Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 289101112131415 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 150

Thread: global warming is a hoax

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Esslingen, Germany
    Posts
    3,973

    Default

    "All"? The theory that global warming is a man-made effect is backed by a majority of scientists on the subject, yes, but to claim that "all" of them do is something else entirely. And the thing about majorities of any kind is that truth doesn't get decided by vote. 95% of scientists might simply be wrong.
    ADOM Guides - whatever you wanted to know about playing a certain class, but have been afraid to ask!

    Check out my youtube channel to see my ADOM videos, including a completed playthrough of the game. I try to give instructions, so if you want to see some place you haven't been before and get some hints on how to deal with it, this might help! There's also some other games featured there that you might find interesting.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,067

    Default

    > Isn't it proven that there has been warm periods in the past too

    all of those periods were caused by man too. as soon as that one caveman
    discovered fire, it was all over...
    "Whip me!" pleads the adom player. The rng replies... "No."

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gut View Post
    > I am worried about peak oil even more than

    It's good that you are worried, it means that propaganda still works.
    Not a convincing argument. Why is it propaganda?

    Quote Originally Posted by gut View Post
    > Peak oil means that we will be in deep shit within the next five to ten years.

    Yes, the same as it meant in 1970's when the first push for 'peak oil' propaganda
    was originally made. I think they called it 'hubbert's curve' (or something like
    that anyway). Distant memories, but the same old line in any event. Sure, they
    can say 'it's different this time!', but remember, they have said the same thing
    at least once per decade since 70.
    Hubbert's curve was originally a prediction of USA (not world) oil production. Few people believed him when he originally made his predictions in 1956. Yet here is his prediction from that moment, along with up to date actual figures:



    As you can see here, US production did peak in 1970. World production will peak at some unknown time in the future - unfortunately, some major oil producing countries are keeping their reserves secret. That is, they come up with incredible official numbers and do not allow any outsiders to check it. Therefore, there is a lot of uncertainty about when global production will peak. This doesn't mean it won't happen.

    But of course I'm only spreading propaganda, you shouldn't take any of this seriously. We all know there is infinite oil left. Besides, once prices rise sufficiently, we will magically technologize substitutes out of thin air. There is nothing to worry about.[/sarcasm]
    Last edited by grobblewobble; 10-21-2010 at 05:39 PM.
    You steal a scroll labelled HITME. The orc hits you.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silfir View Post
    "All"? The theory that global warming is a man-made effect is backed by a majority of scientists on the subject, yes, but to claim that "all" of them do is something else entirely. And the thing about majorities of any kind is that truth doesn't get decided by vote. 95% of scientists might simply be wrong.
    They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
    -- Carl Sagan

    In any case, what really convinces me that global warming is man-made isn't just the fact that the vast majority of scientists says so, but also that the evidence is pretty solid. The following are undisputed scientific facts:

    - carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas
    - mankind is responsible for the sharp rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution
    - the direct (short-term) effect of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is about 1 degree

    The scientific debate is about this question: what is the net effect of doubling the amount of CO2, after including all medium term feedbacks? These feedbacks include increased cloud cover and change of albedo (ie, ice and snow are white and therefore reflect more sunlight than uncovered soil or water). This is an incredibly complex question and there is no definite answer yet.

    However, uncertainty works both ways. It could be that the effects are less pronounced than the current median estimate, but it's equally likely that they will be worse.
    You steal a scroll labelled HITME. The orc hits you.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nathrakh View Post
    Isn't it proven that there has been warm periods in the past too, it's logical.
    This is absolutely true, there have been warmer periods than today. Millions of years ago, the amount of CO2 in the air has been higher than today, temperatures were higher and sea levels were way higher, too.

    However, that doesn't mean it's no problem if we return to that situation right now. For one, this time we are responsible. Secondly, in terms of geological time the current climate change happens at an incredibly fast speed. Third, back all those millions of years ago there were no six billion humans around, so it's irrelevant.
    Last edited by grobblewobble; 10-21-2010 at 06:12 PM.
    You steal a scroll labelled HITME. The orc hits you.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    5,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silfir View Post
    "All"? The theory that global warming is a man-made effect is backed by a majority of scientists on the subject, yes, but to claim that "all" of them do is something else entirely. And the thing about majorities of any kind is that truth doesn't get decided by vote. 95% of scientists might simply be wrong.
    I said "all the experts". I was also making a general point, not specifically about this topic. Plenty of other topics suffer from the same problem of ignorant people disputing scientific evidence with their own supposed "logic".
    Platinum Edition ADOMer
    http://gamesofgrey.com - check out my roguelikes!

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Esslingen, Germany
    Posts
    3,973

    Default

    Triple post? Sarcasm marks? sniff :'(

    Besides, it's not that there is infinite oil left - oil will never run out. That's because as it gets rarer, it gets more expensive, which increases demand for alternatives, which will cause an increase in scientific funding. Wherever alternatives already exist, they will get used more and more, and eventually supplant oil, which as prices rise starts to get only used for things that actually require it to work. I refuse to get worked up over this.

    Also: "undisputed scientific fact"? There is no such thing. First, if it's undisputed, it's not scientific. Science is all about theory, discourses, disputes, squabbles and argumentation, and the couple odd wonks who think different. But that's fine, since none of these are actually undisputed; at least I hope someone, somewhere is doing actual science. Second, these are not facts, they're theories based on what we believe to be facts (i. e. observations). So, it's not "undisputed scientific fact", it's "widely agreed scientific theories". That's fine, too, because theories are great and can definitely be grounds for action.

    I'm just kind of funny about escalating rhetoric. Let's take "ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE ON THESE UNDISPUTED SCIENTIFIC FACTS" and tone it down to "A significant majority of scientists agree on these widely accepted theories" and we can work our way to an agreement.

    EDIT: Grey, is that to say that if you don't agree with the consensus on global warming, you obviously can't be an expert?
    ADOM Guides - whatever you wanted to know about playing a certain class, but have been afraid to ask!

    Check out my youtube channel to see my ADOM videos, including a completed playthrough of the game. I try to give instructions, so if you want to see some place you haven't been before and get some hints on how to deal with it, this might help! There's also some other games featured there that you might find interesting.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    If these scientists haven't beaten the ToEF without prior spoiling from the GB, they cannot be considered experts.
    I said it before, and I'll say it again. If I knew scripture like you, I'd prolly be an athiest too.. -gut

     /l、
    (゚、 。 7  
     l、 ~ヽ   
     じしf_, )ノ

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,067

    Default

    >>> I am worried about peak oil even more than

    >> It's good that you are worried, it means that propaganda still works.

    > Why is it propaganda?

    Read your own sentence and see if it doesn't fit the criteria of propaganda.
    I hereby attribute to you:

    >>> "Peak oil means that we will be in deep shit within the next five to ten years."

    A message such as this presents the situation as if all factors are being taken into
    account, all data has been wieghed and measured, and an inescapable/undebatable
    conclusion has been reached. One of doom and gloom. This is a scare message, intended
    to sway people's thinking to your liking. This is 'Why is it propaganda?'. I do enjoy the
    re-occuring efforts to present one's side as being non-debatable though, especially in the
    middle of a debate

    Yet, you follow your message with the admition:

    > "World production will peak at some unknown time in the future"

    How quick, the backpedaling

    Then there's this:

    >> Yes, the same as it meant in 1970's when the first push for 'peak oil'
    ...
    >> they have said the same thing at least once per decade since 70.

    > Hubbert's curve was originally a prediction of USA (not world) oil

    Yet was presented in the same scare-fashion as your earlier message. As I said,
    there have been additional 'peak oil' scare pushes over the decade. None of them
    ever seemed to pan out, yet they persist. The USA has vast oil reserves, coal
    too. Peak USA oil output is a result of lower costs to pump it elsewhere. For
    the same reason, I'd say that USA manufacturing has peaked as well.

    > But of course I'm only spreading propaganda,

    and you should be ashamed

    > you shouldn't take any of this seriously.

    Reforrestation is what I take seriously, not scare tactics and doomsday scenarios.
    Honestly, the reason I support the idea of planting trees has nothing to do with being
    frightened about greenhouse gasses and unsustainable energy sources. I just like trees.

    > We all know there is infinite oil left.

    Not infinite, yet plenty that has and hasn't already been discovered.

    > Besides, once prices rise sufficiently, we will magically technologize substitutes

    There are other resources that will be tapped before we need to resort to magic, or
    my hybrid mutants. They are just more expensive to gather and refine than oil is.
    Won't happen on a large scale until gas hits 5$ in USA though.
    Last edited by gut; 10-22-2010 at 09:47 AM.
    "Whip me!" pleads the adom player. The rng replies... "No."

  10. #120

    Default

    I checked out Wikipedia's entry on global warming, specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change where it states: "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion [that global warming is attributable to human activities.]"

    Now that's a bold claim to make: it only requires finding *one group* of respected scientists who dissent for it to be false. Said group don't even have to argue against global warming, just that it's not caused by humans! Not even petroleum companies' pet science groups have argued against it. The best they can do is a "non-committal statement."

    Right on the heels of that statement, I have to ask, "What should we do about it? What could this do to the environment?" There's never been *any* discussion about the pros and cons of global warming, only the assumption that is B-A-D. In my opinion, it could be more good than bad.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •