luke warm Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 hereand here and here and many more... and here i just bought some carbon offsets... well at least they got one thing right - warming causes co2, not the other way 'round Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jocdelevat Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Yeah thats why some of us trust In God because Science mess up with contradictory results. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 hereand here and here and many more... and here i just bought some carbon offsets... well at least they got one thing right - warming causes co2, not the other way 'round Anyone else find it amusing watching Jimmy quote Pravda... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted January 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 hereand here and here and many more... and here i just bought some carbon offsets... well at least they got one thing right - warming causes co2, not the other way 'round Anyone else find it amusing watching Jimmy quote Pravda... i do, i do!! what makes this sad is, it won't even slow down the ridiculous taxes coming... maybe it'll be somewhat worth it if it puts to bed the silly man-made warming stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Don't worry, most climate scientists don't read Pravda, let alone take it seriously. You are really amazing, Jimmy. I thought I had a bad habit of talking about issues that I have zip knowledge about (such as ACBL system regulations, or global warming). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted January 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 but helene, if we all only talked about issues we actually know something about there'd be far fewer posts... so far i haven't seen anyone actually dispute the pravda article, so i'll just ask you... do you personally think there's more of a chance of global warming due in part or whole to man's activities or of a cooling of temperatures due to cyclic patterns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 so far i haven't seen anyone actually dispute the pravda article, so i'll just ask you... Personally I'm sick of saying your sources are consistently dumb, so I just wasn't going to reply. Apparently Richard and even Helene!!! feel no similar qualms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 but helene, if we all only talked about issues we actually know something about there'd be far fewer posts true but I would personally try (yeah it's hard) to be a little bit humble when talking about issues that I have zip knowledge about. I think it's fair enough to say- this theory doesn't appeal to me - this theory has far-reaching political implications and I can't help notice that it's strongest proponents belong to a particular political wing While it's hard to take phrasings like "this can't be true" or "silly" seriously when they come from a non-expert. Since you ask me for my personal opinion, maybe I shouldn't say anything since I have zip knowledge about the issue. But I will try anyway- There seems to be almost 100% scientific consensus of the general idea of man-made global warming, although there are huge disagreements about the extent of the problem etc.- It is not an established theory, though. Most scientists seem to acknowledge that it could be seriously flawed.- Scientists have an obvious interest in over-stating the problem as it will allocate more money and prestige to their research.- It is obviously the pro-environment wing that shouts the loudest. But I read Bjorn Lomborg's book (he has the opposite bias I would say) and he acknowledges the phenomena, although he says that it probably won't have disastrous impact on the global economy. - I have seen environmentalist hypes being wrong before so instinctively I am very skeptical.- I am concerned about the militant attitude of many of those involved in the debate. Even Scientific American IMHO discredited itself by making its review of Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" look more like an ad hominem attack. Although bad arguments for an idea does not logically invalidate the idea I can't help thinking that if they really had a good cause it wouldn't be necessary to drag the debate to that level. Then again, I know some people who feel genuinely desperate about the prospects of our planet so it is understandable that they get angry when faced with certain politicians and lobbyists neglect of the problem. - I haven't seen a single serious argument against the hypothesis of man-made global warming. Of course I could have missed one or two.- I am personally more concerned about acidification of the oceans than I am about the rising sea level and climate change, but that may just be my irrational feelings for coral reefs.- As for cyclic patterns, I haven't read anything recently. - I do read a number of semi-popular science journals and websites regularly so if an important revision of the scientific consensus came up I would here about it I think. I feel no need to follow links from here to Pravda or other partisan websites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 but helene, if we all only talked about issues we actually know something about there'd be far fewer posts... so far i haven't seen anyone actually dispute the pravda article Jimmy, it took all off 30 seconds to find a section of the IPCC report that 1. Discusses Milankovitch cycles2. Explains why these cycles can't explain the climate patterns that we're seeing today Please note: This is part of the bloody FAQ... It doesn't take much time or effort to show that the analysis in Pravda is severely flawed. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.1.html If you search on Milankovitch cycles on Real Climate you'll find all sorts of additional information. As Josh mentions, its pretty easy to show that the crap that you continuously cycle through has little to no relation to reality. However, it gets tedious doing so repeatedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 The over and under on this thread is set at 11 pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 How much can I get down on the over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 I think that the world will get a lot warmer.Except of course for Russia where it will get a lot colder.Because Pravda says so.And Pravda means 'Truth'.But only in Russian... Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Truth is relative.....reality is another thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Truth is relative..... And in some cases a very distant relative Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rona_ Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Our not so distant relatives. http://www.newser.com/story/13572/kangaroo...rb-warming.html Rona Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 hahahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.