| Author
|
Ecology - A trend
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 15:22
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 15:14, subconsciousmind wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 14:42, Ascension wrote:
Everyone overestimates the affect CO2 has on the atmosphere. It has the least impact on the ozone of any greenhouse gas.
Read the pdf on this webpage: http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php . I know most of you won't read it, but at least look at the graphs and what they mean.
31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs. No one here is more versed in this subject than these individuals. Just look when the trends start, there is NO correlation to man's increased greenhouse gas emissions.
|
|
The article is not peer reviewed, meaning it's by no means sure that most of it isn't just lies. There are lots of studies and papers outthere who claim the opposite. In the end this article proves nothing, its who do you trust? or WANT to trust?
The Petition is primairly against the kyoto which has massive influence of BIG companies... think about it. Which conspiracy is more plausible? The obama-eco-conspiracy or the bush-oil-conspiracy?
Read this too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
|
|
What? Did you read any of the article they wrote? The paper cites 132 references to scientific documents. Whether you think they have an agenda you don't agree with, the facts don't lie.
  http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
ouroboros
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
25
Posts :
874
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 15:25
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-20 10:13, Dogon wrote:
If you care just do it & dont blah blah on internet!
|
|
+100
http://www.myspace.com/musicouroboros
**treat ur mind like a bad neighbourhood - dont go thr alone** |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 15:33
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 15:22, Ascension wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 15:14, subconsciousmind wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 14:42, Ascension wrote:
Everyone overestimates the affect CO2 has on the atmosphere. It has the least impact on the ozone of any greenhouse gas.
Read the pdf on this webpage: http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php . I know most of you won't read it, but at least look at the graphs and what they mean.
31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs. No one here is more versed in this subject than these individuals. Just look when the trends start, there is NO correlation to man's increased greenhouse gas emissions.
|
|
The article is not peer reviewed, meaning it's by no means sure that most of it isn't just lies. There are lots of studies and papers outthere who claim the opposite. In the end this article proves nothing, its who do you trust? or WANT to trust?
The Petition is primairly against the kyoto which has massive influence of BIG companies... think about it. Which conspiracy is more plausible? The obama-eco-conspiracy or the bush-oil-conspiracy?
Read this too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
|
|
What? Did you read any of the article they wrote? The paper cites 132 references to scientific documents. Whether you think they have an agenda you don't agree with, the facts don't lie.
|
|
the question is not if they cite articles (did you check them?) but if anybody cites the article. There are obviously statistics who do not agree with the ones in the article, actually the reasons why most scientists in the field don't agree with such an article... so who do you trust?
I didn't read the whole article, but enough. Did you read the wiki? The signatories are questionable at best. etc.
It's nothing new that there is a SMALL part of scientists IN THE FIELD who agree with the things in the article you posted. But a FAR LARGER number DOESNT. Period. I tend to trust in them. You rather trust in the others. why? are you an expert? no, because you want to.
this one is funny too:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 15:43
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 15:44
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 15:58
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 15:59
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 16:00
|
And the article you posted about climate change was from 1998. We sure have learned a lot since then...
A few years ago I too thought that man had a large influence on global warming, but the facts have changed, and continue to change- in favor of disproving this theory. http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 16:14
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 16:00, Ascension wrote:
And the article you posted about climate change was from 1998. We sure have learned a lot since then...
A few years ago I too thought that man had a large influence on global warming, but the facts have changed, and continue to change- in favor of disproving this theory.
|
|
YOUR article is from 1998, hence so are the responses to it. The article has been slightly revised in 2007 only.
Serously the "oregon petition" is a joke. If you want to believe in it. Good luck. I don't. the wiki or not disussion is oftopic, follow the references on the specific wiki article to find out how accurate it is. Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 16:44
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 16:14, subconsciousmind wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 16:00, Ascension wrote:
And the article you posted about climate change was from 1998. We sure have learned a lot since then...
A few years ago I too thought that man had a large influence on global warming, but the facts have changed, and continue to change- in favor of disproving this theory.
|
|
YOUR article is from 1998, hence so are the responses to it. The article has been slightly revised in 2007 only.
Serously the "oregon petition" is a joke. If you want to believe in it. Good luck. I don't. the wiki or not disussion is oftopic, follow the references on the specific wiki article to find out how accurate it is.
|
|
Look at the references in the pdf. The number of sources between 1998 and 2007 would indicate more than just a "slight" change. Much of the large chunks of information in there are backed by studies published in the past 5 years. I've gotten tons and tons of information on this subject, as well as having done analysis with professors in college myself, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about (especially since I have argued both sides of the case based on the most current evidence). I'm not just some random person looking into this for the first time believing anything I want to.
http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 16:57
|
|
Basilisk
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
168
Posts :
2984
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 17:08
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 16:57, Ascension wrote:
Even though CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, here's a chart (from an awesome source  ) showing how insanely high CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere used to be: |
|
CO2 is currently the GHG responsible for the most radiative forcing in the atmosphere.
Yes, CO2 concentration has been much higher in the past. Those were the days of the "hot house" climate. Tropical forests all the way to the Arctic. No ice caps.
Is this relevant though? If CO2 levels rise to prehistoric levels we're looking at a complete and total global catastrophe.
Anyway, I'm not going to reiterate the points I made in my last post but I wouldn't mind an actual response. This argument about Wikipedia and the sham petition is just white noise.
|
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 17:17
|
Some things on the petition you decided to believe in:
-----------
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.
----------
no way of filtering it out? so how do other petitions do that?
------------
http://web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22]
-------------
-----------
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?fded5949-97a0-41e8-ad66-bba0fa15e61f
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?
----------------------
Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 17:19
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 16:44, Ascension wrote:
I've gotten tons and tons of information on this subject, as well as having done analysis with professors in college myself, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about (especially since I have argued both sides of the case based on the most current evidence). I'm not just some random person looking into this for the first time believing anything I want to.
|
|
so why then is your only background that article which comes from a totaly uncredible source?
Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 17:20
|
But we're arguing about man's influence on the climate change. Man won't be able to get greenhouse gas levels that high. It's also proof that the planet can take care of itself- as it has done in the past. We are just a disease and if we actually do piss the planet off enough, it will deal with us accordingly.
In your argument you mentioned rapid changes. You also mentioned things like the "hole" in the ozone. Why would any of this matter based on human CO2 emissions if the planet has already experienced levels incredibly higher than they are currently at. I'm not denying that we aren't doing something, because obviously releasing any statistically significant amount of greenhouse gases will do SOMETHING, I'm just arguing that we are overstating this reaction and as you said, there is no "smoking gun".
There are trends of the climate changing rapidly throughout history when man was not around and these trends CONTINUED (HUGE POINT HERE) regardless of our input. Look at the graphs in the article I posted. They clearly show trends that have a cyclical nature with the planet and some cyclical with the sun. Look at the weather trends too. Nothing is pointing to us causing any increase in harsh weather- most have actually decreased.
http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
