Firstly, Ferrariic not Ferralic, but thanks for trying.
Secondly, I'm sorry It's 1:21 A.M. and I have insomnia.
Third, I frogot to say this: Remember when you heard about the Ice Age? Did you guys think that humans made machines back then and caused the world to start to melt in certain places? Of course not! So humans have no effect on the environment, we just think of it that way because of old data that was proven to be manipulated. The scientist who made the first tests in Antarctica was proved to change his data slightly, and confessed he did to the whole science community. However it was never heard since everyone was already thinking "THE WORLD IS MELTING".
When I wake up, I'll be able to type with meaningful words.
"There have been changes in the world's climate that weren't caused by humans before. Therefore humans have no effect on the environment."
Logic doesn't work like that.
Nobody's talking about the world melting. we're talking about average temperature rises.
Who is "the scientist who made the first tests in Antarctica", what were these tests, why did he change the data, and what relation is any of that to what we're discussing?
Anyone who thinks humans have no effect on the environment are imbeciles. Do you honestly think that bulldozing millions of hectares of forests and building cities with impervious surfaces has no effect on the environment? Do you think the local ecology is all like, "Hey, that's cool. we'll just move over here and huddle together so you guys can have some room. No problemo." This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread but be very, very careful when you make such huge generalisations about human impact on the environment.
I will continue to post this link at the end of every post I make in this topic, and until someone can prove that post wrong, their claims about anthropogenic climate change being a lie are unsubstantiated.
Besides the fact that I'm fairly certain that this is a troll, there's an unnamed corollary of Poe's law that's coming into effect here, so I feel obliged to point out the stupidity clearly, regardless of whether it's intentional or not.
No group of humans, or the whole world for that matter, could release enough energy to even add 1% more of Co2 to the atmosphere. We don't have that kind of power, and no group of humans could make that type of power.
We raised atmospheric CO2 concentrations 20% between 1950 and 2010. And nearly 40% over pre-industrial levels which had been stable for hundreds of years. Don't give me this horseshit that humans can't change things on a global scale. We can and we have.
You may think "Hell, were running low on oil..." that's bull. EVERY SINGLE YEAR we find more..and more...and more oil. You think that we as humans could deplete the world's WHOLE OIL RESERVE in...what...80 something years? or 100? It's impossible. Even if we BURNED every single drop of oil we found, there would be more.
Global warming is real. I have to live in a place where there's a hole is the ozone layer and it is really hot sometimes here. Also your argument is invalid. >.>
Especially considering most developed nations have already peaked, the global supply has only been stable this long from oil exploration in second and third world countries.
Also, even if we cut CO2 emissions entirely, it would still take an extremely long time for the CO2 levels to go back to normal, since plants and the ocean can only hold so much, and then other methods of absorbing CO2 take a very long time.
damn you and your refusal to accept any theory as reliable cosmicspore!
:tongue.gif: What you mean?
I'm simply a subjectivist. I believe that things are only true within individual perspective.
Everything is only as reliable as the individual will allow it to be, for themselves.
Outside of that perspective, another may internally rationalize a concept to have a completely different meaning, which they classify as "false" or "untrue".
And the only way to view things "objectively" would be to allow all things to be true within perspectives, and therefore allow for trivialism... which essentially makes all things that do not take into account the perspective, like "objectivity", pointless. Only by taking into account the subjective nature of such circumstances, we are allowed to give anything "meaning", by definition of all terminology which is fitting an "objective" description.
For example, these two conclusions can be made from my statement:
1. Global warming and UFOs are both true because it is a fact that UFOs have been reported, and it is also a fact that the global average temperature is rising slowly and unpredictably.
2. Global warming and UFOs are not true, because you make the assumption that UFOs means aliens, and that global warming is caused by humans. Neither of which there is any evidence to support either side of such claims.
In both cases, they are correct. However, the second makes an assumption based on general reference to popular view, rather than specifically the intended meanings. The first ignores this possible contextual reference.
In essence: It is all subjective. As is everything. :wink.gif:
Personally I would throw various random(but sensible) weights when considering the subjective reality of a stranger. For instance, those reporting UFO abductions and such almost invariably do so at night, when the human mind is more susceptible towards hallucinations, night terrors, etc. Because of this, I am less likely to take them seriously than, for instance, a large group of people that tracks global temperatures.
Personally I would throw various random(but sensible) weights when considering the subjective reality of a stranger. For instance, those reporting UFO abductions and such almost invariably do so at night, when the human mind is more susceptible towards hallucinations, night terrors, etc. Because of this, I am less likely to take them seriously than, for instance, a large group of people that tracks global temperatures.
Multiple governments have documented cases of UFO sightings... Just so you are aware.
Those were trained military officers, as well as trained flight crew, whom have reported multiple records of these things, including unidentified radar detections.
UFOs are FACTs.
As well, there have been UFO sightings in broad areas, with hundreds of witnesses, in broad daylight.
Despite that... it doesn't matter what anyone actually saw... UFOs are UFOs because they are Unidentified Flying Objects. They are true facts, despite what they really were, simply because they remained unidentified, they flew, and they were objects.
They should be taken just as seriously as anyone who might throw out numbers about rising global temperatures or melting polar ice caps... *shrug*
I think gobal warming is happening but it is on such a small scale that it will never really affect humans in a negative way. So there's really no reason to worry about it.
Multiple governments have documented cases of UFO sightings... Just so you are aware.
Those were trained military officers, as well as trained flight crew, whom have reported multiple records of these things, including unidentified radar detections.
UFOs are FACTs.
As well, there have been UFO sightings in broad areas, with hundreds of witnesses, in broad daylight.
Despite that... it doesn't matter what anyone actually saw... UFOs are UFOs because they are Unidentified Flying Objects. They are true facts, despite what they really were, simply because they remained unidentified, they flew, and they were objects.
They should be taken just as seriously as anyone who might throw out numbers about rising global temperatures or melting polar ice caps... *shrug*
Well I see no sensible way to weight Global Warming over U.F.O.s then. I now believe in both. I still don't believe in aliens, mind you.
It is extremists who believe that global climate change is caused by humanity, and its extremists who believe that UFOs are piloted by advanced alien races who visit our planet.
Neither case has valid support. It is all subjective evidence. They are simply gaps filled in by assumptions.
And either may be true...
Aliens could come down right now and kill us all, because we've been unprepared for thousands of years and they've been building armies to take over our planet.
Likewise, our factories, cars, and even cow populations could be destroying the atmosphere on this planet, and will make it unhabitable soon because of increased, or decreased, overall temperatures, as well as the melting of polar ice caps.
We just don't know... There's not enough evidence to believe either one.
And while I agree it is always better to live by the rule: "Better Safe than Sorry".... I don't see many people preparing for alien invasions, or many inviting them to save us from our world's problem (lol, irony: aliens saving us from global warming)... so I see no point in people being openly alarmed about global climate change.
And while it would be wonderful for humanity to reduce its footprints on the environment... It would also be wonderful if we could get some REAL answers about them UFOs out there, instead of government cover-ups and delusional hillbillies who want to get on TV....
Life's tough. :tongue.gif:
We just don't know... There's not enough evidence to believe either one.
This is absolute horseshit. And this coming from the guy that so often seems to argue for evidence of the ****ing supernatural and here you are saying that there's not enough evidence to support anthropogenic climate change?
So from this we can deduce that the Earth is trapping more heat than usual. We know that increased CO2 concentrations increase the amount of heat trapped. So either atmospheric CO2 has been the primary driving force of recent warming or this is a gigantic coincidence on a global scale that happens to agree in large part with our models and predictions but happened for some currently unknown reason.
They should be taken just as seriously as anyone who might throw out numbers about rising global temperatures or melting polar ice caps...
You can't be serious. We have god damn direct measurements of not only the increase in global temperatures but the loss of arctic sea ice. And you're going to compare this to the government documentation of eye witness reports? Government documentation of eye witness reports doesn't make them credible, they're still eye witness reports, the fact that they're officially archived by a government is completely irrelevant to the point of how that particular data was collected. You seem to have an issue with treating humans as recording devices. Humans suck at recording data, that's why we create devices and systems of measurement to do it better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
It is extremists who believe that global climate change is caused by humanity, and its extremists who believe that UFOs are piloted by advanced alien races who visit our planet.
Neither case has valid support. It is all subjective evidence. They are simply gaps filled in by assumptions.
On the contrary, it's completely accepted by all real climatologists that CO2 levels are a very real factor on global temperature. We even know why a couple parts per million of CO2 would cause the earth to warm, and we have 600 thousand years of temperature and CO2 data that coincide decently well with each other.
On the same note, those same climatologists aren't the ones lobbying for stricter Carbon taxes. Why? Because they have a realistic picture of what is happening around the globe. The sea level continues to rise every year by a couple of centimeters, and temperatures continue to go up by a percentage of a degree every year. We can predict with a decent degree of accuracy when we are going to have higher temperatures globe-wide based on CO2 levels, the 11 year solar cycle, Sulfates, Volcanic Activity, etc.
If you would like to see a set of videos with cold, hard science instead of political ********, you might try Potholer54's videos. He actually does his research, and cites himself. And he has an awesome accent to boot.
"There have been changes in the world's climate that weren't caused by humans before. Therefore humans have no effect on the environment."
Logic doesn't work like that.
Nobody's talking about the world melting. we're talking about average temperature rises.
Who is "the scientist who made the first tests in Antarctica", what were these tests, why did he change the data, and what relation is any of that to what we're discussing?
Anyone who thinks humans have no effect on the environment are imbeciles. Do you honestly think that bulldozing millions of hectares of forests and building cities with impervious surfaces has no effect on the environment? Do you think the local ecology is all like, "Hey, that's cool. we'll just move over here and huddle together so you guys can have some room. No problemo." This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread but be very, very careful when you make such huge generalisations about human impact on the environment.
Also:
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/706307-is-global-warming-real/page__view__findpost__p__9226600
I will continue to post this link at the end of every post I make in this topic, and until someone can prove that post wrong, their claims about anthropogenic climate change being a lie are unsubstantiated.
[simg]http://i54.tinypic.com/4zzw1z.png[/simg]
We raised atmospheric CO2 concentrations 20% between 1950 and 2010. And nearly 40% over pre-industrial levels which had been stable for hundreds of years. Don't give me this horseshit that humans can't change things on a global scale. We can and we have.
This is simple arithmetic. There is a finite supply of oil. No matter what, at some point, there will stop being oil. Not to mention that the rate of discovery of new oil reserves has been rapidly diminishing.
Especially considering most developed nations have already peaked, the global supply has only been stable this long from oil exploration in second and third world countries.
You just HAD to keep digging up the pieces.. you FIGURED it out. Now you know the truth. Time for you to die my friend..
Technically, the problem is climate change. Some areas are getting warmer, some are getting more intense storms, and some areas are getting cooler.
...Take that however you want it. :tongue.gif:
:tongue.gif: What you mean?
I'm simply a subjectivist. I believe that things are only true within individual perspective.
Everything is only as reliable as the individual will allow it to be, for themselves.
Outside of that perspective, another may internally rationalize a concept to have a completely different meaning, which they classify as "false" or "untrue".
And the only way to view things "objectively" would be to allow all things to be true within perspectives, and therefore allow for trivialism... which essentially makes all things that do not take into account the perspective, like "objectivity", pointless. Only by taking into account the subjective nature of such circumstances, we are allowed to give anything "meaning", by definition of all terminology which is fitting an "objective" description.
For example, these two conclusions can be made from my statement:
1. Global warming and UFOs are both true because it is a fact that UFOs have been reported, and it is also a fact that the global average temperature is rising slowly and unpredictably.
2. Global warming and UFOs are not true, because you make the assumption that UFOs means aliens, and that global warming is caused by humans. Neither of which there is any evidence to support either side of such claims.
In both cases, they are correct. However, the second makes an assumption based on general reference to popular view, rather than specifically the intended meanings. The first ignores this possible contextual reference.
In essence: It is all subjective. As is everything. :wink.gif:
Like anime? Try Visual Novels.
Multiple governments have documented cases of UFO sightings... Just so you are aware.
Those were trained military officers, as well as trained flight crew, whom have reported multiple records of these things, including unidentified radar detections.
UFOs are FACTs.
As well, there have been UFO sightings in broad areas, with hundreds of witnesses, in broad daylight.
Despite that... it doesn't matter what anyone actually saw... UFOs are UFOs because they are Unidentified Flying Objects. They are true facts, despite what they really were, simply because they remained unidentified, they flew, and they were objects.
They should be taken just as seriously as anyone who might throw out numbers about rising global temperatures or melting polar ice caps... *shrug*
Well I see no sensible way to weight Global Warming over U.F.O.s then. I now believe in both. I still don't believe in aliens, mind you.
Like anime? Try Visual Novels.
That was my point. :wink.gif:
It is extremists who believe that global climate change is caused by humanity, and its extremists who believe that UFOs are piloted by advanced alien races who visit our planet.
Neither case has valid support. It is all subjective evidence. They are simply gaps filled in by assumptions.
And either may be true...
Aliens could come down right now and kill us all, because we've been unprepared for thousands of years and they've been building armies to take over our planet.
Likewise, our factories, cars, and even cow populations could be destroying the atmosphere on this planet, and will make it unhabitable soon because of increased, or decreased, overall temperatures, as well as the melting of polar ice caps.
We just don't know... There's not enough evidence to believe either one.
And while I agree it is always better to live by the rule: "Better Safe than Sorry".... I don't see many people preparing for alien invasions, or many inviting them to save us from our world's problem (lol, irony: aliens saving us from global warming)... so I see no point in people being openly alarmed about global climate change.
And while it would be wonderful for humanity to reduce its footprints on the environment... It would also be wonderful if we could get some REAL answers about them UFOs out there, instead of government cover-ups and delusional hillbillies who want to get on TV....
Life's tough. :tongue.gif:
This is absolute horseshit. And this coming from the guy that so often seems to argue for evidence of the ****ing supernatural and here you are saying that there's not enough evidence to support anthropogenic climate change?
This reminds me of something.
The earth is getting warmer, we can and have been measuring this directly.
The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased significantly since the industrial revolution and continues to increase as we dump more of it into the atmosphere. We can and have been measuring this directly.
Solar irradiance has remained steady for the last 30 years.
So from this we can deduce that the Earth is trapping more heat than usual. We know that increased CO2 concentrations increase the amount of heat trapped. So either atmospheric CO2 has been the primary driving force of recent warming or this is a gigantic coincidence on a global scale that happens to agree in large part with our models and predictions but happened for some currently unknown reason.
You can't be serious. We have god damn direct measurements of not only the increase in global temperatures but the loss of arctic sea ice. And you're going to compare this to the government documentation of eye witness reports? Government documentation of eye witness reports doesn't make them credible, they're still eye witness reports, the fact that they're officially archived by a government is completely irrelevant to the point of how that particular data was collected. You seem to have an issue with treating humans as recording devices. Humans suck at recording data, that's why we create devices and systems of measurement to do it better.
On the contrary, it's completely accepted by all real climatologists that CO2 levels are a very real factor on global temperature. We even know why a couple parts per million of CO2 would cause the earth to warm, and we have 600 thousand years of temperature and CO2 data that coincide decently well with each other.
On the same note, those same climatologists aren't the ones lobbying for stricter Carbon taxes. Why? Because they have a realistic picture of what is happening around the globe. The sea level continues to rise every year by a couple of centimeters, and temperatures continue to go up by a percentage of a degree every year. We can predict with a decent degree of accuracy when we are going to have higher temperatures globe-wide based on CO2 levels, the 11 year solar cycle, Sulfates, Volcanic Activity, etc.
If you would like to see a set of videos with cold, hard science instead of political ********, you might try Potholer54's videos. He actually does his research, and cites himself. And he has an awesome accent to boot.
Like anime? Try Visual Novels.