Printable View
it has been turned into a climate change thread by stirrers.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikehzz
that you "thought" you were going to see cattle born a glacier is just utter rubbish and is also pure stirring.
I put it up because it is incredibly informative in showing size comparisons of the ice to that of Manhattan as it breaks up and moves.
It's OK really it is, I've watched a lot of tools use computers to get answers they want!;) Icebergs calving is a cow of a problem for some scientists...and think of the impact on the Drug Squad ...what with all that ice becoming available !!! and that's no bull!:p As a spectacle of Nature it is simply awesome, this overused word hereby used in its correct sense... I think there's great majesty in such events ...like massive thunder storms and lightening especially...can't get enough of it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
thats not what he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
and people shouldnt be eating rain forests either.
http://cromwell-intl.com/oliver/pict...l-detector.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
Let's be honest - without Google to bolster an argument, how much does one actually know about meteorology and climate beyond here-say? What weather patterns and contingent atmospheric relationships can one confirm beyond that which even the most studied climatologists can only theorise about? Can one even name a single scientist who is a leading thinker in these fields? Rather than a wide net of informational objectivity, we seem to gift greatest credos to the most altruistically esteem-able viewpoints, and the most fatalistic viewpoints.
Left wing polarity will aways be drawn to the science of imminent threat, and disregard any science that fails to confirm this paradigm of threat legitimisation. Worse yet, the framing of the threat is allowed to morph to maintain relevance. Yesterday the imminent threat was global warming… yet global temperatures have retreated. Today the threat is CO2 levels… even though levels are significantly below historical standards. What is the threat tomorrow? We're applying ignorant science to an infinitely complex system that operates on time frames we barely fathom.
I'm no historical or scientific expert, but geological evidence illustrates the atmosphere has been violated many, many times throughout history on FAR worse scales than is currently being endured - uncountable volcanic eruptions plunging the atmosphere into darkness for eons, meteorite impacts so catastrophic they led to instantaneous mass extinctions on global scales on at least five occasions. Only 20K years ago New York is estimated to have been under a mile of ice, yet other evidence demonstrates ice caps at the poles are an abnormal feature of the earth’s surface. We’re concerned of CO2 levels of 300 PPM, yet when dinosaurs walked the earth 500M years ago the CO2 levels were 20x higher - and the seas didn’t turn acidic, they supported swathes of life. Flora and fauna persisted and flourished. How do we compute these non-linearities into our modern interpretation of facts?
Whilst I do think we're polluting the earth with reckless abandon, I think we understand climate and atmosphere FAR less than we're prepared to admit. For example - 150 million kilometres away we have a largely unstudied ball of pulsing nuclear energy in the sky around which draws our planet into an orbit - a sun that is the size of 1,300,000 earths. We assume the sun has no scope for irregularity or inconsistent behaviours which could ultimately affect us here on earth - instead, our collective ego and fatalistic nature is so great we need to gift our actions executive leverage over the outcome of this planet. Please.
I think mother earth is a lot smarter and stronger than we give credit for, and humans over-estimate their stake in planet survival.
SlowRide...I think you are trolling.
Just about every outlandish statement you have made has been cut to shreds in previous threads on global warming and climate change denial.
What is the purpose of writing this stuff up now?
No not trolling, whatever that is. This is my position, and I believe it to be true. I used to be a believer in climate change forecasts (and I am a supporter of overhauling our ways to a more meaningful, less pollutive lifestyle), but the more I read and the wider I cast my nets of academic, intellectual and historical information intake, the less validity I feel there is in dire forecasting. I am now of the position that the climate is always changing, and the flora and fauna of earth will either evolve, adapt or die. But the earth will go on. Nothing is constant, not even time or gravity, or the balance of science.
If it's been dismissed in the past on this forum then i'm sorry - I don't come on here everyday and read every thread. And I read plenty of unthought garbage from every camp when it comes to climate change. Propaganda exists on both sides. As such, if i've made any outlandish statements i'd like to know what they are, who has disproven them, on what grounds they've been disproven, and what information has superseded the accounts I am aware of. I am willing to change my position, but I need to know whose science is purposed to be the ultimate truth, whose positions are false, what interpretation of geological history I should be believing - scientist names, studies, theories, theses.
The subject is such that it's easy to be blinded into believing the confirmation biases of others. I try my hardest to employ critical thinking, and i'm reasonably impervious to group-think. Just because I dispute the hard-left paradigm does not mean I have arrived at my position via folly.
No, we've been there , not going there again. Suggest you search back in the forum and if the 'proof' you are seeking isn't already in print then bring it forward.
One of the things that trolls and deniers consistently do is demand 'proof' against their statements. If you have been doing comprehensive reading and research then you would have already read vast quantities of information to the positive.
That you are asking for the names of scientists , their studies, their theories and thesies just flummoxes me.
You say you employ critical thinking and you are impervious to group think. This is a group think forum.
You are arriving at your position via folly.....folly is the state or quality of being foolish or the lack of understanding or absurdity.
Have you read these?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php