| Author
|
Ecology - A trend
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 17:23
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 17:19, subconsciousmind wrote:
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?
|
|
I don't have access to post any of the other previous information and studies I read and researched before (I'm also at work...). Also, the point of view I had then was the same as your point of view right now. It has just changed due to the change in information over the past few years.
I just chose to post that because of the FACTS in it. Forget the PEOPLE for one second and look at the facts in there. All from creditable sources, cited within the article. I could attack a ridiculous number of the people that you are sharing a point of view with as well, but that's not science, so it really doesn't matter.  http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 17:29
|
For clarity's sake, this is the argument we're having as I see it:
You guys are arguing that man's greenhouse gas emissions have had a significant influence on the change in the climate of Earth.
I am arguing that man's greenhouse gas emissions are not having a statistically significant change on the climate of Earth.
http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
Basilisk
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
168
Posts :
2984
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 17:34
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 17:20, Ascension wrote:
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. |
|
Oh, you're one of those people? I can't say I have much time for those who feel no allegiance to the human race, nor to the vast organismal diversity over which I feel we must assume stewardship over. It's not as if we humans will be the only species to die off if things go wrong.
Quote:
| 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". |
|
The tale of the Montreal Protocol was meant to be illustrative. And, in fact, there was a time when there was no ozone layer. There was also no life on land, above the waves. The ozone layer--and, indeed, the oxygenated atmosphere--has come into existence due to biologic activity.
I don't feel as if I am overstating anything. We have multiple, converging lines of evidence supporting the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. We have increasing GHGs in the atmosphere from human activity. It is my reasonable assessment that this is cause for concern. That's all.
|
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 17:37
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 17:20, Ascension wrote:
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.
|
|
?
I never talked about holes in the ozone layer or "somking guns". Are you talking to me?
Again, the article is not credible and I have seen statistics showing different trends. You decided to believe in that article and its statistical data. I don't because there are just too many scientists NOT supporting it. So lets leave it hear. We are both no expert and after all have to believe in statistics which can be forged on both sides. When it comes to sciences I go for the majority with backup you don't which I find ok, but we can't discuss about it.
Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 17:40
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 17:29, Ascension wrote:
For clarity's sake, this is the argument we're having as I see it:
You guys are arguing that man's greenhouse gas emissions have had a significant influence on the change in the climate of Earth.
I am arguing that man's greenhouse gas emissions are not having a statistically significant change on the climate of Earth.
|
|
Correct and we are all no experts and have to rely on scientist work. Your backup isn't enough backup for me because people supporting that position usualy are also "denialists" in most areas.
End of discussion. Thanks for the link to the article it was interesting to do research on it and I find it incredible that there are people who take anything from a person like Robinsion and his origin petitition serious.
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 17:46
|
Yes, I am one of those people. I hate the human race and I love the planet. If the Earth really is DOOMED, why are you sitting around here arguing (using a computer, which uses electricity, which comes from a power plant, which emits greenhouse gases)? I find most of the man-made Earth killing arguments to be filled with hypocrisy- and what I put there is just a small example.
Why, if you guys are SO convinced that we are killing the planet and dooming future generations, are you sitting around and not doing anything about it? Even I am working my way to start engineering work in the renewable energies field because I see its importance (not related to global warming, but the need for renewables since oil and coal are finite resources. You believing in this and not doing anything about it can be correlated to watching someone get robbed and not trying to chase down the culprit.
http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 17:51
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 17:37, subconsciousmind wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 17:20, Ascension wrote:
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.
|
|
?
I never talked about holes in the ozone layer or "somking guns". Are you talking to me?
Again, the article is not credible and I have seen statistics showing different trends. You decided to believe in that article and its statistical data. I don't because there are just too many scientists NOT supporting it. So lets leave it hear. We are both no expert and after all have to believe in statistics which can be forged on both sides. When it comes to sciences I go for the majority with backup you don't which I find ok, but we can't discuss about it.
|
|
The smoking gun was directed towards Alex.
I agree. In the end none of us are experts (although with the vast amounts of research I have done along side university professors and on my own I know that I am far better versed than most people who hold this discussion). It's hard for me to do an internet discussion on this because so much of my knowledge has been collected over several years and in various contexts, so it's hard to re-cite these things (some of which aren't online).
If we want something to feel good about I can tell you about the renewable project I started and got working when I was in school. I did a research project to measure gas emission from the gasification (solid to gas state change) of oat hulls (the outside of oats- the waste product of when oat-based food is made). There is a quaker oats plant near the university I attended and they used to throw away hundreds of tons of oat hulls per year. Through my research, which determined them to be a safe fuel, the university or iowa power plant now uses the hulls as a source of energy  .
http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 17:52
|
?
Was it in this post or the other one where I wrote it? Doesn't matter again:
Earth doomed? No way. Humans can never ever kill earth. a million of years later there is nothing left of us and earth is back on track with new species etc. etc.
I find it utterly arogant to believe that humans can actually "hurt" earth. We can hurt ourselves and the animals and plants that live here now with us. But NATURE.. hell we can distrub her a bit.. thats all. We are just a fly on her eye which she flicks aways and forgets about.
I want to save us, the forest, the animals for now, for us.
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 17:57
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 17:52, subconsciousmind wrote:
?
Was it in this post or the other one where I wrote it? Doesn't matter again:
Earth doomed?? Are you kidding me? No way. Humans can never ever kill earth. a million of years later there is nothing left of us and earth is back on track with new species etc. etc.
I find it utterly arogant to believe that humans can actually "hurt" earth. We can hurt ourselves and the animals and plants that live here now with us. But NATURE.. hell we can distrub her a bit.. thats all.
I want to sace us, the forest, the animals for now, for us.
|
|
So, what's your stance on global warming? You seem to be completely missing what your stance implies. If we are altering the climate we ARE hurting the Earth. This in turn, hurts us, right? Is this not how you feel? Greenhouse gases HURT the planet by tearing up the ozone layer, this in turn, hurts us by allowing more UV radiation to pass through. Your argument here implies that by hurting the earth we hurt ourselves. Greenhouse gases won't be a major killer without first hurting the earth you realize?
http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 18:07
|
you are very wrong about that.
earth will recover something like the global warming in no time.
If the earth was 1 day old humans would live on it for 2 seconds. 2 seconds later we are gone, climate has recovered, ozone hole patched up.
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 18:11
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 18:22
|
I don't see any contradiction here.
First I said that the actual climate change is unique in examinable history (read an article in a newspaper about that 3 days ago) to oppose that good old million-of-year diagrams "climate was always changing" argument.
Then I said that most scientists agree that CO2 caused by humans is the cause for the climate change but there are few who disagree.
Then there was the nonsense debate about that uncredible article which represended the "few".
Then I said that we don't have to save the planet but makind, the forests, the animals NOW, because the planet will recover but mankind possibly not.
I want to save the forests because I don't want to live in a world without them and because it is no excuse to say we can destroy the forests because they will recover. I want to keep the variety of animals because I find it beautiful to have it and wrong to destroy it. Sure in 5 million years there will be new species, but that doesn't justify to destroy it.
No contradiction.
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 18:30
|
Answer me there 2 questions so I can understand: do you think that man's greenhouse gas emissions are causing harm to the planet?
Are these supposed harms hurting and killing the things you want to protect?
http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Oct 23, 2009 18:45
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 18:30, Ascension wrote:
Answer me there 2 questions so I can understand: do you think that man's greenhouse gas emissions are causing harm to the planet? |
|
First of all, I don't know if mans emissions are the cause. Most scientist say so and I tend to believe in them.
Does the climate change cause harm to the planet? The recent climate changes make deserts spread and animals extinct so it does harm animals and plants, now. But in a larger scale, like millions of years, I don't see any harm on the planet itself, just the loss of species. I think mother nature knows best that things come and go, maybe its ok for her. I think she will miss us though or at least our art and humor.
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 18:30, Ascension wrote:
Are these supposed harms hurting and killing the things you want to protect?
|
|
I don't understand the question
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 19:17
|
|
