knighter wrote: i dont believe this planet is doing anything other than changing like the universe law says.
What is your basis for this belief?
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.
Monte 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.
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
Buckwheat wrote:I did some research on geocraft.com The author is:
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".
BlackBird wrote:I'm reading the article you posted now, it seems quite interesting.
Alex123 wrote:Buckwheat wrote:I did some research on geocraft.com The author is:
So your argument is Ad Hominem rather than arguing about specific points?
Wikipedia wrote:An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.[6
Kim O'Hara wrote:BlackBird wrote:I'm reading the article you posted now, it seems quite interesting.
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/2013/jan/16/2012-10-warmest-years-on-record
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.
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.
knighter wrote:This is for you to kim
have a look it very enlightening.
Cittasanto wrote:These particular video seams relevant to the current train of thought
BlackBird wrote: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..