Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Tigger, the thing you don't present is a list of scientists that think man made global warming is real. Lets see who the other side has compared to who I present.>> Once again, I never claimed global warming was “man-madeâ€. What do I need to pound that into you head? I’m not going to sit around and prove something I don’t even really believe. There may be contributing or accelerating factors, yes, but I do not believe global warming is “caused†by man or man made.†I’ll leave that argument for someone who believes it <<Also, that list has more than 17000 people by now and everyone who signed it are credible experts.>> Most are NOT experts in atmospheric or climatological sciences. And your own petition proved that. I repeat, only 2,660 could be considered “experts†in the climatological change or atmospheric sciences. Another 5,017 have true scientific credentials that lend themselves to understanding how carbon dioxide affects the atmosphere. You can find that data in the petition itself. Here is the section from the petition once again: “Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate. Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.†<a href="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm" target="_blank">http://www.oism.org/pproject/s 33p357.htm</a> You also ignored the question I asked. I’ll ask again: What is the field of study of the remaining 10,000 scientists if they aren’t physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, environmental scientists, chemists, biochemists, biologists, or other life scientists? Now will you please address these portions of my argument? I believe you are avoiding them. But keep in mind that when you cherry-pick the data you wish to discuss and not those which challenge your POV, your opinion becomes less worthy of consideration. <<We have people who actually think CO2 is a bad thing for the enviroment so it has to be stopped!>> Not stopped, but reduced. Now, CO2 emissions are without a doubt increasing. And there is good science behind the greenhouse effect and how CO2 emissions may prevent a portion of the sun’s radiation from escaping the atmosphere, in effect warming it. But whether or not the science holds true on such a macro level in not altogether known. A counter argument states that a CO2 rich environment is good for farm production for the rapidly expanding Earth population. But a warmer Earth may bring a many more negative consequences that positive. Either way, the Earth generally has a means by which to equibrate itself. But there is surely enough data at least to make everyone wary. <<What there is however is confusion.>> I agree with this statement—there is certainly a lot of confusion. Scientists have never really been able to observe large scale climate change. In fact, the entire science based on forecasting the Earth’s geophysical and atmospheric behavior (from geology to meteorology) is all based on data based on scientific hypothetical models. Given the number of influences that can trigger or hinder the Earth’s behavior, confusion is the one thing all scientists have in abundance. Lastly, you didn’t address my final comment either, that there are approximately 600,000 natural scientists in America and that 17,000 is less than 3% of the total scientific minds in America. IOW, the 17,000 in not representative of the scientific community at large. If someone else has a petition that said 17,000 scientists believed global warming was man-made, I’d ask the same question. My point is, you cannot look at this relatively small group and claim it is somehow larger than it really is. Do you see my point?
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<You do realize he is unable to understand what you've said to him, don't you?>> Well, let’s see what he says after I tried to explain it a little clearer.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd No, he understands perfectly. He knows global warming is real. You know it. He is denying, blocking, and censoring on purpose. These are parasites tools of speech.
Originally Posted By jonvn "No, he understands perfectly. He knows global warming is real." I used to think he did, too. I've become convinced reading his posts that he simply does not. He simply can't follow what is said, and asks the exact same question right after it has been answered for him. Repeatedly. He's doing it again now with some other person who has been caught up in trying to talk to him like he's able to follow what is written. They'll be giving up shortly, too, because it's a waste of time.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd There is one thing this gentleman has helped me with. He presents the exact opposite of what i write sometimes, it's facinating to see the words just replaced flippantly. But they aren't flippant. They might be written quickly, but that makes them more true. What this fellow has done is told you the antonym in the republican dictionary. Since, i turn off tv almost immediately because of the lies, and republican liars on tv everywhere, i have not been exposed to these nonsensical ideas that have been floating around in public. I find the lack of selfrespect sad, but still amusing. Of course my main problem, and salvation in my personal life is that everything is hillarious to me, even the important stuff becomes hillarious at times. And, while republicans trust clowns like bush who make them cry, like at that italian clown opera, they don't trust, but should, the clowns who make them laugh. They are afraid to laugh, you know. It means you are smarter than them if you can make them laugh. They hate being reminded of that fact. I do like the way you know how to communicate quickly, and succinctly. The reader is in the here and now, instead of pressing paste without a thought to their response. But there is quite a bit of thought as to why, when, how...all 5 questions still remain to be answered. The less that is said, and repeated continually, is not necessarily what is written, but you learn so much, and isn't that the point of everything,... Your own personal benifit? Oh and as to the topic of this topic thread, i think you should change the title, because conservative intellectual is an oxymoron. The concept of conservative is to conserve. If one conserves one's thoughts, then they have fewer thoughts, which means they are thinking less, which is the definition of senility, and not intellect.
Originally Posted By jonvn There are conservative intellectuals. By that, I mean people who think about their position, and have rational reasons to believe what they believe, and are not just aping what they hear on the radio. When you just cut and paste an article, or you just say the same old thing for every post, whether it fits or not, then there is plainly no thinking involved at all. No thinking means no intellect. At least none that is being put to use.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Most are NOT experts in atmospheric or climatological sciences. And your own petition proved that. >> Tigger, why do you insist on trying to discred this petition that is world famous. Here is what it says. "Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition. " You are trying to dodge the fact you can't get me a list of scientists from the other side of this debate that is going to even come close to 17 thousand people. Yet jon tells us how smart he is and that man made global warming is a consensus. The dude is mental. jon, you don't seem to understand the impact CO2 has on the planet. You and the frauds out ther try and push that CO2 is a bad thing, thus we have the Kyoto treaty.. something that is a total joke. Yet you are on here telling us you are the intellecual....errrrr, you can't find any conservative intellectuals to talk with on LP.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Dear beaumandy, if you email governor arnold schwartzenegger, he will send you the list of scientists. Arnie will also, and i think it's on his sites front page, do a search, and why arnold is signing the toughest global warming bill in our nation, A bill that recognizes global warming by humans and capping it. All californians are proud to observe these regulations. Regulations, reinforced with the threat of lawsuits, so as to prod the republican traitors to also comply.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Tony Blair, that guy from england, called arnold to congratulate him on signing the bill, a bill to cap gases, from both mobile, and stationary, causes of greehouse gas emissions, you know man made substances that cause the earth to heat up the planet, but especially our oceans, which kills off the plankton, which is rather delicate. Plankton creates the majority of oxygen on this planet, or did, til it was killed off by global warming. The ozone layer is shrinking due to the foact that oxygen is not being created, cars are using up a disproportion amount of oxygen, and also cars are pouring more green house gases and poisons into the air. Only a creature, a heartless creature, from another planet, would want to treat humans this way and kill them off, before bringing the other illegal aliens to our planet. We must establish anti illegale alien from outer space laws now, before they are everywhere! Can you imagine detroit! Kansas city, with aliens! Los ange...well, maybe los angeles, but midwest cities with aliens from outer space living there! They like humvees, don't trust them!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<All californians are proud to observe these regulations. Regulations, reinforced with the threat of lawsuits, so as to prod the republican traitors to also comply.>> If California has regualtions to fight global warming they can thank themselves for killing their economy and being total suckers.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Instead it will be great for business, cause it's an unexplored field practically. Monopolies to be made. Devices to built to clean the environment.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo *sigh* This is very disappointing. I’m trying to give you some credit, Beau. Yet, still you continue to avoid the questions I asked. <<You do realize he is unable to understand what you've said to him, don't you?>> So in answer to this question, perhaps jon is right. It seems you either cannot comprehend what I am saying, or the truth is so uncomfortably you would just rather ignore it. <<Tigger, why do you insist on trying to discred this petition that is world famous.>> Incorrect. I am not discrediting the petition or the signers at all. What I am doing is crushing how some political hacks might try to use the data within the petition to prove something it doesn’t. The petition is what it is, a collection of scientists and workers in the field of science who disagreed with the inferences posited within the Kyoto treaty. I fully accept that and give it its due consideration. But the petition isn’t some flag to be hoisted on some political hack’s anti-global warming flagpole and claim victory as you seem to be doing. <<You are trying to dodge the fact you can't get me a list of scientists from the other side of this debate that is going to even come close to 17 thousand people.>> This is ridiculous. First, what do I have to do to make you understand that *I’m not arguing that global warming is man-made*? Do I have to publish this into a pop-up book for you? Come on, you kids should be able to explain it to you by now. Secondly, yeah, because a whole 3% is just so overwhelming. Come on Beau. Don’t play dumb with me. As a gambling man, you have to know that 3% is too small s figure to be dancing around. It mean that 97% of the scientists chose not to sign the petition, or did not know of its existence. But you yourself claim that it’s world famous…curiouser and curiouser. Honestly, I don’t know why GW advocates have not produced one themselves. Perhaps they don’t feel they need to, believing that most scientists already believe as they do. Presumptuous perhaps but…c’est la vie. My main contention here is that you are putting too much weight into this relatively small petition. <<"Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition. ">> As someone who works with full-fledged scientists every day for a living, this description would not make them experts in the field. For example, most Americans are licensed to drive a vehicle and know the basics of automotive care, but that doesn’t make us expert drivers or expert automotive technicians. That is why they made the distinction between the scientists and those with some technical training (recall my spectrometer example from before). As much as you are trying, I am not going to let you ignore this: “Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate. Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.†^^^ These are experts Beau.
Originally Posted By jonvn "jon, you think man made global warming is real don't you?" It doesn't matter what I think. The experts in the field have their opinions, and that's what is important. You can't seem to get that.
Originally Posted By jonvn "*sigh* This is very disappointing. I’m trying to give you some credit, Beau. Yet, still you continue to avoid the questions I asked." Told you. He's a waste of time. More than a line or two is of response is pointless.
Originally Posted By woody The issue of Global Warming isn't that it is happening, but what is causing it. I don't see how green house gases can be the cause. Global temperature rise/fall are cylical. Just because it is happening doesn't mean it won't reverse itself. There may be nothing we can do about it, but people are willing to ruin the economy or spend tons of money fix a problem that may be out of their control.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The issue of Global Warming isn't that it is happening, but what is causing it." Gee, then I guess Beau is the only one who doesn't believe it is happening. "I don't see how green house gases can be the cause." I'm sorry, but did you mention somewhere your credentials that qualify you to give an opinion on such a thing? I must have missed it,
Originally Posted By woody >>Gee, then I guess Beau is the only one who doesn't believe it is happening.<< Gee, I guess Beau has an original opinion. You think? >>I'm sorry, but did you mention somewhere your credentials that qualify you to give an opinion on such a thing? I must have missed it,<< My opinion is just as good as yours.... maybe even better.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Gee, I guess Beau has an original opinion. You think?" No, he doesn't. He has what he's heard on the radio. "My opinion is just as good as yours.... maybe even better." My opinion is that the people who actually study this issue know best. If your opinion is different than that, then no, it's not better, it's idiotic. If you want to discuss global warming, there is a topic for it.
Originally Posted By woody >>No, he doesn't. He has what he's heard on the radio.<< And where did you get this? From the radio? >>My opinion is that the people who actually study this issue know best. If your opinion is different than that, then no, it's not better, it's idiotic.<< Yes, and there is real disagreement with this. >>If you want to discuss global warming, there is a topic for it.<< Thank you for punting. So you don't have to repeat yourself. Sign.
