Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Climategate      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 119
ClimategatePage 12 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)


In an ironic twist the same melting in Greenland that is supposed to
destroy will make accessible about 4 trillion dollars worth
of oil in their current unstable economy.


My advice to people who are worried about Global Warming. Don't use any of this oil. Take a principled stand!
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 7/8/2010 10:33:36 PM

So here we are. If I'm right and we take strong action we'll mitigate some of the worse effects of global warming. If I'm wrong and we take strong action we'll not have much impact on temps and be left only with far greater energy efficiency and far more sustainable sources of that energy. Such a tragedy.


Exactly the way I see it.

Win/win...
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 121
Climategate
Posted: 8/3/2010 8:37:56 PM


I don't see how anyone can seriously question whether or not global warming is happening, or whether or not humans are contributing to it.

First, I believe it is pretty well demonstrated that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere. Second, we (humans) are certainly releasing increased amounts of "trapped" CO2 into the atmosphere (burning fossil fuels, etc.).


Climatologists tried to model the climate this way and it didn't work. There are dozens of things that effect the climate, and most of them we either can't model well because we don't understand them sufficiently (e.g. ocean currents, glaciers, aerosols, clouds), we just don't have enough data (e.g. soil composition, solar output), and computers are limited (not enough computing power). So despite massive gaps in knowledge, a tiny increase in temperature can only be caused by humans??? The whole AGW movement is a policized farce.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 122
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 8/3/2010 9:21:51 PM

The whole AGW movement is a policized farce.
Doesn't seem to matter how many climatologists the world gets to prove its real when so many regular citizens are always there to convince everyone the climatologists are wrong,its funny how many end up believing the regular guy not the PHDs.

The climatologists pretty much don't care the ratio of human caused and natural caused,just that its happening at accelerated rates and tell us what we as humans can do to reduce the effects,they are not stupid,that's why we don't waste the effort to try to control the natural effects,because we can't,that's why we're attempting to controlling the only things we can control to help this problem,such as CO2 emissions,and all other such things.

After all, if we can help, then why are we not.

I remember when the worlds leaders come out together to help and Bush decided not to come,yep,what a leader,the man from one of the largest polluting countries .

Its already been shown that the same oil companies that do things like ruin our gulf and Valdez,are the same ones spending the most to lobby that this is a farce,its also been shown if restrictions are put into place how much they and their shareholders will lose in yearly profit,gee wonder where their logic comes from.

Barnum was so right on the money.Many act like the glaciers melting at alarming rates couldn't possibly be helped by tight restrictions.God forbid if we try something we can actually do,even if we cannot control the natural causes damage.

Some seem to have to have a clear sign of the percentage of natural and the percentage of man made causes before they can activate.

Must be nice to think we have that kind of time on our side.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 123
Climategate
Posted: 8/4/2010 5:55:45 PM


Must be nice to think we have that kind of time on our side.


The world didn't come to an end when the CO2 concentration was 25 times higher than it is today. So yeah, I think we have plenty of time before the apocalypse. In fact, I'm pretty sure there won't be an apocalypse.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 8/15/2010 12:22:15 PM
Of course the world won't end due to global warming. No matter what happens there will be some sort of rock continuing to orbit the sun. But those high CO2 concentrations you cite far predate the human presence on the planet.

What we're talking about is how long we're willing to deny that our actions today significantly impact quality of life for future humans. We don't seem to have any problem accepting that we're capable of massive intentional changes like dams, roads, cutting down entire forests, and quite literally moving mountains and rivers. But dare to imply that just maybe we might also have unintended impacts on the only planet we have to call home and the denialists raise an incredible ruckus.

We're in the midst of the sixth great species extinction event in the history of the planet. Fish all over the globe have increased mercury contamination due to fossil fuel burning. We've gone from using a sixth to half the available potable water on the planet in a few decades. And we've increased CO2 and methane atmospheric concentrations to the highest levels in human history.

But never mind all that. Odds are those of us with sufficient means to debate in this forum can simply turn up the AC, pay higher energy costs, continue to have sufficient water and food resources to finish out our personal lives. Who cares what we leave behind for future generations? Not our problem, right?

Dave
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 125
Climategate
Posted: 10/8/2010 5:25:07 PM


Global Tropical Cyclone activity is at 33-year lows


Sounds like the Athropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis has, once agained, failed to find agreement between prediction and observation.
 HarDayKnight
Joined: 12/27/2007
Msg: 126
Climategate
Posted: 10/12/2010 10:22:30 AM
CountIbli,

600 years ago, you would have been one of those crazy guys who thought the world was round and that rocks could fall from the sky. As long as there's money to made from the global warning scare, there's going to be an argument as to whether it exists as a problem at all. Never mind that, for some, Environmentalism is as much a religion as Islam or Christianity. Arguing facts, like CO2 levels following temperature increases rather than the reverse, is futile. The only information they are interested in is what supports their beliefs, however flawed it is.

I have no problem with the development of energy sources that are more efficient than those currently being used. When they exist, then we can be sure that they'll make oil and coal obsolete and irrelevant. Until then, I'm enjoying my supercharged V8 guilt free.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 127
Climategate
Posted: 10/12/2010 11:07:43 AM

The only information they are interested in is what supports their beliefs, however flawed it is.


Until then, I'm enjoying my supercharged V8 guilt free.

See, by your own admission here, you have a belief (i.e. agenda) that you have a need to support with whatever information you can find. Metaphorically speaking, your V8 is rolling on a two-way street.
 HarDayKnight
Joined: 12/27/2007
Msg: 128
Climategate
Posted: 10/12/2010 12:56:57 PM

See, by your own admission here, you have a belief (i.e. agenda) that you have a need to support with whatever information you can find. Metaphorically speaking, your V8 is rolling on a two-way street.


Every supposed fact for human driven global warming has a scientific counter that is not only sound, but convincing to anyone with an open mind on the issue. But let's take that out of the equation. What energy source is abundant enough to efficiently replace fossil fuels at this time? That's right... None. Not even nuclear, which is the closest contender. When a viable alternative is found, sign me up. Though I'll still miss my supercharged V8. But then again, I don't heat a 3500 sq/ft. house or fly around in private jets chastising Americans about their wasteful habits either.


Since the 70's America has made huge steps toward cleaning up auto emissions and industrial pollution. There is a point when it isn't cost efficient to try and clean our act up further. Businesses move to third world countries where it's still allowed, and where there's an added incentive of cheap labor. Environmentalism is chock full of anti-capitalist whack-jobs who have no regard for protecting industry in this country. There comes a point when it just doesn't make any sense to do more. Especially when the impact cannot be substantially minimized with current technology. Where the impact is worth the effort, I'm all for it.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 129
Climategate
Posted: 10/12/2010 1:18:02 PM
Where the impact is worth the effort, I'm all for it.

Fair enough.

The climate change agenda is not swiftly moving forward unobstructed in hopes of installing global socialism as Hannity et al would have one believe. He would make one think that he is one of the few powers keeping us all from the tree-hugging clutches of tyrannical environmentalism.

To the contrary, the whole response is creeping ahead quite slowly exactly BECAUSE of all the conflicting interests and obstacles involved in getting solutions. However, it helps if the populace in general acknowledges that there is a problem to begin with. The US does not have that solidarity yet by a long shot.

Could we have gotten men on the moon if the US populace was not behind the effort? That was back when the US was a leader in scientific advancement. Sadly, it seems that the US's leadership is falling behind in that regard.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 130
Climategate
Posted: 10/12/2010 7:51:25 PM


To the contrary, the whole response is creeping ahead quite slowly exactly BECAUSE of all the conflicting interests and obstacles involved in getting solutions. However, it helps if the populace in general acknowledges that there is a problem to begin with. The US does not have that solidarity yet by a long shot.


A couple of years ago the LA Times reported that Al and Tipper purchased an energy-hogging mansion with a nice view of the ocean. It appears that even Al Gore doesn't really believe that the oceans are going to rise 20 feet.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 131
Climategate
Posted: 12/11/2010 8:37:21 AM
So the guy who was communications director for James Inhofe makes some claims:

ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32].

Craig Rucker, a co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, said the committee got a third of its money from other foundations. However, Rucker would not identify them or say how much his foundation would pay Marc Morano. Rucker did say that ExxonMobil did not contribute anything to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow in 2008


It's just another extremely well funded bullshit group that seeks to muddy the waters.

By way, how many of these "1000 scientists" have won a Nobel prize? I'm willing to bet that at least 80% of them have no more than the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree from Oral Roberts University.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 132
Climategate
Posted: 12/12/2010 3:28:29 PM

saying it is a 100% fact!

I certainly wouldn't claim that it is 100% fact. I actually don't recall anyone claiming that. I would say that there is a 90% chance of the claims of AGW being correct. If a doctor told me I had a 90% chance of dying soon without a particular operation, I would seriously look into getting that operation!

Now what do you have to say folks?

If AGW IS indeed found to be completely mistaken, not happening, go on about your business as before, then I say, "Yahoo!" I have no emotional investment in AGW being true. To the contrary, really.

Sadly, that "if" is quite large...

See, deniers cannot even agree on what is happening with the climate, let alone whether it is altered by human activity or not. They just seem to agree that nothing should be done to diminish or mitigate our use of fossil fuels-- how very convenient.

it was all about the damn money...

That isn't exactly a compelling point of rebuttal seeing as how almost every high profile "skeptic" can be traced to oil and coal interests if you follow "the damn money." As Halftimedad pointed out, the source of your quoted report is certainly no exception.

Speaking of, I am not too invested in the AGW skepticism of people specializing in economics, physics, astrophysics, biology, geology, mechanical engineering, meteorology, zoology, geography, gynecology, scatology, etc., Nobel Prize or not. Also, Gore does not equal climate science or AGW. What Gore is is a high profile spokesperson for cluing in the uneducated, unscientific masses on AGW. So, if Gore is seen doing donuts in a Hummer, taking a $10,000 speaking fee, or even humping his neighbor's cat, these do not refute AGW.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 133
Climategate
Posted: 12/18/2010 8:28:43 PM


I certainly wouldn't claim that it is 100% fact. I actually don't recall anyone claiming that.


True, they just say that the debate is over and try to put AGW skeptics in the same category with holocaust deniers by calling us "deniers."



See, deniers cannot even agree on what is happening with the climate, let alone whether it is altered by human activity or not.


We generally agree that the climate is warming, that humans have little impact on it, that the role of CO2 is greatly exaggerated, that the climate itself is poorly understood (particularly the roles of clouds, aerosols, ocean currents, and glaciers), that the secondary effects of warming are exaggerated and may sometimes even be beneficial, and that even if AGW proponents are 100% correct in their beliefs that schemes like the Kyoto Protocol and Cap and Trade will be financially devastating while doing nothing to stop or slow global warming.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 134
Climategate
Posted: 12/20/2010 11:28:18 PM


The only way someone could say something is poorly understood, would be to half a very good understanding of the subject, therefore you statement makes no sense.


Why do you think this is true? It's certainly possible to know that one does not have a good understanding of something, without being an expert on the subject. For example, I know essentially nothing about knitting, but i don't have to be an expert in knitting to know this. Read the IPCC reports. The scientists admit that they don't understand these things and don't have good models for them.



If you want to see humans impact first hand on the climate, travel to Asia and first order yourself some shark fin soup.

Then spend some time understanding the what role Sharks play as the top predator in keeping things in check in the oceans.

Then you will understand that humans have a pretty big impact on the climate with respect to the oceans ability to produce oxygen and because shark fining goes for the most part unchecked.*

That is one way Man is impacting the climate, which can not be denied, but it has been and probably will be ignored because the animals getting killed (caught live, finned and then dumped back into the oceans) are not cute and cuddly like dolphins and puppies.


Scientifically speaking this is very sloppy thinking. You can claim that shark defining has a big impact on the climate, but in science you have to make more than just claims. You actually have to demonstrate it. I think you may have gone to the Al Gore School of Climatology.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 135
Climategate
Posted: 12/21/2010 10:06:17 AM

True, they just say that the debate is over and try to put AGW skeptics in the same category with holocaust deniers by calling us "deniers."

Betting the global ecosystem on a 10% chance of being right is not only an awful bet, it is irresponsible.

even if AGW proponents are 100% correct in their beliefs that schemes like the Kyoto Protocol and Cap and Trade will be financially devastating while doing nothing to stop or slow global warming.

A fair point but one that does not require AGW skepticism. If only liberals agree that a problem exists, should anyone be surprised that most of the proposed solutions are liberal? The political debate should be HOW to address the issue, not IF there is even an issue. Newt Gingrich is a notable exception, but he would rather devote his time to lambasting Obama at every turn and defending theocratic principles than ever admitting on Fox News that he accepts AGW as true.

One of the biggest problems I have with the Republican party is its Biblical "fact" trumps science stance. It is the same sort of thinking that made the earth the center of the solar system.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 136
Climategate
Posted: 12/21/2010 7:17:20 PM


How is it sloppy?

I have given you a, both a cause and an effect.


What you haven't given is any evidence for your cliams.



If you would like to challenge those claims please feel free, if not I will assume you went to the Fox school of denying stuff that you do not fully understand.



So seeing as you are too lazy here is a link for you.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+impact+of+shark+population+decline+on+the+climate


I looked at the first 3 links that popped up. None of them said anything about the effect of shark population on the climate. If you're going to make a claim then the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that it's true. An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 137
Climategate
Posted: 12/23/2010 9:45:44 PM


From the 3rd link, 8th paragraph down:


The third link for me only has 7 paragraphs.



...Sharks are the ocean’s apex predator because they are at top of the food chain and they have few enemies. But this high rank doesn’t come without duties; they are in charge of helping to keep the ocean’s delicate balance of other fish and some marine mammals. Because they seem to eat whatever there is most of, they help control the overpopulation of any one species. This in turn keeps that species from depleting its food source, and so on, right to the last link in the food chain. On the bottom rung is where you’d find plant plankton or “phytoplankton.” This little gem is what produces our oxygen. But this oxygen producer is already on a decline due to climate change and pollution...


I noticed that the paragraph says that the phytoplankton are on the decline because of climate change and pollution, not shark-finning. The article doesn't present any evidence that phytoplankton are on the decline because of climate change, pollution, or shark-finning.

The article claims that there's a delicate balance, but provides no evidence that the balance is delicate. In the absence of sharks, other predators and starvation will keep populations in check. The author takes his anthropomorphization of nature too seriously. Nature didn't plan for humans, but then again, nature doesn't plan for anything. Life adapts and evolves. Also keep in mind that as sharks are over-hunted the price of shark fins will increase which will reduce the demand for shark fins which will allow the shark population to recover.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 138
Climategate
Posted: 12/24/2010 8:58:16 PM


Seriously I enjoy a good debate but unfortunately I have a feeling most of the information I am presenting you with is going right over your head.


No, it's not going over my head. You simply haven't provided evidence for your claims.



So how about this:

You prove to me that over fishing sharks for their fins is not affecting the climate and I will happy to continue.


This is the logical fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof. You made the positive claim, you bear the burden not me.



It does explain the roll the top predator plays and how when it is removed the checks and balance's are gone and lower level species will suffer.


I'm aware of what the article asserts. Now, where's the evidence?



If you want something that is easier to understand watch the documentary: "Shark Water"


What I want is evidence. Or is that concept over your head?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 139
Climategate
Posted: 12/26/2010 9:48:58 PM

If you are able to discredit or want to question what I am claiming with evidence that is contradictory, I will be happy to debate that with you.

But if you can only come back with, I need more poof, you response will be ignored.


Before you can produce more proof have first have to provide some proof. You still haven't done that. For example:



The wiping out of sharks, one of the top predators at the top of the food chain, could bring about chaos in the ocean ecosystem that could in time even affect the oxygen levels in the atmosphere. The main source of food for sharks are smaller, plankton consuming fish. Without the sharks to control their numbers, they could reproduce out of control, greatly reducing the amount of plankton in the sea, whose photosynthesis contribute much to the amount of oxygen in the air.


There are a lot of "coulds" in those three sentences but no evidence that even the 90% reduction in shark populations globally has had any climatic effects. Apparently you haven't figured out that dire predictions and unsubstantiated claims are not the same as evidence.

Edit: Sadly this seems to be the norm amongst environmentalists. You make scary predictions and hope that no one will notice that you have absolutely no evidence to support them. And then demand massive government intervention.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 140
Climategate
Posted: 12/27/2010 2:12:03 AM
Before you can produce more proof have first have to provide some proof. You still haven't done that.

Don't be a f*cking idiot... He has provided you with evidence...

Clearly you have no better clue how to debate science than you do constitutional issues (which you always seem to take an ass-kicking on as well)...

Having provided you with evidence it is not now his responsibility to provide the research that the cited evidence is based upon, or the research that underlies that underlying research, etc... That is tantamount to demanding NASA prove its space research by citing every piece of relevant evidence all the way back to Isaac Newton's first treatise... It's up to you to disprove the evidence he has given if you disagree with the conclusions drawn in it (usually done by contradicting the research which underlies the evidence cited) not merely demand further layers of evidence that underlie the evidence you cannot disprove...

Try disproving his evidence with equal research to the contrary... If you have the chops to do it (a highly questionable propostion in it's own right)... No-one will be holding thier breath waiting for it...
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 141
Climategate
Posted: 12/27/2010 10:24:12 AM


Don't be a f*cking idiot... He has provided you with evidence...


No, he has provided me with claims and dire predictions. In fairness he did provide evidence that shark populations have decreased, but provided absolutely no evidence that this has had an effect on the climate, oxygen levels, or even plankton populations.



Clearly you have no better clue how to debate science than you do constitutional issues (which you always seem to take an ass-kicking on as well)...


That's funny. When it came to the "Welfare Clause" I provided support for my position from both Jefferson and Madison. You then pointed me to Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution" as if he supported your interpretation of it (that the Welfare Clause gives an independent power to Congress to create laws for the general welfare), when in fact he supported my position that it is not a separate power. Even Alexander Hamilton, who argued for an expanded interpretation, agreed that it is not a separate power. The General Welfare Clause merely gives the reason why Congress is allowed to lay and collect taxes. It does not give Congress the power to spend money and enact laws under color of "promoting the general welfare." Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton are explicit about this.



No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
--Alexander Hamilton



The Constitution says “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts &c., provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.” I do not consider this clause as reaching the point. I suppose its meaning to be, that Congress may collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare, in those cases wherein the Constitution empowers them to act for the general welfare. To suppose that it was meant to give them a distinct substantive power, to do any act which might tend to the general welfare, is to render all the enumerations useless, and to make their powers unlimited. We must seek the power therefore in some other clause of the Constitution.
--Thomas Jefferson



Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power, which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
--James Madison



Having provided you with evidence it is not now his responsibility to provide the research that the cited evidence is based upon


That's exactly what his responsibility is. He provided me with claims, when he needs to provide me with evidence. So where are the peer-reviewed articles that support his position?



That is tantamount to demanding NASA prove its space research by citing every piece of relevant evidence all the way back to Isaac Newton's first treatise...


No it isn't.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 142
Climategate
Posted: 12/28/2010 10:04:52 PM

Also keep in mind that as sharks are over-hunted the price of shark fins will increase which will reduce the demand for shark fins which will allow the shark population to recover.

This sounds good and plausible on paper and is probably straight from the free market manifesto, but the process pans out very differently in reality. One just needs to look at the increasing demand for oil worldwide as the price continues to climb.

So, as prices increase, demand does not necessarily decrease. Sometimes higher prices just signal to the privileged that a certain commodity is exclusive and even more worth having. Even if demand does decrease, it often isn't to a great enough degree to allow certain sensitive populations to recover.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 143
Climategate
Posted: 12/29/2010 5:58:24 PM


Having provided you with evidence it is not now his responsibility to provide the research that the cited evidence is based upon


That's exactly what his responsibility is. He provided me with claims, when he needs to provide me with evidence.

What a load of rhetorical hogwash, utter bovine excrement... If I write an article that states something to the effect "The UN Study on (fill in the blank)... says", it does not then become my responsibility to provide you with a copy of that UN study, it's up to you to get off your lazy ass and get it yourself...

Likewise, if I point you to an article that says "The UN Study on (fill in the blank)... says", it does not become my responsibility to provide you with a copy of that UN study (or even show you where to find one in this case), it's up to you to get off your lazy ass and get it yourself...

But of course, your 'objections' were never meant to be honest debate or even particularly intellectual... That's why you keep demanding a single source that contains every relevant piece of evidence all rolled into one tidy package... as if that condition were even relevant...

Your objections are not objective or even a little honest...

I'll bet if I "claimed" that a particular car could break through a particular barrier at 80 mph, then gave you a link to the force generated by the sudden deceleration of that particular car from 80 mph and a link to the impact resistance of the particular kind of barrier (which, coincidentaly, is less than the force generated by the deceleration), you would try to demand that I hadn't established that the car could go through the barrier... And all because I didn't give you a single source that specifically tested that car crashing through that barrier, despite the fact that physics dictates it will...


That is tantamount to demanding NASA prove its space research by citing every piece of relevant evidence all the way back to Isaac Newton's first treatise...


No it isn't.

Yes it is... Rather than debunking the information in the links he gave you (by, oh say, showing that statistics quoted were wrong or that studies cited didn't support the the information or that some element violated established scientific laws or some such) you are doing exactly what I described above... You are expecting him to provide you with the author's research and that isn't his responsibility... It's up to you to get off that pile of rhetorical bovine excrement and discredit the source if you can... Not simply demand all relevant facts in a single source or merely say "Nuh-uh"...

Oh, and by the way, this is the "claim" he actually made:

If you want to see humans impact first hand on the climate, travel to Asia and first order yourself some shark fin soup.

Then spend some time understanding the what role Sharks play as the top predator in keeping things in check in the oceans.

Then you will understand that humans have a pretty big impact on the climate with respect to the oceans ability to produce oxygen and because shark fining goes for the most part unchecked.*

That is one way Man is impacting the climate, which can not be denied, but it has been and probably will be ignored because the animals getting killed (caught live, finned and then dumped back into the oceans) are not cute and cuddly like dolphins and puppies.

Every article he linked you to in subsequent posts provides evidence for one or more parts of that "claim"...

The third link for me only has 7 paragraphs.

That's funny... when I followed the link he gave to that article to make it easier for you I found a lot more than 7 paragraphs... Either someone can't count, or is just trying to play stupid little rhetorical tricks...


What I want is evidence. Or is that concept over your head?

Again, he has provided it... You just can't actually debunk any of the major elements... This seems to be a theme...

I, on the other hand, DID my job and back-tracked the statements made in the information he cited (rather than simply toss around a bunch of bovine excrement poorly disguised as discussion and demand "Do my work for me or I won't believe you"... The statistics and the studies cited led to a treasure trove of peer-reviewed articles and corraborating information
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Climategate