| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:06 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Whether it's politics or ecology or value judgements or posting on Dave's, rapier is a man of extremes.
He thinks that's a good thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
The research done by the scientific community does not agree with your statement. |
Agreed, we are only just under the highest temeperature records ever before, evidenced by ice cores.
Thats really comforting to know now, i suppose? 
But we are at an all time high for CO2 concentrations, carbon emmissions, and the rate of temperature change.
But Dinosaurs didn't burn fossil fuels relentlessly.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
| Agreed, we are only just under the highest temeperature records ever before, evidenced by ice cores. |
We are two degrees below regular spikes that have occured numerous times in the last million years alone, and more than ten degrees below the temperature of the earth fifty+ million years ago.
It's also worth nothing that in the last 75 years that the Earth's temperature has risen less than half a degree and has actually dropped and raised over several year periods and is not the steady climb that is popularly printed in the media.
| Quote: |
But we are at an all time high for CO2 concentrations, carbon emmissions, and the rate of temperature change.
But Dinosaurs didn't burn fossil fuels relentlessly. |
As noted before, CO2 is the weakest of greenhouse gasses and is generally believed to have little, if any, impact on the environment under the current volume in the atmosphere. It's volume in historical records is more representative of the death or turn-over of vegetation in highlighting what temperatures were rather than what they will be due to the CO2. Methane, a by-product of plant decomposition is a far more effective greenhouse gas which affects the planet.
I find your dinosaur comment ironically funny as the Earth was ten to twelve degrees celcius warmer at the time than now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiberious aka Sparkles
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: I'm one cool cat!
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does the link in the OP settle the argument on whether or not dogs can look up?
Sparkles*_* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coldcrush
Joined: 02 Apr 2004
Location: melbourne.... Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
I find your dinosaur comment ironically funny as the Earth was ten to twelve degrees celcius warmer at the time than now. |
Grod raises some valid and well supported points, but he should tread carefully. As we have seen countless times before in our history (in The Day After Tomorrow, Dante's Peak, Jurassic Park and, to a lesser extent, movies involving Zombies), the naysayer scientist always dies (or is eaten). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zyzyfer
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: who, what, where, when, why, how?
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think I saw rapier on a show I was working on. They were talking about that island with all the birds on it near Busan and there were a bunch of white people checking it out and being all environmental and stuff. I was just like "man, I know rapier's there." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm confused- Rapier never responded to Gord's post.
Where is the self-proclaimed environmental expert and appreciator of natural wonder?
Could it be that Gord is right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
I'm confused- Rapier never responded to Gord's post.
Where is the self-proclaimed environmental expert and appreciator of natural wonder?
Could it be that Gord is right? |
I've already had a 17 page thread out with Gord.
yes, he raises some valid points.
But mostly irrelevant ones- that ignore/bypass the obvious truth. He has sideline facts that when added together present only a small part of the big picture.
for example: Gord would say that everything is all ok, there are no consequences to face from mankinds destruction of nature, and that the fact that the axis rises sharply off the scale on the charts below is insignificant.
the earth, 2005:
Most natural ecosystems destroyed or permanently altered by man.
Human population at its highest ever.
human exploitation, and destructiveness at its highest ever.
human activity directly affecting world climate on a massive scale for the first time in history.
Industrialisation and resulting pollution at an all time high.
Species extinctions accelerating rapidly.
He thinks its all ok though, we'll be fine. And the worlds rainforests would better off as eroded deserts, etc. What hes trying to say is that 6 billion people have had no adverse impact on their natural surroundings, and nothing should change. He is not a naturalist or environmentalist, so has no first hand experience of what he talks about.
Lets see now gord. Question 1: what is an auklet? And how has it indicated serious climate change this year?
Gords answer: "I don't know, but dinosaurs lived in a warmer climate than now, so everything is just fine and dandy". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hojucandy
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Location: In a better place
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
interesting site and amusing set of factoids. the OP is quite right be take them with a grain of salt however. i would estimate less than 50% of them are true.
eg - squirrels don;t get rabies.. - that is BS. all mammals get rabies.
cat's urine glows under UV light - only if the cat is suffering from urinary calculi, ie, a healthy cat's urine does not fluoresce.
elephants are certainly not the only animals that can't jump.
oh - and sea-squirts don;t have brains anyway. ganglia yes, brains no..
i could go on.
nature is miraculous enough without making stuff up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skinhead
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hojucandy wrote: |
interesting site and amusing set of factoids. the OP is quite right be take them with a grain of salt however. i would estimate less than 50% of them are true.
eg - squirrels don;t get rabies.. - that is BS. all mammals get rabies.
cat's urine glows under UV light - only if the cat is suffering from urinary calculi, ie, a healthy cat's urine does not fluoresce.
elephants are certainly not the only animals that can't jump.
oh - and sea-squirts don;t have brains anyway. ganglia yes, brains no..
i could go on.
nature is miraculous enough without making stuff up. |
^^^ That's called 'vetting' the do-do. I've missed you around here, Hoju. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hojucandy
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Location: In a better place
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skinhead wrote: |
^^^ That's called 'vetting' the do-do. I've missed you around here, Hoju. |
mate i'm only here coz of a hack....
but i am not allowed to mention that |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skinhead
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hojucandy wrote: |
| skinhead wrote: |
^^^ That's called 'vetting' the do-do. I've missed you around here, Hoju. |
mate i'm only here coz of a hack....
but i am not allowed to mention that |
No kidding? That's a damn shame. Ah well, even the Mona Lisa's falling apart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, it is good to see you back, whatever the reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
yes, he raises some valid points.
But mostly irrelevant ones- that ignore/bypass the obvious truth. He has sideline facts that when added together present only a small part of the big picture. |
Me? Half truths? And then you pull stuff like this:
| Quote: |
|
Your CO2 graph is misleading as you are showing the top 5% of the graph while ignoring that the actual part CO2 concentrations as a whole as moved less than 30 parts per million over the course of two hundred years (330 to 360 I believe, though I would have to check). And at the same time you ignore that temperatures actually were dropping 100 years ago despite the CO2 increase.
Your temperature change graph is meaningless without context.
You don't present evidence, you present spins. If you case is as solid as you claim, then present all the evidence instead of just parts you've dramatized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
