[noodles]

Originally Posted by Korbain

lol oh here we go the neg rep. Thanks noodles. Sorry i disagree with you and believe global warming is being very over exaggerated at the moment, when really we won't even begin to see the effects any time in the near future, or distant lol. Its sad everyone here can debate the topic with me maturely, yet you decide to call me stupid and tell me i need to educate myself? By a post a make you can judge me. Dude, your a cool bloke (from what i gather knowing you online), but get over yourself a bit ay. I didn't come here to put shit on anyone, i was putting my opinion out, sorry. I'll leave it that.

Dude, you're coming into this thread and just casually laughing off global warming as a myth. You want something you can't prove? Read the Bible. I'm just sick of watching the planet, that I just happen to live on, slowly made more and more uninhabitable by people, like you, who thinks nothing is going wrong. You're not using anything more than your feelings and beliefs to back up your argument, and this view of "over exaggeration" and "no effects in the near future" is extremely shortsighted. That attitude is tantamount to saying, "I don't give a fuck what kind of world I leave behind my grandchildren and their grandchildren."

Do you have a degree in climatology? How about chemistry? Do you happen to be studying global weather systems or the long terms effects of hydrocarbon emissions on atmospheric temperatures? I am sorry if you think I'm coming down on you too hard, but when someone starts discounting the mountains of scientific data, and a whole community of scientists who have been working on this for decades, then I get pretty pissed off. Do you go around questioning the aerospace engineers that make airplanes fly? I bet you would if airplanes flying was incredibly inconvenient.

[technomancer]

Interesting article on this same event:

Global warming cleared on ice shelf collapse rap | The Register

[oompa]

^ well clearly he is an idiot for saying its not global warming. also, can you prove it wasn't global warming? no you can't so it still is!..

im not convinced about global warming is being caused by humans either, but i dont disagree with it either. im not against the idea, or for it. its another unproven theory to me. comparing it to gravity is rediculous, gravity can be proved by anyone smart enough to understand what gravity is or simply by taking a dump, that is not even remotely true with human caused gw.

what creeps me out is that many people who are convinced of a human caused global warming are so ignorant to any opposing idea that behave more like brainwashed sect members than regular thinking people, not caring to give it any doubt at all. an iceshelf breaking. if that british dude never wrote that article, that iceshelf would be enough to convert another million people into being perfectly 100% fucking sure, bet their head on it. seriously, isn't that creepy?

i wish i could prove this in any way, but i am rediculously sure that almost everyone in here who read that article simply thought -human caused global warming.- and then didnt give another milisecond of their time considering what made the iceshelf break loose, and keept reading. pretty creepy. as if hc global warming was the only reason iceshelves break off? if you think rationally? NO for gods sake. start thinking again

what i am getting at is that while in fact that british dude's survey source could actually be wrong, admit to yourselves that your mind assured you it was hc global warming in a second and that's that regarding how it happened.

as i wrote, i am not against the theory of hcgw, i am just creeped out over how regular critical thinking is suddenly stupid. people who argue that "either way it is better to take action" - i couldn't agree more. i'm really for any idea's to reduce co2, i'm an environmentalist in mind and action, and support every single idea to take care of our planet. but it has nothing to do with humans causing global warming or not, cus even if it only has benefits to me, everyone i know and this planet as a whole, its still not convincing enough for me to believe in it - yet.

also, what playstoppause said is

[bostjan]

The global warming scientific model has predicted temperatures and their consequences. We have already seen that the model has been accurate for some years now.

Ask what the cause is of this phenomenon, and 5 people will give 6 answers. Is it heat pollution from factories, CO2 pollution from use of hydrocarbons, is it microwaves from cell phones, is it sunspot activity?

Well, there is a physical science called "thermodynamics" that has lead us to the development of the steam engine, gasoline engine, solar power, etc. Using the laws of this science, which have withstood the test of time, we can narrow down the causes to a list of very good possibilities, all of which are due to the activity of humans.

If you wish to discount this theory, please be my guest, but don't go saying you have discounted it without backing yourself up with at least one hard fact, or else you won't convince anyone.

[oompa]

Originally Posted by bostjan

The global warming scientific model has predicted temperatures and their consequences. We have already seen that the model has been accurate for some years now.

Ask what the cause is of this phenomenon, and 5 people will give 6 answers. Is it heat pollution from factories, CO2 pollution from use of hydrocarbons, is it microwaves from cell phones, is it sunspot activity?

Well, there is a physical science called "thermodynamics" that has lead us to the development of the steam engine, gasoline engine, solar power, etc. Using the laws of this science, which have withstood the test of time, we can narrow down the causes to a list of very good possibilities, all of which are due to the activity of humans.

If you wish to discount this theory, please be my guest, but don't go saying you have discounted it without backing yourself up with at least one hard fact, or else you won't convince anyone.

im not trying to convince anyone with anything, since i dont have any opinion i just want people to stop and think again for a second, and if they are really convinced, it wont be any problem for them either.

and you see, you throw thermodynamics at me, i know very well how thermodynamics work. i read about it in school like everyone else. it's the "they say", "a list of", "we can", "good possiblities", to make it solid that i want to bring out for a second.

again, you can be right, nothing says you're not. if you are ruling out that you can be wrong, it is scary. i dont discount that theory, its a very interresting one, i think it is likely that it is because of that, and you're far from the first to present it to me i dont disagree, and i am not here to argue against your arguments, i just want you to give a quick thought to how much you argue against your arguments.

[bostjan]

I take it that you have little scientific background if you believe that every idea of which you must anticipate the efftects has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's a fact of nature that scientific theories are not absolute. Galileo's theories of motion were not absolute, as we now know due to the predictions of special relativity and the experiments to show us the results of the newer theory...yet Galilean kinematics were still used to a great extent to advance technology.

I don't argue against my own arguments. If you think that I have done so, you did not read my post.

It seems from your previous posts, that you are determined to simply choose a contrary position to each of my posts without attempting to justify what you state, aside from the fact that you point out uncertainty and claim that the uncertainty, however small it is, ought to change the way we think of the model. If you take the stance of skepticism, that's fine, but I'll remind you that there is a difference between skepticism and contrarianism.

[noodles]

Originally Posted by oompa

im not convinced about global warming is being caused by humans either, but i dont disagree with it either. im not against the idea, or for it. its another unproven theory to me. comparing it to gravity is rediculous, gravity can be proved by anyone smart enough to understand what gravity is or simply by taking a dump, that is not even remotely true with human caused gw.

Well, I don't know about the other godless heathens here, but my dumps fall into the toilet because God wills it. The Earth is at the center of the universe, because I can clearly see everything revolving around it in the sky.

what creeps me out is that many people who are convinced of a human caused global warming are so ignorant to any opposing idea that behave more like brainwashed sect members than regular thinking people, not caring to give it any doubt at all. an iceshelf breaking. if that british dude never wrote that article, that iceshelf would be enough to convert another million people into being perfectly 100% fucking sure, bet their head on it. seriously, isn't that creepy?

What creeps me out is that someone can ignore the huge reams of scientific data that points to humans negatively effecting our environment, yet they still sit on the fence because they heard one scientist, on the payroll of the oil or coal lobby, say the findings are inconclusive. By the way, their is nothing linking smoking to cancer, and no one can prove that fatty foods lead to heart attacks.

i wish i could prove this in any way, but i am rediculously sure that almost everyone in here who read that article simply thought -human caused global warming.- and then didnt give another milisecond of their time considering what made the iceshelf break loose, and keept reading. pretty creepy. as if hc global warming was the only reason iceshelves break off? if you think rationally? NO for gods sake. start thinking again

Well, those of us who have been following the research into global warming have just been waiting around for the predictions to come true. So, you see one event, and think that their are no links. I see yet one more in a long series of events, the frequency of which has gone up with the rise in hydrocarbon emissions.

Ever look at the back of a aerosol can, and notice that the ingredients aren't the same as they were back in the 80s? That is because we discovered the CFCs were punching a huge hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. CFCs are now outlawed in most countries, and by the end of the nineties, the hole had all but repaired itself. This is a wonderful example of what happens when governments enact regulations based upon sound scientific data. But hey, I'm sure there is no way to prove we are causing a problem. When that huge ice sheet breaks off and falls into the ocean, raising sea levels two inches, swamping the island of Manhattan, then maybe there will still be time to act. Perhaps prudence dictates that we wait a little longer.

Ever see a dog or cat shit in its bed? They don't. They have a natural instinct to not foul their den. If only humans were as smart as dogs and cats. We use all our logic to try and overrule our common sense, and it ALWAYS bites us in the ass.

i am just creeped out over how regular critical thinking is suddenly stupid.

Me too, dude. Me too.

[oompa]

Originally Posted by bostjan

If you take the stance of skepticism, that's fine, but I'll remind you that there is a difference between skepticism and contrarianism.

gosh. dear bostjan why do you reply to me after not reading what i write?

i am not against you. if you know the difference between scepticism and contrarianism, wich one am i?

Originally Posted by oompa

im not convinced about global warming is being caused by humans

i dont disagree with it either. im not against the idea, or for it.

as i wrote, i am not against the theory of hcgw

its still not convincing enough for me to believe in it - yet

im not trying to convince anyone with anything

i dont have any opinion

you can be right, nothing says you're not

i dont disagree

i was really, really trying to make sure everyone understood i am not in contrary position to it. i am -still- sceptic, meaning tomorrow i could agree.

Originally Posted by bostjan

I don't argue against my own arguments. If you think that I have done so, you did not read my post.

i know you are not, i meant it in another way. read again:

Originally Posted by oompa

i am not here to argue against your arguments, i just want you to give a quick thought to how much you argue against your arguments.

i'm saying you should. thats what scientists who are after the truth usually do. question their own arguments, to see if it makes it or breaks it. nothing else.

Originally Posted by bostjan

It seems from your previous posts, that you are determined to simply choose a contrary position to each of my posts without attempting to justify what you state

well then i'm sorry, i didnt have any post of yours in mind when i made mine. after you directly replied to mine, i tried to explain myself better, and i still dont have an opinion. as for the rest, i know pretty well about what galileo did some 400 years ago, and i am not against taking actions.

and to noodles:

i am not on the fence because one scientist says the opposite of the general mass. i am on the fence because i am not convinced either way. i watched the "global warming is a swindle" thing, and the only thing i found interresting is the part about how everyone just ignores anyone with a questioning position. and either way in my case i still agree on applying the cure pronto so

there is no point telling me over and over "is it better to wait and see?" or "dogs dont sleep where they shit!" ...i know this.

i am not against taking action now. i am not against co2 reduction. i dont ignore scientific data, im just not qualified enough to predict the future with them myself so i have to trust someone else's take on it. i am not against taking care of the only lump of stone we live on. i dont want manhattan to swamp. i dont know what the 'prudence' sentence means (even after checking it up in an online dictionary) but if its another assumption that because i am not convinced that humans cause global warming i dont want to take all your actions against it, it's not correct

you say i see one event and think there are no links. dude i have had this stance long before that iceshelf fell off it has nothing to do with my opinion (one wich i dont have), it was simply a well timed example of how many automatically assumed something that wasn't true.

most of you think i require too much proof to be convinced, thats fair. i believe most of you are not interrested in giving it a critical thought because you want the cure applied. either way we agree on what actions to take, i dont see how we can disagree on anything, since i haven't made up my mind.

but when i ask you to question your arguments in the name of critical thinking, (not in the name of Shell lol), thats when i get missunderstood. its no big deal to question your own reasoning, but hypnotized masses are creepy, not at football games, but about science. i dont want people ten years from now thinking their starbucks coffee is warm because of hcgw you know

thats the last thing ill ever say on this board about the hcgw topic, and now im off changing my signature.

peace

[ibznorange]

I believe in global warming, but i dont really think its our fault. The industrial revolution didnt exactly spark the end of the ice age. I do think we accelerate it, but i think it would/will happen eventually, even if we didnt. Do i think we should try to stop speeding shit up and polluting? hell yes. Do i think we should try to make up for damage done? Definitely. Do i think we should try to stop global warming in general as a part of nature? No

Disclaimer:
* ibznorange is avidly against polution, promotes pro-eco motions, and is legitimately not trying to incite hatred