Climate deniers act like actual skeptics, do own research, get "surprising" results.

reply to post by unityemissions


Because there are experts checking out all the information 24/7 ?? Fail. I will rest my argument on INHERENCY - wikipedia is not allowed by schools/universities as a valid source of reliable information.....case closed. Next case !

reply to post by TSZodiac


Taking care of our planet isn't a religion, it's common sense. Unless you aren't worried about the future generations of your kin that is. I'm not an environmentalist, I'll cut down a tree if needed. I am just addressing the difference between needing something and the desire for personal gain as the reason for this neglect of our environment. I've cut down many trees when I needed to. If I needed to cut more I would. I don't need to right now even though I could sell the trees on my land.

reply to post by TSZodiac


This isn't school, None of those rules apply here. Referencing Wikipedia here isn't disallowed. Try to argue stuff we discuss here with a teacher, the ball rolls both ways.

reply to post by rickymouse


Okay - the tooth fairy told me that AGCC is a scam.....good enough for you? Tooth Fairy also an okay source? You lose.....

reply to post by TSZodiac


That's an unfair comparison.

Wikipedia is a global community tool which is constantly updated from a variety of minds. It seems "common sense" that those who are most passionate and capable towards a topic, will be most likely to alter the information.

The tooth fairy is simply fictional. It's beyond reason to make such a comparison. Essentially, you are attempting to invalidate our responses from a feeling of superiority, under the guise of being "intellectual".

The standards are stringent enough on wikipedia that studies have been done, which conclude it is no more or less reliable as a source of information than encyclopedia brittanica. The fact that universities don't allow the students to use it as a source of information does not invalidate it in any way shape or form. That is a logical fallacy at play: appeal to authority.

Link!

Let's try to remain on topic. If you want to discuss this further, U2U me.

reply to post by rickymouse


Ahhh - the GUILT portion of the religion (i.e. - ""unless you don't CARE about future generations, etc,.") - LOVE it...please point out to me 2 things: (1) The post where I said I didn't care about the environment (2) the part of the AGCC Legislation where it says that you, me and the Evil corporations have to stop polluting.....i won't hold my breath for your answer because neither of the things I ask for above exist....

Let's stick to the point, shall we? The point is that the whole argument about climate change being man made is BOLLOCKS. Want evidence? All this climate change legislation does is set up a Carbon Trade Market....it doesn't say ANYTHING about stopping the amount of CO2 that being spewed into the air by you, me or any corporation - it simply makes us PAY to do so ! See it yet? I can wait......

Its all about the MONEY - the people, institutions and governements pushing this just want more of your MONEY...its the brave new frontier in profits !

reply to post by unityemissions


Okay - AGCC is a scam ! How's that? Please go back to Wikipedia and look up how many times there have been rapid climate changes in the history of the Earth....get back to me on it. I'll be interested in hearing what you have to say about rapid climate change events prior to the industrial revolution....

reply to post by TSZodiac


This has already been addressed in the thread by other members.

First, define, "rapid".

Second, at what stage of development were homo sapiens at during these "rapid" changes in climate?

Originally posted by TSZodiac
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Ahhh - the GUILT portion of the religion (i.e. - ""unless you don't CARE about future generations, etc,.") - LOVE it...please point out to me 2 things: (1) The post where I said I didn't care about the environment (2) the part of the AGCC Legislation where it says that you, me and the Evil corporations have to stop polluting.....i won't hold my breath for your answer because neither of the things I ask for above exist....

Let's stick to the point, shall we? The point is that the whole argument about climate change being man made is BOLLOCKS. Want evidence? All this climate change legislation does is set up a Carbon Trade Market....it doesn't say ANYTHING about stopping the amount of CO2 that being spewed into the air by you, me or any corporation - it simply makes us PAY to do so ! See it yet? I can wait......

Its all about the MONEY - the people, institutions and governements pushing this just want more of your MONEY...its the brave new frontier in profits !

Bingo! If you want your funding $$$ give us the numbers we want to see.

Go ahead and cook the books if you have to.

reply to post by unityemissions


Looks like you want ME to do your homework for you - sorry. I just simply CAN'T do ALL your work for you - you must at least be willing to do A LITTLE on your own....perhaps you should go back and read a few of my earlier posts on this thread for some of the answers you seek....you probably won't so I will (with apologies to the other readers) re-post something: Riddle me this - why is a place that's full of ice and snow named "GREEN-land"? Don't know? Allow me - because the Vikings named it, 1000 years ago when they colonized it...because it wasn't full of ice and snow at that time! Greeland was full of green pastures, and the Vikings had settlements there for 400 years! Until they were forced to leave or die off because of rapid climate change - which ended up being called the "Little Ice Age"...archaeologists found there settlements covered with permafrost due to the hundreds of years of the little ice age.....but we know when they were there because they kept records....climatologists don't talk to archaeologists.....one question - do you think this rapid climate change was due to the large Viking industrial complexes? What caused that rapid change? Your climatologists don't know - neither does anyone else on the planet...for sure....we simply don't have enough information, human science isn't able to determine that.
Tell you what, just as soon as your Climatologists (a glorified term for a Meteorologist) can tell me WITH ABSOLUTE certainty EXACTLY what the weather will do TOMORROW, I will start accepting some of the things that they say about things that will happen further in the future - deal?

Originally posted by TSZodiac
reply to post by unityemissions

 

Looks like you want ME to do your homework for you - sorry. I just simply CAN'T do ALL your work for you - you must at least be willing to do A LITTLE on your own....

You aren't being honest. Anyone with a critical mind is free to see your exaggerations, IE lies right here.

perhaps you should go back and read a few of my earlier posts on this thread for some of the answers you seek....you probably won't so I will (with apologies to the other readers) re-post something: Riddle me this - why is a place that's full of ice and snow named "GREEN-land"? Don't know? Allow me - because the Vikings named it, 1000 years ago when they colonized it...because it wasn't full of ice and snow at that time!

This is an assumption. There are more than a couple of theories as to the origin of the name.

Greeland was full of green pastures, and the Vikings had settlements there for 400 years! Until they were forced to leave or die off because of rapid climate change - which ended up being called the "Little Ice Age"...archaeologists found there settlements covered with permafrost due to the hundreds of years of the little ice age.....but we know when they were there because they kept records....climatologists don't talk to archaeologists

I see you are attempting to implant notions which simply aren't true. You have no clue how many of the climatologists do or do not discuss various topics with archaeologists.

.....one question - do you think this rapid climate change was due to the large Viking industrial complexes? What caused that rapid change? Your climatologists don't know - neither does anyone else on the planet...for sure....we simply don't have enough information, human science isn't able to determine that.

Yes, they are unable to determine that. There is a difference between the amount and quality of scientific data recorded hundreds of years ago, and today.

Tell you what, just as soon as your Climatologists (a glorified term for a Meteorologist)

Incorrect. Your ignorance is slipping.

can tell me WITH ABSOLUTE certainty EXACTLY what the weather will do TOMORROW, I will start accepting some of the things that they say about things that will happen further in the future - deal?

That is a really bizarre request.

reply to post by unityemissions


You have really no interest in this topic, you just want to argue - and now you're resorting to the oldest tricks in the book. I won't waste anymore time with you. My point is made. Cheers.

reply to post by mc_squared


I have a question for you and your group. If, in 5 years or so, we have not all been turned into small piles of ash by being cooked by the sun, and the planet starts cooling on a steady trend, will you admit that the global (whatever you want to call it today) has less to do with man and everything to do with the cycles of the earth?

Because the way I see it, you, I, and Al Gore have just as much chance of changing things as I do of winning the lottery, Having the makers of the Ferrari feel sad that I don't own one, and give me a nice yellow one to drive, and having Phage decide to start believing in chemtrails. So knowing that, I think it's safe to say that the only thing we can actually do, is wait and see who is right. In the end, it won't matter much either way.

For all you pseudo scientists that claim you know something concerning the lies of the IPCC, take your objectivity to this sight and actually look at the real data www.climate4you.com.... Actual measurements without hiding the decline.

reply to post by unityemissions




"Greeland was full of green pastures, and the Vikings had settlements there for 400 years! Until they were forced to leave or die off because of rapid climate change - which ended up being called the "Little Ice Age"...archaeologists found there settlements covered with permafrost due to the hundreds of years of the little ice age.....but we know when they were there because they kept records....climatologists don't talk to archaeologists"




I have to point out that most of what Zodiac says there is true in essence in at least southern parts of Greenland, for a period around 500 years until 'another' little ice age occurred. That is more important than the climatologist to archaelologist don't talk supposition by Zodiac. Yet you chose to address that instead. If there is a key to all the argy bargy, it could just be the climate fluctuations of Greenland over the last 100,000 years as verifiable by the cores taken, It's location, and how that can be read at least fairly latterly into the written histories, and no doubt that has been done by somebody.

reply to post by unityemissions

This is an assumption. There are more than a couple of theories as to the origin of the name.

It is actually historic fact.
The Viking did colonize Greenland. They also mostly died out during the Little Ice Age. They starved to death, since their crops would not grow. A few went to the ways of the native Eskimos and interbred with them, that is found in the genetic makeup of the Eskimos today.

To investigate the possibility of climatic cooling, scientists drilled into the Greenland ice caps to obtain core samples. The oxygen isotopes from the ice caps suggested that the Medieval Warm Period had caused a relatively milder climate in Greenland, lasting from roughly 800 to 1200. However from 1300 or so the climate
began to cool. By 1420, we know that the "Little Ice Age" had reached intense levels in Greenland.[17] Excavations of midden or garbage heaps from the Viking farms in both Greenland and Iceland show the shift from the bones of cows and pigs to those of sheep and goats. As the winters lengthened, and the springs and summers shortened, there must have been less and less time for Greenlanders to grow hay. By the mid-14th century deposits from a chieftain’s farm showed a large number of cattle and caribou remains, whereas, a poorer farm only several kilometers away had no trace of domestic animal remains, only seal. Bone samples from Greenland Norse cemeteries confirm that the typical Greenlander diet had increased by this time from 20% sea animals to 80%.[18]

Wikipedia Norse/Greenland

If you read on in the link, you will see that it is thought that the Eskimos helped wipe out the Vikings, but the Vikings had been there for hundreds of years, so did the natives decide after hundreds of years to wipe them out? They apparently didn't kill them all before interbreeding with them.

reply to post by butcherguy


I am of the same mindset, although Unity was most likely referring to the origins of the Viking name of Greenland.

reply to post by butcherguy


Erm, where is the origin of the name mentioned in anything you just wrote?

Originally posted by TSZodiac

Tell you what, just as soon as your Climatologists (a glorified term for a Meteorologist) can tell me WITH ABSOLUTE certainty EXACTLY what the weather will do TOMORROW, I will start accepting some of the things that they say about things that will happen further in the future - deal?

Id10t "skeptic" in 1870: As soon as one of those Pasteurian "doctors" can tell me whether I will get an infectious disease TOMORROW with certainty will I start accepting what they say about this idiotic germ theory of disease.

reply to post by unityemissions
May point to the fact that the warm period before the little ice age let vegetation flourish making the land green.

Why not address the actual point that was made before regarding global cooling?
Little Ice Age

Read the linked paper and explain how humans caused the 'Little Ice Age'.

Climatic change occurs without regard to puny human endeavors.

I believe that if humankind were tasked with the job of raising the global temperature, they would fail miserably.