by Forscher 82 Replies latest members politics
Earlier you stated:
whereas historically concentrations of greenhouse gasses shows no correlation whatsoever to global temperature shifts
Now this:
I think I see another thing I may not have communicated well enough. I don't know (am agnostic) on whether certain GHGs are the dominant cause of Global Warming, they certainly seem to accompany Global Warming,
Let the reader use discernment.
Whatever you like, since you are a thinking reasoning animal. You have the same freedoms I enjoy, one of which is to weight information you receive as you see fit.
As to whether Global Warming is real, I never questioned it. Why would you post something designed to jab at the reality or unreality of GW argument, when not even the thread starter took the position that GW is real. In my opinion, you are arguing a non-issue. Looking back through the thread I am having considerable difficulty finding the post your post addresses.
"Oops, Sorry About That: Climate Change is Real, After All"
The capsule take away agrees 100% with my position. The reality of the change is proven, but the causes and any need for corrections of anthropogenic contributors are going to take longer to determine with certainty.
In the media, some have fallen into a trap of interchanging Global Warming with increased ghgs, and interchanging increased ghgs with increase of emissions of ghgs from human enterprises. Each of these is a distinct issue.
I am convinced that Global Warming is occurring (although, as Terry noted we are overdue for an Ice Age). I am convinced that GHGs accompany global warming, although I am not convinced they are the primary or even a significant cause of global warming. I am convinced that increased emissions of GHGs from human enterprises will increase total ghgs by some percentage. I am convinced that the percentage of increase from this source is tiny, and that this source of ghgs is not a significant factor in global warming.
I am convinced that since we don't know whether we are about to enter another Ice Age (and have no meaningful way to predict such a rapid shift in climate, never having lived through that event with instruments) and since we know the sun has already started its cooling cycle, we have no way of knowing which steps to take to ensure a better world for your grandchildren on the issue of global temperature. You'll note, there were no "ifs" to shade in that statement. Feel free to demonstrate why I am wrong.
And an "if" that might cost extremely wealthy people market share of an industry they have a stranglehold on, should be in 72 point bold?
I don't think the amount of money someone makes should influence my viewpoint of the science involved in reaching conclusions about long-term benefits to humans. According to this trite jab, you apparently think that any move that would damage rich people is beneficial for humanity in the long-term. But, sound bites and trite jabs seem to be your specialty. Are you yet ready to stop arguing against a viewpoint and be brave enough to post one of your own? Or are you too afraid to state, and attempt to explain/defend, your opinions on these issues?
There is no shame, if so. I would, however, wonder why you severely criticize someone who seems to give what you so desperately need. Since you can only post your opinions as an indirect counterpoint (a question) against the opinions of others, you need posters like me in order to have something to post against. Careful not to run me off, now. I'm a really decent sort, you'd probably like me. I just happen to be unafraid of making my opinions public. I am also unafraid of them changing. They often do. That is one reason statements I made months ago may not have merit, I am a real person, who lives, and adapts, and thinks. I am not a collection of photons from a computer screen.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
DanTheMan,
You keep ripping that from the post by SixofNine. It was deceitful of him, in my opinion, to tke that snippet out of context. Unintentionally (I hope) you are doing the same.
Dr. Pattersons work demonstrates that historically (over the course of many millennia) the sun's activity shows a direct correlation to the earth's temperature shifts, whereas historically concentrations of greenhouse gasses shows no correlation whatsoever to global temperature shifts. And he has nothing to gain or lose by the outcome of his findings.
This was a complete paragraph, set aside by itself.
I think I see another thing I may not have communicated well enough. I don't know (am agnostic) on whether certain GHGs are the dominant cause of Global Warming, they certainly seem to accompany Global Warming,
Let the reader use discernment. Wow! Context changes SO much, doesn't it? There is no conflict between my knowing one person's viewpoint and personally cleaving to another, is there, DanTheMan?
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
I would like to note, it wuld be nearly impossible for the reader to use discernment about the personally held viewpoints and opinions of either DanTheMan or SixofNine on this issue. If they have them, they have kept them very much to themselves. They are, instead, sniping at the opinions of others.
(although, as Terry noted we are overdue for an Ice Age).
Yes, I noted that twice now, and once when Terry said it. I hoped it was said with a dose of humor. If not, perhaps you both should review Terry's excellent essay on the word "soon".
SixofNine,
We have an Ice Age about every 10,000 years. We have already had an uncharacteristically long spell of warmth. The climatologists in the 60s were in a clamor over the next Ice Age being upon us, because the sun was going into its cooling period. Through the 1970s this thinking changed. Not about the sun entering its cooling period, but that the earth instantly follows suit.
Then Global Warming became vogue, but there is still the issue of a cold snap in the near future.
I don't think Terry intended humor, but maybe I am wrong. Why do you believe that what he wrote should have been humorous? I think we are ALMOST about to drag an actual OPINION out of you. We'll see, though. We'll see.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
I think we are ALMOST about to drag an actual OPINION out of you.
And I keep hoping you'll come at me with something more substantial than opinion. I don't do this for my typing skills.
Genuinely Irritated
SixofNine
SixofNine,
This is not a FACT forum. If you want one of those you should look elsewhere. This is a DISCUSSION forum, opinions are the stuff of discussion.
But if you want a fact, I just stated a couple. We have an Ice Age about every 10,000 years. We are overdue for one.
Those aren't opinions. They are facts. Highly reliable facts. They don't rely on soon anymore than an expectation that at 5:30 AM the sun will rise shortly relies on soon. They rely on naturally occuring cyclical patterns that repeat themselves with a fairly high degree of consistency. If you don't accept my statement of fact, prove me wrong. Do you accept it? If so, then it is not just my opinion.
Genuinely irriitated by what, exactly? I can't do a damned thing about your irritation problems. But a Dermatologist might help.
And I keep hoping you'll come at me with something more substantial than opinion. I don't do this for my typing skills.
I try not to come at people. They usually take offense or want to fight or something. This is a discussion forum. From what I have seen, you don't do this at all. For your typing skills or any other reason. Discussions aren't like video games, there should be give and take, like in a sparring match (if you are comfortable with fighting anologies). You don't get what you want, you hopefully don't get what you expect, you have to keep your guard up or you will get clocked by a nice cross to the chin.
This isn't a quest RPG and I'm not your dungeon master, you do not have a +6 Adamantium Sword of Netherslaying. It isn't my job to come at you with your preferred monsters here, or to keep you particularly free of irritation.
I am here to voice something I've had to stifle for a really long time. I am here to test it, refine it, and cherish it. I'm here to express freeness of speech. If you aren't, why are you here?
Curiously,
AuldSoul
You keep ripping that from the post by SixofNine. It was deceitful of him, in my opinion, to tke that snippet out of context. Unintentionally (I hope) you are doing the same.Dr. Pattersons work demonstrates that historically (over the course of many millennia) the sun's activity shows a direct correlation to the earth's temperature shifts, whereas historically concentrations of greenhouse gasses shows no correlation whatsoever to global temperature shifts. And he has nothing to gain or lose by the outcome of his findings.This was a complete paragraph, set aside by itself.
I think I see another thing I may not have communicated well enough. I don't know (am agnostic) on whether certain GHGs are the dominant cause of Global Warming, they certainly seem to accompany Global Warming,Let the reader use discernment. Wow! Context changes SO much, doesn't it? There is no conflict between my knowing one viewpoint and personally cleaving to another
omg
So are you saying that all along, you've never agreed with Dr. Patterson's views?
You're all over the map bro
A "for instance" with respect to opinions.
This:
We only know for sure that humans account for a miniscule portion of the global increases in GHGs through direct emissions.
seems to be your opinion. So I'm curious, if "miniscule" means "extremely small", how do you reconcile your opinion with the fact that anthropogenic C02 has raised overall levels from approx 280 ppm (where it stayed for the last several thousand years, fairly level) to 380 ppm in less than 50 years?
Is 100 out of 380 "miniscule" in your opinion? I don't think it's my opinion to say it's not miniscule; I think it's fact.
Another thing to consider regarding me posting my opinion, is time. So far, I'm about 6 post behind in responding to you in any thorough kind of way. Perhaps you should type less opinion, and research more fact? When you do, you'll find, btw, that Dr. Patterson is in no way a leading expert on climate change. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be listened to, but any leading expert is going to be from a physics background.
