Fragony on 11/12/2009 at 19:28
Quote Posted by Sulphur
The problem is when you attempt reasoned discourse, certain kinds of people ignore any points you might make and attack irrelevancies instead.
These small details like the earth not warming up for 10 years and just about every scientific institutions trying to cover that up. Irrelevant? How exactly.
Stitch on 11/12/2009 at 19:30
Fragony is exhibiting classic conspiracy theorist behavior, in which he forms a conclusion far out of his league and then cherrypicks data--most removed of any context, of course--to fit. This careful selection renders him impervious to debate, as his ability to dismiss disagreeing arguments and data is what earned him his ridiculous conclusion in the first place.
Fragony is sitting smug in his hermetically-sealed greenhouse of stupidiy and no amount of reason is ever going to reach him.
Sulphur on 11/12/2009 at 19:33
Quote Posted by Fragony
These small details like the earth not warming up for 10 years and just about every scientific institutions trying to cover that up. Irrelevant? How exactly.
I wasn't even in on that discussion, so I can't begin to comment on that.
I was referring to more recent points prior to and after your blowout. But don't worry about me, there's entire bales of straw waiting to be hoisted up and knocked down around here.
Fragony on 11/12/2009 at 19:34
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I wasn't even in on that discussion
my bad
Fragony on 11/12/2009 at 19:38
Quote Posted by Stitch
Fragony is sitting smug in his hermetically-sealed greenhouse of stupidiy and no amount of reason is ever going to reach him.
That would be pretty a cool rap if you had a fat beat to go with it
Stop that urban crap, I am sure you are good at insulting by now, but cleverness beside
Pyrian on 11/12/2009 at 19:39
Quote Posted by Fragony
Even if CO2 is responsible for temperature rise, which I doubt, then men is still responsible for only 4 procent of CO2 output. What do you suggest we do about the remaining 96? Kill nature to save it?
I'm going to respond to this in the hopes that it's honest ignorance. I have excellent reason to doubt that, but here you go, anyway.
There is a long-preexisting and extremely long-term cycle of CO2 in the atmosphere. A great deal both enters and exits the atmosphere on a more-or-less continuous basis, from a large number of sources. This cycle was essentially at equilibrium before we started digging the stuff up and burning it. It is expected that as the concentration rises, the action of various carbon sinks will increase, although last I checked this hadn't really been observed; ocean mixing has been slow and most plants have not yet evolved to take advantage of the relative surplus.
This means that, in general, the carbon we dig up and burn increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and all the pre-existing natural sources and sinks do not particularly offset it at all.
Quote Posted by Fragony
These small details like the earth not warming up for 10 years and just about every scientific institutions trying to cover that up.
That's just a lie. There was a particularly warm year in 1998 and those who financially benefit from the existing schema simply use that single data point to continuously claim that temperatures aren't going up. The moving average
is rising.
Aerothorn on 11/12/2009 at 19:39
Oh, I wasn't arguing that he should be reasoned with. Just that a number of pages back someone gave me crap for being dismissive and not defeating him with carefully reasoned debate and I was being a smug asshole about it.
zombe on 11/12/2009 at 19:49
Quote Posted by Fragony
Most idiots are until they have been right all along, I just described how it's done, humiliaton of opposition, I would rather have me to be wrong then you really. And if you think I am full of shit then I refer to my examples few posts back, why on earth are you trusting the people that use tax money for their own intererests.
Sigh ... lets recap:
There are three distinctively separate questions about global warming:
1. is it happening?
2. why and how is it happening?
3. what should we do about it?
Do note that thous questions make sense only in the order given (hint: stop jumping around like a headless chicken!). For example: you can not do anything with q.3 if you do not understand the why & how (and by extension: what is going to happen and what effect does it have to thous things we care about).
Question 1 is relatively simple fact checking - it has been confirmed by bazillion different methods by different scientists in different countries. It is a fact.
Question 2 is not so simple in comparison for obvious reasons (observable fact vs testable theory explaining it). However, tremendous work has been done on this field and the reasons are well understood. Also, predictions, that every theory needs, have been confirmed - ie the theories are solid and accepted by consensus.
If you have any problems with the answers to q.1 and/or q.2 then you can fuck right off (given your inability do say anything sensible so far on thous topics).
Question 3, no surprise here, depends largely of what answers to q.2 are available. Luckily we CAN affect the outcome. Now, how to make that happen - that is a diplomatic nightmare on every level. And how to balance negative effects (like economic - that are not THAT clear) vs how much worse is it if we do not ... that is a bitch to settle also.
in summary: q.3 is open for debate - q.2 & q.1 are for thous who are ignorant (not in a negative sense, ie - thous who do not know but might want to know and are capable of doing so) and stupids (you). You would be much better off if you would limit yourself to q.3 AND be less of a tinfoil hat lunatic doing so.
Sulphur on 11/12/2009 at 19:57
Quote Posted by Fragony
my bad
hey, no prob coolio
I'll reason things out with facts and stuff when you get yourself an open mind first.
Right now I'm not about to re-open this tired, tired fucking debate
again with the equivalent of an insensate brick wall that's single-mindedly focused on validating how the Dutch government is bleeding his pockets dry via the (supposedly) convenient excuse of global warming.
Personal finances vs. scientific findings: it's MORTAL KOMBAT, people
FIGHT!!!
Muzman on 11/12/2009 at 21:31
Quote Posted by Fragony
Well no I would rather call taking draconian measures to combat these 4% an excercise in futility.
Even if that 4% represents a change in C02 concentration of 38% over the past 150yrs, and that shows perfect correlation with a rise in temperature that's going against all other global temperature influences?
Silly question. None of that is true either, right?
In any case, it's always worth remembering that carbon trading schemes were concocted by right wing economics fans as appeasement to the growing consensus that carbon emissions should be hard capped. They hadn't dreamt up denial at that point.
Quote:
Denial is an interesting word, suggests there is no middle ground. I am not taking the middle ground but many do. That is how you create a lie, make it as silly as it can possibly get, pretend it's widely accepted, and exclude those who think otherwise 'denial'. They end up being indviduals against many, and ultimately they will become part of the lie because they don't speak up, propaganda isn't about lying but making the lie obvious, it's about humilation.
little examples to prove my point, you met them. 'weapons of mass destruction' et 'unpatriotic' et 'freedomfries' <-lol but you tend to miss them when it comes from the other side. CO2 denial.
You aren't on the middle ground, as you say, but don't pretend it's for any intelligent reason, like being a positive propagandist or whatever it is. You've shown repeatedly you have no arguments, you have no facts, or theories or knowledge for that matter. You merely contradict every statement that you find from the opposition. What puts the lie to your position is how far reaching the implications of this denial are and how little you understand them.
The few climate warming skeptics in the climatalogical world at least do not dispute the evidence as you have, but what it could mean. None of the reputable ones, for example would dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as you just have. Doing so would require considerable scientific research to refute the strong connection between CO2 and global temperature.
You certainly don't do that, rather you parrot the lies and cherrypicking of people who have some sort of agenda to slow this down.
To wit:
Quote Posted by Fragony
These small details like the earth not warming up for 10 years and just about every scientific institutions trying to cover that up. Irrelevant? How exactly.
I'm pretty sure this came up earlier. You can't be told this stuff is utter lies and just bring it up again as though it's gone unchallenged unless you live in some sort of self reinforcing circle of bollox, as illustrated above. Honestly if you believe this you are a fool. Everyone who says this saw it in data and graphs given out by these institutions whose name you smear. Where the hell else would they get it? They certainly haven't set up their own independant weather observation system. Pretty bloody terrible cover up if you ask me. All the well poisoning in the world won't change this fact.
So, never mind the accusation that anyone is trying to cover this up has no evidence what so ever and is another baseless lie. It wouldn't make the slightest sense as the horse has well and truly bolted.
Nobody ever tried to 'hide the decline' of the last ten years. Nobody ever.
Plenty of deniers have tried to hide the increase over the last 40. We have evidence of that. We know these guys whose word you take so without question are repeated liars and it can be shown. You have nothing.
