Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #160 on: May 05, 2014, 11:47:01 PM »
Quote
This is only correct assuming you've exhausted all possibilities. You haven't.

Name some.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10593
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #161 on: May 06, 2014, 01:29:56 AM »
Name some.
I don't need to, and I already explained why this is a bogus request to make. Please don't waste my time.

Unless you can substantiate that no other possibilities exist (n.b. not that you failed to find any), you have no point.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #162 on: May 06, 2014, 03:37:52 AM »
Name some.
I don't need to, and I already explained why this is a bogus request to make. Please don't waste my time.

Unless you can substantiate that no other possibilities exist (n.b. not that you failed to find any), you have no point.

Pizza have you ever taken any sort of medication or prescription?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10593
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #163 on: May 06, 2014, 02:42:28 PM »
Pizza have you ever taken any sort of medication or prescription?
Very mature. Please refer to the forum rules. Depending on your intent, this is either a personal attack or an instance of off-topic posting.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #164 on: May 06, 2014, 02:45:10 PM »
Pizza have you ever taken any sort of medication or prescription?
Very mature. Please refer to the forum rules. Depending on your intent, this is either a personal attack or an instance of off-topic posting.

Don't be such a crybaby.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10593
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #165 on: May 06, 2014, 02:53:15 PM »
All right, let's try to actually respond to it then.

HHunter, just because you dislike some of the elementary properties of logical proofs doesn't mean you can expect others to cater to you. It doesn't make others require prescription medication, it simply means you require to fill in the gaps in your high school education.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 02:58:17 PM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #166 on: May 06, 2014, 04:30:37 PM »
Pizza have you ever taken any sort of medication or prescription?
Very mature. Please refer to the forum rules. Depending on your intent, this is either a personal attack or an instance of off-topic posting.

You're wrong on both accounts. This was meant to be the opening point for introducing the Precautionary Principal into this discussion, which is fundamental to the AGW issue. The point of medications and prescriptions is that, using your logic, if we cannot rule out every single potential cause of an issue, like a fever, then we should not execute a remedy plan, like prescription medicine.

Let me also remind my counterparts that ad hominems (not referring to you on this one Pizza) have no place in any discussion, scientific or otherwise, and that participants should refrain from making knee-jerk assumptions.

Back to the Precautionary Principal, this is a principal that is utilized in public policy decisions that involve hazards to humans and the environment. Examples of usage of this principal include the banning of CFCs, the banning of apple imports from the USA to Europe, and utilization of safety equipment in the operation of nuclear power plants.

The burden of proof lies upon the entity that claims that the substance or situation is safe, or the concentration that exists or is being utilized is safe. No one ever said that action shouldn't be taken on ozone because all the possibilities weren't discounted. We didn't have to prove that magical ozone-consuming unicorns weren't eating all of the ozone in the atmosphere. When hazards are involved, demanding to discount every possibility, even unknown possibilities, is absurd.

Anyways, nothing in the scientific is certain. All possible causes for any phenomenon cannot be discounted. However most science, included AGW, has been advanced to a point where we can say for near-certainty that equations and situations will always apply under certain circumstances. All scientists understand this, there is no need to argue for it, it's a given fact of the scientific community.

Now, taken the precautionary principal, once again, I ask you to identify a possible cause for the recent warming other than CO2, as the burden of proof, for all intents and purposes, is on you.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10593
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #167 on: May 06, 2014, 04:48:59 PM »
The precautionary principle (not to be confused with a principal - the person in charge of the high school you should go back to) doesn't apply to this discussion. I am not claiming that global warming isn't harmful, I am simply asking you to substantiate your claim that all possible causes other than human actions have been exhausted.

You appear to have now admitted that this is impossible, thus rendering your use of a popular quote completely invalid. If that's the case, I'm quite happy with the outcome.

Never throughout this discussion have I claimed we shouldn't be addressing global warming - this is an assumption you made.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 04:52:14 PM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #168 on: May 06, 2014, 09:51:48 PM »
The precautionary principle (not to be confused with a principal - the person in charge of the high school you should go back to) doesn't apply to this discussion. I am not claiming that global warming isn't harmful, I am simply asking you to substantiate your claim that all possible causes other than human actions have been exhausted.

You appear to have now admitted that this is impossible, thus rendering your use of a popular quote completely invalid. If that's the case, I'm quite happy with the outcome.

Never throughout this discussion have I claimed we shouldn't be addressing global warming - this is an assumption you made.

First, let me again reiterate the point that this is not the place for the use of ad hominems. This is not the Youtube comment section, if you'd like to resort to this sort of childish dribble, i'd suggest you argue your points somewhere else. This is the second time I've had to make this clear, i hope participants on this thread understand that such antics have no place here.

Back to the topic, name one time that quote has been used to refer every single possibility that is available. Understanding the connotation of this phrase is much more important than the denotation. If you had actually taken the time to read the passage from which this quote is taken, maybe you'd better understand this.

On another note, lets just walk through where the energy in the atmosphere comes from.

We have the most obvious source, which is, as you all may guess, the sun. Then we have heat from inside the earth, being released by the decay of radioactive elements and from tidal friction caused by the moon and sun. The energy from inside the earth keeps the interior molten, however, its effect on global air temperatures is rather negligible compared to the sun, and does not vary greatly. So for the most part, energy from the sun is what causes fluctuations of the planet's atmosphere, and different conditions on the planet can create vastly different atmospheric outcomes.

There are mainly three different Earth-centered reasons for climate change, involving the Earth and it's position and orbit in space. These is eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Increasing eccentricity (how elliptical the orbit is) will result in more extreme seasons. Obliquity is the tilt of the earth's axis. Our current obliquity is 23.4 degrees. Obliquity determines how extreme (or not extreme) the seasons will be. Precession is the direction of the tilt, and doesn't have much of an effect on climate. All three of these occur over long periods of time, and therefore cannot be credited with recent warming.

I'll stop teaching about causes for climactic change. You can take a textbook for a day and figure it out. The sun's cycles have not made a significant change in energy output, enough to change the climate so drastically.

The only variable that has changed significantly is greenhouse gasses.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10593
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #169 on: May 06, 2014, 10:03:20 PM »
First, let me again reiterate the point that this is not the place for the use of ad hominems. [...]
There have been no ad hominems in my post. Pointing out the lacks in your education (which you conveniently left unaddressed - it's almost as if you wanted me to press the matter and claim that your self-fulfilling prophecy has been, well, fulfilled) is crucial to this discussion, since your credibility needs to be established. Correcting your spelling is also not an ad hominem - it does not attack you as a person in any way. Please educate yourself on what an ad hominem is before you use the term in the future.

Back to the topic, name one time that quote has been used to refer every single possibility that is available. Understanding the connotation of this phrase is much more important than the denotation. If you had actually taken the time to read the passage from which this quote is taken, maybe you'd better understand this.
I don't see how this is on topic at all. The claim you made (by way of quote-mining a Star Trek episode) was incorrect, and you have already admitted it. What's the point of bringing this back up, especially given the overall low relevance of Star Trek to a real-world debate? What does it matter if someone did or didn't use a Star Trek quote in some context? It's Star Trek. It won't make your claim less wrong.

You also failed to properly attribute the quote. Originally, it comes from Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Of course, it would (not) be an ad hominem to point out that you should have known that from high school, so I will (not) refrain from doing so. But obviously, the contents of Sherlock Holmes are also not very relevant to a scientific debate, so the whole point about "reading the passage" is moot.

The only variable that has changed significantly is greenhouse gasses.
As requested countless times before, please substantiate this claim.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 10:20:34 PM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #170 on: May 06, 2014, 10:30:46 PM »
Quote
I don't see how this is on topic at all. The claim you made (by way of quote-mining a Star Trek episode) was incorrect, and you have already admitted it. What's the point of bringing this back up, especially given the overall low relevance of Star Trek to a real-world debate? What does it matter if someone did or didn't use a Star Trek quote in some context? It's Star Trek. It won't make your claim less wrong.

You also failed to properly attribute the quote. Originally, it comes from Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Of course, it would (not) be an ad hominem to point out that you should have known that from high school. But obviously, the contents of Sherlock Holmes are also not very relevant to a scientific debate, so the whole point about "reading the passage" is moot.

Sorry, but the term "made famous" does not imply that the person mentioned coined or created whatever said person or thing "made famous". Second, the quote is not from any book called "Sherlock Holmes", not to mention that you incorrectly notated this "piece" as a short story, or some sort of magazine. The quote is originally from The Sign of Four, a novel written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I was referring to the passage from which the quote originally came. Most of this would be known with a high school education, as it's typically considered canon.

On greenhouse gasses being the primary cause for recent warming:



Source: IPCC
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 10:35:14 PM by HHunter »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10593
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #171 on: May 06, 2014, 11:31:28 PM »
Sorry, but the term "made famous" does not imply that the person mentioned coined or created whatever said person or thing "made famous".
Yes, the quote has been made famous by the author. Sherlock Holmes is a rather famous series of novels.

Second, the quote is not from any book called "Sherlock Holmes"
Well, it's a good thing that I never claimed that.

not to mention that you incorrectly notated this "piece" as a short story, or some sort of magazine
Ah, yes, because the notation style most popular in your country of upbringing is the only "correct" notation. Your ignorance continues to amuse, especially now that you combined it with ethnocentrism.

The quote is originally from The Sign of Four, a novel written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I was referring to the passage from which the quote originally came. Most of this would be known with a high school education, as it's typically considered canon.
I'm glad we agree. It's a shame that you had to do research before we reached this agreement. But hey, at least the educational purpose of this forum is being served. Very importantly, it's still a quote from a work of fiction, which does nothing to strengthen your argument. Quoting Holmes or Spock won't make you stop being wrong.

On greenhouse gasses being the primary cause for recent warming:



Source: IPCC
I'm sorry, your claim was that greenhouse gases are the only possible cause of global warming. Please substantiate it, or admit that it was incorrect. Also, posting a graph without explaining its significance won't get you far.

Consider the following:



QED global warming is fake, and also aliens.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 11:48:17 PM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #172 on: May 06, 2014, 11:58:29 PM »
Quote
Yes, the quote has been made famous by the author. Sherlock Holmes is a rather famous series of novels.

Sorry, but Sherlock Holmes is a character, not a series. Appearance of the same character in several books does not substantiate it as a "series".

Quote
Well, it's a good thing that I never claimed that.

You said it is from Sherlock Holmes. Please tell me what literary work from Doyle is called "Sherlock Holmes".

Quote
Ah, yes, because the notation style most popular in your country of upbringing is the only "correct" notation. Your ignorance continues to amuse, especially now that you combined it with ethnocentrism.

This notation is border-less.

Quote
I'm glad we agree. It's a shame that you had to do research before we reached this agreement. But hey, at least the educational purpose of this forum is being served. Very importantly, it's still a quote from a work of fiction, which does nothing to strengthen your argument. Quoting Holmes or Spock won't make you stop being wrong.

It doesn't take much education to learn that there is no litarary work from Doyle called "Sherlock Holmes". Being a quote from a work of fiction does not negate the validity of it.

Quote
I'm sorry, your claim was that greenhouse gases are the only possible cause of global warming. Please substantiate it, or admit that it was incorrect. Also, posting a graph without explaining its significance won't get you far.

I sourced the graph. It's from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. All relevant information is here. Do your own homework, I won't spoon feed you.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 12:05:03 AM by HHunter »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10593
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #173 on: May 07, 2014, 12:43:21 AM »
You said it is from Sherlock Holmes. Please tell me what literary work from Doyle is called "Sherlock Holmes".
*yawn*

This notation is border-less.
Please substantiate this claim. To make your job a bit harder: it's quite easy to find academically-respectable sources which claim the very opposite of what you claimed.

Generally, we italicize the titles of things that can stand by themselves. Thus we differentiate between the titles of novels and journals, say, and the titles of poems, short stories, articles, and episodes (for television shows). The titles of these shorter pieces would be surrounded with double quotation marks.

Being a quote from a work of fiction does not negate the validity of it.
Indeed. Its validity is negated by simple formal logic. I already gave you the relevant link.

I sourced the graph. It's from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. All relevant information is here.
You sourced it. You failed to actually substantiate your claim, though.

So far, your claim appears to be:
"Global warming is anthropogenic in nature because:
  • Spack from Ster Truk said so.
  • I can't think of any other reason, therefore this one must be it."

Surely you understand that we'll stop bothering with your rambling unless you step up your game.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 12:51:51 AM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5327
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #174 on: May 07, 2014, 01:04:04 AM »
The only main source for global climate change is the sun.
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

So the question that should be asked is: has the energy from the sun increased?
If yes, is it enough to cause climate change?

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #175 on: May 07, 2014, 01:20:31 AM »
Quote
Please substantiate this claim. To make your job a bit harder: it's quite easy to find academically-respectable sources which claim the very opposite of what you claimed.
you have yet to explain to me how Sherlock Holmes, a character, would be italicized under any of these definitions.

What's sad is:

1. I've given you scientific documentation demonstrating that with near certainty that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the primary cause of current global warming, yet you have yet to do your research.
2. You fail to correctly quote my "claim".
3. Sherlock is a character, sorry friend.

Quote
The only main source for global climate change is the sun.
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

So the question that should be asked is: has the energy from the sun increased?
If yes, is it enough to cause climate change?

This is a common misconception. Climate change suggested by AGW is not caused by heat that humans release. It's caused by the chemical properties of the gasses, such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane, that allow for increased absorption of energy from the sun into atmosphere and hydrosphere. Basically, when sunlight hits the Earth, a good amount is reflected. Some of it is absorbed by greenhouse gasses, such as CO2. Without these gasses, the Earth would be much cooler than it is today.

When you increase the proportion of the gasses in the atmosphere, it traps more energy from the sun. So the amount of energy from the sun is remaining relatively constant, it's simply the amount that your capturing. It would be sort of like trying to throw a ball through a hole. If you make the hole smaller, less balls you throw will get through. This would be like greenhouse gasses. The higher concentration of greenhouse gasses you have, the less energy will actually escape, and more energy will stay on the planet, leading to the planet warming.

tldr; The energy from the humans hasn't increased significant, greenhouse gasses are simply absorbing a larger percentage of the sun's energy. [Edits in bold]

I hope this helps.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 11:19:39 AM by HHunter »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10593
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #176 on: May 07, 2014, 01:26:04 AM »
you have yet to explain to me how Sherlock Holmes, a character, would be italicized under any of these definitions.
I'm guessing your unwillingness to address the notation itself is an admission of the fact that you had it rather wrong. We're making so much progress, you're learning so much today!

Sherlock Holmes being a character has no bearing on Sherlock Holmes being a series.

1. I've given you scientific documentation demonstrating that with near certainty that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the primary cause of current global warming, yet you have yet to do your research.
Which has nothing to do with your claim - that there is only one possible cause of global warming.

2. You fail to correctly quote my "claim".
I don't know how one can quote incorrectly, but I guess I'll try again:

"There's only one possibility, but it can't be, therefore aliens."
Please substantiate the following statement: There's only one possibility.
I made it big and pink for you so that you can hopefully see it. Now, please substantiate it or retract it.

3. Sherlock is a character, sorry friend.
Irrelevant.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 01:31:36 AM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #177 on: May 07, 2014, 01:34:33 AM »
Case Study

The Republic of the Maldives is an island nation in the Indian Ocean, home to about 400,000 people.



Image Source: Wikipedia

This island nation has an average elevation 1.9 meters, with it's highest elevation at 2.4 meters, is at risk to nearly completely disappear off the maps in 100 years. With rising sea levels, The Maldives has pledged to become carbon-neutral by the year 2019. Climate change is one of the largest issues of this archipelago-state. 



This state is of large international concern, since as the land will slowly become inundated, locals will lose their homes and livelihoods, and will be forced to become refugees.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #178 on: May 07, 2014, 01:42:12 AM »
Quote
I'm guessing your unwillingness to address the notation itself is an admission of the fact that you had it rather wrong. We're making so much progress, you're learning so much today!

Sherlock Holmes being a character has no bearing on Sherlock Holmes being a series.

Your notation was still wrong, Sherlock Holmes is not a series. Maybe it's a TV show in your country, but "Sherlock Holmes" does not refer to any series in the past. Granted, i did learn something today. Generally my writing is written, so underlining is usually something I always use, as it's generally done so in written work.

Quote
Which has nothing to do with your claim - that there is only one possible cause of global warming.
Have you actually read the document?

Quote
I don't know how one can quote incorrectly, but I guess I'll try again:

Quote from: pizaaplanet on May 05, 2014, 05:13:23 PM
Quote from: HHunter on May 05, 2014, 03:36:28 PM
"There's only one possibility, but it can't be, therefore aliens."
Please substantiate the following statement: There's only one possibility.
I made it big and pink for you so that you can hopefully see it. Now, please substantiate it or retract it.

It was clearly stated next to this that it's a "badly witted [comparison]."

Quote
Irrelevant.

Character =/ Series

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10593
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #179 on: May 07, 2014, 01:44:55 AM »
If you're not willing to back your claims up, then I won't waste my time with you. I now understand why others have largely abandoned this thread, and will follow suit.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*