Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 33 to 40 of 40

Thread: Arctic ice sheet melting at alarming rate check here :(

  1. #33
    One skin, two skin......
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Durham
    Posts
    1,705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    Originally posted by spikegifted
    I'm afraid I have a slight different approach to life than you've... Just because something is hard doesn't mean that I would give up without trying. If difficult things are not attempted, human race would never have explorer beyond our own back-water, nevermind space. Throughout the ages, humans, having an adaptive body and mind and an intuitive approach to things in life have over come one obsticle after another. You comments not only reflect poor on you but also of all humans ever existed.
    Oh dear! Spikey forgot his sense of humour hat and left his 'Serious hat' on!

  2. #34
    F.A.S.T. Butuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    4,708
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    72 times in 59 posts
    • Butuz's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z77 MPOWER
      • CPU:
      • I7 3770K @ 4.6
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Corsair XMS 1866
      • Storage:
      • Sandisk SSDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 3xR9 290
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! Dark Power Pro 10
      • Case:
      • Inwin H Frame
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    Interesting debate!

    Ok i am no expert on this topic, i have read none of the links posted above regarding evidence etc. I will say a couple of things though.

    There is a difference between proving that the earth is suddenly getting hotter, and proving that that is due to the last couple of hundred years of industrial revoloution. We have only recently been in a position to measure any of this, how do we know this doesnt happen randomly, or regularly at some stage in the life of the earth? I see lots of graphs and stuff with lots of numbers, but i don't know where those numbers came from or how accurate they are. Im pretty sure Jesus Christ didnt have an accurate thermometer, and hadnt measured the hole in the ozone layer 2003 years ago... someone explain to me how we have data from then?

    Secondly, what use is data taken over 2000 years in helping us to see whats going on? Sureley we would need data taken over tens of thousands of years, in order to make an accurate measurment of what is going on around us at this time, and whether it is any different to what has been going on before we were here?

    I dunno, call me a dull nubins or whatever but i dont know how we can come to any conclusions or come out with blanket statements like "we are killing the earth" etc.

    Butuz

  3. #35
    Goat Boy
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alexandra Park, London
    Posts
    2,428
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Originally posted by Butuz
    Interesting debate!

    Ok i am no expert on this topic, i have read none of the links posted above regarding evidence etc. I will say a couple of things though.

    There is a difference between proving that the earth is suddenly getting hotter, and proving that that is due to the last couple of hundred years of industrial revoloution. We have only recently been in a position to measure any of this, how do we know this doesnt happen randomly, or regularly at some stage in the life of the earth? I see lots of graphs and stuff with lots of numbers, but i don't know where those numbers came from or how accurate they are. Im pretty sure Jesus Christ didnt have an accurate thermometer, and hadnt measured the hole in the ozone layer 2003 years ago... someone explain to me how we have data from then?
    If you look at the graph I posted, you can see that the serious acceleration in warming occured at a time when we would have had very accurate thermometers. This also co-incides with an explosion in the use of internal combustion and jet engines, aerosols, CFC's etc. Man was in space in 1959; I think we were able to measure the temperature of our back gardens by then.
    Originally posted by Butuz

    Secondly, what use is data taken over 2000 years in helping us to see whats going on? Sureley we would need data taken over tens of thousands of years, in order to make an accurate measurment of what is going on around us at this time, and whether it is any different to what has been going on before we were here?

    I dunno, call me a dull nubins or whatever but i dont know how we can come to any conclusions or come out with blanket statements like "we are killing the earth" etc.

    Butuz
    If it only takes us another 200 years to kill the planet, what use is it waiting tens of thousands, just so that we can get an accurate picture?
    "All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks

  4. #36
    Goat Boy
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alexandra Park, London
    Posts
    2,428
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Originally posted by Big RICHARD
    No, but I don't believe it blindly, it is not conclusive PROOF that we are the causes of global warming.
    Would it be fair to say that scientific evidence is not going to persuade you? What would you suggest is conclusive proof?

    Secondly, do you think it might be a little reckless to assume that the evidence is wrong, that this is a natural phenomenon, and that everything is going to be OK? Do you not think that when you are 80 years old and your great grandson asks what people thought about global warming 60 years ago you have a duty as a human being to assume the worst?
    "All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks

  5. #37
    By-Tor with sticks spikegifted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    still behind the paddles
    Posts
    921
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    I think it is safe to say that we (that's including the climatologists) all agree that the Earth is warming up. However, the point of the scientific debate is the rate of change in temperature. If the change takes place over long period of time (like a couple of thousands of years), organisms, eco-systems and the planet itself has time to adjust to it. However, if the change is rapid (like that hinted by DaBeeeenster's graph, it becomes worrying as nothing can adapt to such rapid change.
    Caution: Cape does not enable user to fly. - Batman costume warning label (Rolfe, John & Troob, Peter, Monkey Business (Swinging Through the Wall Street Jungle), 2000)

  6. #38
    One skin, two skin......
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Durham
    Posts
    1,705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
    Would it be fair to say that scientific evidence is not going to persuade you? What would you suggest is conclusive proof?

    Secondly, do you think it might be a little reckless to assume that the evidence is wrong, that this is a natural phenomenon, and that everything is going to be OK? Do you not think that when you are 80 years old and your great grandson asks what people thought about global warming 60 years ago you have a duty as a human being to assume the worst?
    I haven't assumed that the evidence is wrong. I have assumed that it could be flawed for many reasons, but I do not dismiss it out of hand.

    I do think we should be more careful with this planet, as we really have no where else to go if we bugger it up. Also I think that if it isn't our fault and is a natural phenomenon then all we can do is sit back and learn to tread water, unless we invent a magic machine that can change the climate dramatically back to what it used to be.

  7. #39
    By-Tor with sticks spikegifted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    still behind the paddles
    Posts
    921
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    You may or may not be interested in this piece of news...
    Caution: Cape does not enable user to fly. - Batman costume warning label (Rolfe, John & Troob, Peter, Monkey Business (Swinging Through the Wall Street Jungle), 2000)

  8. #40
    Goat Boy
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alexandra Park, London
    Posts
    2,428
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Originally posted by Big RICHARD
    I haven't assumed that the evidence is wrong. I have assumed that it could be flawed for many reasons, but I do not dismiss it out of hand.

    I do think we should be more careful with this planet, as we really have no where else to go if we bugger it up. Also I think that if it isn't our fault and is a natural phenomenon then all we can do is sit back and learn to tread water, unless we invent a magic machine that can change the climate dramatically back to what it used to be.
    Do you not think it is somewhat perverse and dangerous to assume that the reason for the warming is due to some form of natural phenomena, and not human actions?

    Do you not think it might be a better idea to assume that it is down to the actions of human beings?

    I mean, if it is naturally occuring, you are correct, there's nothing we can do about it. But if it is due to human actions, do you not think the idea of "sitting back" is somewhat ignorant?

    If it is due to human action, what are you going to tell your grandchildren? "Oh, yeah, sorry about that, we weren't sure if it was due to us driving around in cars all the time, or if it was a natural phenomena, so we just assumed it was a natural phenonema and sat back." ?
    "All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •