|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is it all Leftwing Conspiracy/Massive Scientific Fraud? |
| Of course it is |
|
35% |
[ 14 ] |
| Very likely |
|
15% |
[ 6 ] |
| No real opinion |
|
10% |
[ 4 ] |
| Probably not |
|
22% |
[ 9 ] |
| What madness! |
|
17% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 40 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| thecount wrote: |
| my argument was -and still is- that the massive levels of Co2 in the ordovician (which no one denies) |
right...
| Quote: |
| were proportionally far greater than current levels |
They was more CO2, yes.
Now stop at "proportionately". Lets get this clear. In the ordovician there was proportionally much more oxygen to CO2 than there is now.
Thats what you are trying to twist out of.
| Quote: |
| and that such levels, with such temperatures, strike directly at the heart of your claim that merely an increase in Co2 alone will lead to rising temperatures (which the ordovician proves is not the case). |
it would have done had it not been counterracted by vastly higher levels of O2 (which are not present today). Apples and oranges.
| Quote: |
| The person you posted to defend your position simultaneously disproved you |
No he didney.
U just don't get it.
CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas! It traps heat in our atmosphere, causing it to warm! this much was ascertained by scientists over a century ago.
However it can be counterracted by other significant factors. Which were present in the ordovician but not today. Hence our present warming.
| Quote: |
| while upholding my statement that temperature is based on MANY factors. |
thats true but the other factors haven't changed in recent decades, so we can't blame them, can we? Its only massively increased human-caused emissions of greenhouse gasses (CO2 isn't the only one) that we can point the finger at.
You lost. hard. Now just give up already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do you deny it? If not, don't pretend to.
| Quote: |
They was more CO2, yes.
Now stop at "proportionately". Lets get this clear. In the ordovician there was proportionally much more oxygen to CO2 than there is now.
Thats what you are trying to twist out of. |
We're not comparing Co2 to oxygen. That's what you are trying to twist out of. We are comparing Co2 levels to Co2 levels.
I say WE because:
| Quote: |
| Short answer is that at that time CO2 was proportionately less than is now. There may have been more, but it still made up a smaller % of the atmosphere. |
Both those statements have been proven factually wrong. Don't try to twist this into a talk about oxygen - you brought up % of atmosphere.
Also, your previous statements of "more Co2 = more warming" warranted the direct Co2 to Co2 comparison.
If the oxygen amounts are so important to this, than you ADMIT that Co2 itself is only one of many variables, and cannot influence it by itself! The position I took up!
| Quote: |
| it would have done had it not been counterracted by vastly higher levels of O2 (which are not present today). Apples and oranges. |
So, again, Co2 =/= temp increase, due to other factors at play.
Thank you.
| Quote: |
| CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas! |
I'm not surprised that you have repeated this statement (as if it somehow proves AGW) over and over throughout this thread. It is pretty much the only thing you've said that I haven't debunked. Who's arguing with it being a greenhouse gas? I'm arguing about proportions and contributions.
| Quote: |
However it can be counterracted by other significant factors. Which were present in the ordovician but not today. Hence our present warming.
|
FACTORS FACTORS FACTORS.
Your position: "More Co2 will result in more warming" (direct quote)
My position: "Climate change is not based on single variables" (direct quote)
I present evidence that more Co2 did not result in more warming...and you say it is because of multiple variables. That's a pretty comprehensive win for me.
| Quote: |
thats true but the other factors haven't changed in recent decades, so we can't blame them, can we? Its only massively increased human-caused emissions of greenhouse gasses (CO2 isn't the only one) that we can point the finger at. |
Again, please qualify that. I have already challenged you to support your statement that
| Quote: |
| As it is now, the only measurable change associated with the present warming has been a rise in CO2. |
, which you have so far not done.
You repeat it here - that's doubly ignorant.
| Quote: |
| You lost. hard. Now just give up already. |
You make a ridiculous statement, I nail you on it. You quote a source, he contradicts you. Your own defense then contradicts your original statement and complies directly with my argument.
You state -and repeat- an argument that you have been asked to qualify but cannot provide any sources or evidence (because none exists; the argument reveals how completely out of your depth you are in this argument).
As a desperate attempt to circumvent the realization that your statement, like many of your others, was easily disproved and highly ignorant, you claim 'victory' in a manner resembling Inhofe.
Well, allow me to do old Inhofe one better: I invite you to do further research until you can come back with evidence to support your twice-called-out claims.
Until you can, I won, you lost, get a life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whether you're measuring "parts per million" (ppm) or "percentage" of whatever, (percentage of the atmosphere, for example) these are both "proportions" or ratios or comparisons by use of ratio that compares the proportion of things.
Lack of math ability seems to be part of the reason the deluded "Alarmists" have such committed Chicken Little reactions despite the lack of data, lack of facts and lack of any real science behind their own fears.
So, let's toss out another long overlooked mathematical tidbit:
| Quote: |
| It is not possible to present results that are accurate to a greater number of significant digits than the accuracy of the original data. |
When trying to measure temperature change, you cannot present decimal point change data to temperature numbers that were not accurate to even a single degree when collected.
The data being used to show tiny increases in temperature over long periods of time are less accurate than the level of change being reported. There is no scientific basis to even calculate any change of less than one degree. The data and instrumentation of all older data and all estimated and modeled data do not allow such accuracy to be claimed.
The only data that has accuracy of less than a whole degree would be data collected by some stations and some collection methods in the last few modern decades.
The statistics heretofore used by the Alarmists are just phony, unscientific drivel.
We need to have real scientists begin again, and use the actual scientific method and mathematically accurate collection, computation and presentation of data and results.
To eliminate bias in the results, no government money should be allowed to be used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
To eliminate bias in the results, no government money should be allowed to be used. |
Another stroke of genius from losthisway.
If government funding results in biased and corrupt science must we now doubt the findings of biomedical researchers, engineers, genomics, biotechnology, evolutionists, geologists, cancer researchers?
By your rationale.. cancer is a conspiracy to extort more govt funding, and evolutionists make stuff up to get more grants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Still waiting for you to qualify those statements, Junior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
To eliminate bias in the results, no government money should be allowed to be used. |
Another stroke of genius from losthisway.
. |
Oh what a rapier wit you have...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
To eliminate bias in the results, no government money should be allowed to be used. |
Another stroke of genius from losthisway.
If government funding results in biased and corrupt science must we now doubt the findings of biomedical researchers, engineers, genomics, biotechnology, evolutionists, geologists, cancer researchers? |
No, because scientists in those fields have not been shown to have been engaged in fraud. Government funding does not guarantee corrupt science; it only increases its likelihood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
If government funding results in biased and corrupt science must we now doubt the findings of biomedical researchers, engineers, genomics, biotechnology, evolutionists, geologists, cancer researchers? |
No, because scientists in those fields have not been shown to have been engaged in fraud. Government funding does not guarantee corrupt science; it only increases its likelihood. |
Scientists in those other fields have not been bombarded with a concerted campaign of harassment and public misinformation funded by millions from big business over the past 15 years. Why is that do you think?
*NB evolutionists have been caught in several cases of fraud. It doesn't get made an issue though because what they're researching doesn't threaten the interests of powerful oil companies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
