Re: global warming
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:41 pm
What is your basis for this belief?knighter wrote: i dont believe this planet is doing anything other than changing like the universe law says.
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
What is your basis for this belief?knighter wrote: i dont believe this planet is doing anything other than changing like the universe law says.
Hi, knighter,knighter wrote:Hello there
Well if you look through the history of this planet, its never had a steady climate, its the nature of nature.
Its just the internet is new and humans have never been so connected so news be it true or false travels fast.
I would say the planets climate has always fluctuate its just we've never spoke about it, we've just adapted.
Its best, i think to move on from this subject do as much as you can to look after nature and be happy.
There are lots of people wanting other people to belive in there own illusion, very funny business.
Anyway
Be happy
knighter
This is an interesting read (IMO): http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/ ... ime-2.htmlMonte Hieb - Mining Engineer
Monte Hieb is the author of several popular web pages skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, serving as a evangelist for the viewpoint (he does not state his qualification in climatology or a related science). He is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training.
http://www.takeonit.com/expert/66.aspx
First: Don't confuse quantity of "scientists" with quality. There are plenty of scientists who do NOT believe in AGW. I have provided a lot of sources. I can dig them out again if you want.BlackBird wrote:II guess to cut a long story short - I feel that if the dissenters arguments had any merit, scientists of good repute and standing would be swarming to get in behind. After all, if it did turn out that we human's weren't the cause of climate change - It would be highly beneficial to us. We wouldn't have to worry about our carbon emissions at all. It would be business as usual and happy times all round.
Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents....
"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 62092.html
So your argument is Ad Hominem rather than arguing about specific points?Buckwheat wrote:I did some research on geocraft.com The author is:
- I'm not conflating quantity with quality. There are many, many scientists of good standing and excellent repute who stake their reputations on human induced climate change. Many more than dissent.Alex123 wrote: Second: Carbon Tax.
Also, AGW is such a heated topic, like religion, that some scientists do not want to speak out against it as it is not very "PC".
It exaggerated the importance a very short-lived slow-down in global temperature rise a few years ago. We are well and truly back on the warming track now - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -on-recordBlackBird wrote: I'm reading the article you posted now, it seems quite interesting.
No, after I systematically refuted every point you made and pointed out that you were mis-representing every one of your sources except for geocraft.com, I decided to get off the broken record. I was planning to drop out of this pointless debate, and for my own purposes of deeper understanding, I decided to look into the background of each of our sources. The only source that actually supported your conclusions was geocraft.com, and my favorite source was skepticalscience.com. On skepticalscience.com I was able to track sources back to peer-reviewed, very publicly discussed and debated research. That's as legit as I'm qualified to understand. For geocraft.com I quickly noticed that while some of his data is sourced, his conclusions are not. Most of the people who agree with him are politicians, journalists, and fossil fuel special interests, none of whom are qualified to study or draw conclusions regarding climate science. That website is the opinion of a single person with no background in climate science who works for the fossil fuel industry. Why would I believe him over 97% of the of the climate science community.Alex123 wrote:So your argument is Ad Hominem rather than arguing about specific points?Buckwheat wrote:I did some research on geocraft.com The author is:
Pointing out that your source is biased, unqualified, and unsourced is not attacking the man, it is attacking the credibility of his conclusions. That is quite relevant. You have made similar, yet even more abstract claims that 97% of scientists are more interested in passing Carbon taxes than having a meaningful scientific career. You brought character attack into this debate. Live with the consequences.Wikipedia wrote:An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely an irrelevance.[6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem]
Well exaggeration or not, it was still interesting. Another good point the article made was that any plateau would undoubtedly be temporary. I don't really see how it supports Alex's arguments, but perhaps there is not a terrible amount of viable sources out there and this was the best of a bad bunch so to speak.Kim O'Hara wrote:It exaggerated the importance a very short-lived slow-down in global temperature rise a few years ago. We are well and truly back on the warming track now - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -on-recordBlackBird wrote: I'm reading the article you posted now, it seems quite interesting.
and http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... temps.html
Kim
Well said.Buckwheat wrote:Pointing out that your source is biased, unqualified, and unsourced is not attacking the man, it is attacking the credibility of his conclusions. That is quite relevant. You have made similar, yet even more abstract claims that 97% of scientists are more interested in passing Carbon taxes than having a meaningful scientific career. You brought character attack into this debate. Live with the consequences.
I dont really understand what your first few sentences where on about,but anyway.Hi, knighter,
You seem quite vague and maybe confused about reality and illusion ... "the internet is new" (so it exists) but "if i think about our poor beautiful planet burning up with everyone on it its just an illusion". Either they are both illusion, or both real. And a conventionally-real "you" sat at a conventionally-real computer to type your message, and a conventionally-real "me" is sitting in a conventionally-real chair in a conventionally-real city in a conventionally-real Australia ... you get the idea.
In that conventional reality, our actions have consequences and Buddhism teaches that we must accept responsibility for them.
So we should choose carefully - know the facts and act upon them as compassionately as possible.
In this case, the facts are that human activity is changing the climate far faster than it has changed before (apart from when a meteorite wiped out the dinosaurs ) and if we don't do something about it, soon, millions of people and billions of other living creatures will suffer because we/they can't adapt fast enough to survive the changes. Please, inform yourself before deciding not to act. Start here, if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change.