years? If I take my body temperature right now, must I factor in what my temperature has been throughout my life? My temperature is my temperature no matter what it has been at any other time past.
quote:
In other words, it's hard to say the global temperature increased by 3 degrees when your error in measurement is equal to or greater than that amount.
And is this the degree of error we are dealing with concerning global warming? References?
quote:
ORIGINAL: freakofnature
The Earth takes care of itself, it is self contained and no amount of man created polution is going to change that.
What do you mean "self contained?" It is not a closed system, if that's what you mean. And no matter how you slice it, all 6.67 billion of us are responsible for the impact we have on the earth. Don't try to tell me that we have no impact, either.
quote:
I suppose you propose to halt American ingenuity and creativity and throw us backwards about 100 or so years to the age of horse and buggy to counteract the man made global warming.
No, I propose that those who deny global warming pull their heads out of the comfy ignorance of 100 years or so ago and get with what's going on today.
quote:
ORIGINAL: HighPlainsDrifter
The concept of man-made global warming is a purely political tool designed to combat capitalism.
And I could just as easily charge that global warming denial is purely a political, economic, and religious tool to keep us from facing our collective responsibility.
quote:
ORIGINAL: phreddy
Let's see what occured in the climate around 150 years ago? The end of the little ice age. It seems to me that we would expect global tempertures to naturally warm after the end of an ice age (even a little one).
Did the planet warm "naturally" while the Industrial Age was in full gear with unbridled abandon, i.e. no safeguards nor environmental restrictions of any kind?
If not because of industrial pollution, what "natural" phenomenon accounts for the warming trend?
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 5/1/2008 6:40:48 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 6:54:17 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 1142
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline
|
A few modest facts:
There is a link between CO2 composition in the atmosphere and global temperatures. This link was first established approximately 100 years ago. That there is a link is not currently debated among serious scientists, although the strength of the relationship is.
CO2 composition in the atmosphere has both manmade and natural factors that may influence it.
Certainty on this topic is not to be had. Like many other things in life, we can measure averages, drift, and volatilities only in probabilistic terms. We cannot say with certainty that global temperatures are rising, we can only say that there is an X% chance that the mean global temp has increased. We can say however that the current pace of climate change exceeds that which we would have otherwise expected given the historical variance in the rate of temperature change given our best guess using the tools we have at our disposal which do indeed have some flaws. This would imply at some level there is cause for concern and further investigation.
There is a certain non-zero probability that human actions are influencing the global climate. This again is not really debated by serious scientists. The magnitude of human action however can be debated.
Given that there is such a probability, and given that some relatively simple changes could actually help, it seems to me that making a few reasonable changes in light of the potential impacts isn't such a bad idea. Example: listening to the WalMart CFO talk about changes they are making to the packaging of certain food items like mac&cheese mix has led to decreasing the size of the box which has in turn led to fewer semi truck shipments and a fairly large savings in fuel costs.
Now my question is, if you can do that sort of change simply and easily, why not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 7:36:39 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 530
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
A few modest facts:
There is a link between CO2 composition in the atmosphere and global temperatures. This link was first established approximately 100 years ago. That there is a link is not currently debated among serious scientists, although the strength of the relationship is.
CO2 composition in the atmosphere has both manmade and natural factors that may influence it.
Certainty on this topic is not to be had. Like many other things in life, we can measure averages, drift, and volatilities only in probabilistic terms. We cannot say with certainty that global temperatures are rising, we can only say that there is an X% chance that the mean global temp has increased. We can say however that the current pace of climate change exceeds that which we would have otherwise expected given the historical variance in the rate of temperature change given our best guess using the tools we have at our disposal which do indeed have some flaws. This would imply at some level there is cause for concern and further investigation.
There is a certain non-zero probability that human actions are influencing the global climate. This again is not really debated by serious scientists. The magnitude of human action however can be debated.
Given that there is such a probability, and given that some relatively simple changes could actually help, it seems to me that making a few reasonable changes in light of the potential impacts isn't such a bad idea. Example: listening to the WalMart CFO talk about changes they are making to the packaging of certain food items like mac&cheese mix has led to decreasing the size of the box which has in turn led to fewer semi truck shipments and a fairly large savings in fuel costs.
Now my question is, if you can do that sort of change simply and easily, why not?
Agreed and well said! Now, prepare yourself for tantrums, ridicule, mixture of the two...
Peace and God bless,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 10:32:58 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 70
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
Now my question is, if you can do that sort of change simply and easily, why not?
As many have stated in these threads in the past, we have no problem conserving for conservings sake. We do have a problem with scare tactics though which is what the "global warming" scare is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/1/2008 11:00:28 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
As many have stated in these threads in the past, we have no problem conserving for conservings sake.
Conserving for conserving's sake? What is that?
quote:
We do have a problem with scare tactics though which is what the "global warming" scare is.
In that case, maybe we should also accuse meteorologists of "scare tactics" when they track and predict an imminent hurricane or tornado, or maybe geologists are guilty of scare tactics when they attempt to predict major earthquakes, and vulcanologists are just trying to scare everybody when they monitor a "dormant" volcano and attempt to predict its eruption, etc.
What are scientists supposed to do with all of the data that indicates global warming: sit on the information for fear of offending right-wingers?
|
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
