Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
behaviour???

Big freeze could signal global warming 'pause

688 posts in this topic

I'm not the one making the claim that man is causing global warming. its up to those scientists to back up such claims and using information from advocacy groups, material that never went threw a rigorous peer review process. mountaineering magazine or the World Wildlife Fund don't seem like reliable sources.

Yes but you are choosing to ignore the wealth of scientific research which supports that position. It is either that or you are totally ignorant of it.

You are focusing on a very small cross section of the research which just about supports skeptism. This is classic "quote mining" as a mindset.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whats a facted based opinion?

An opinion based on the most likely interpretation of empirically collected data. It is opinion with a high probability of according with reality to a large degree. It is not speculation based on what you want to believe. If the facts fail to support your opinion then it must absolutely be discarded as proven false. There is no wiggle room here, if the facts go against your opinion then the opinion is false.

In the case which we started this discussion you produced an opinion piece about threats to rainforest, you provided no data to support your position. I provided data to support the position that drought in the rainforest does have a dramatic effect. As such my opinion is fact based, yours is pure opinion based on an opinion without supporting facts.

Notice the difference.

I genuinely am not trying to play clever word games here, I am making a point that you have to go to primary sources, read them, understand them and be able to critic them for what they are in order to have a meaningful discussion about a complex subject. Unless people are prepared to do this then the discussion is pure noise.

There is lots of business and politics involved in this and it makes uninformed discussion purely manipulation of emotional responses. There are huge consequences for the environment, but there are also huge consequences for businesses and countries bottom lines. People are prepared to play very dirty here and the proof can be found in how the Tobacco and asbestos industries lied about the underlying science for decades. They created reasonable doubt which prevented policy makers making clear decisions about peoples health. The rewards amounted to billions of dollars, and in many cases the directors new the time was up and dissolved the responsible companies so that damages became impossible to claim. The difference with climate change is that once the damage has been done there will be very little left to claim against.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but you are choosing to ignore the wealth of scientific research which supports that position. It is either that or you are totally ignorant of it.

Br Cornelius

If it was a scientific fact based on research then they should be able to tell you what future temperatures will be and the facts are they cant, even computer models cant say that,it must be tested in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was a scientific fact based on research then they should be able to tell you what future temperatures will be and the facts are they cant, even computer models cant say that,it must be tested in reality.

Modelling a system as complex as the planet is "impossible". There can never be a computer big enough. Go read up on Chaos to understand why that is so. However that doesn't prevent predictions of trends from observed datasets, and those predictions are far better than guesses.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An opinion based on the most likely interpretation of empirically collected data. It is opinion with a high probability of according with reality to a large degree. It is not speculation based on what you want to believe. If the facts fail to support your opinion then it must absolutely be discarded as proven false. There is no wiggle room here, if the facts go against your opinion then the opinion is false.

In the case which we started this discussion you produced an opinion piece about threats to rainforest, you provided no data to support your position. I provided data to support the position that drought in the rainforest does have a dramatic effect. As such my opinion is fact based, yours is pure opinion based on an opinion without supporting facts.

Notice the difference.

I genuinely am not trying to play clever word games here, I am making a point that you have to go to primary sources, read them, understand them and be able to critic them for what they are in order to have a meaningful discussion about a complex subject. Unless people are prepared to do this then the discussion is Br Cornelius

I looked up "fact based opinion" on Wikipedia and its not listed, so maybe you might want to add that in Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modelling a system as complex as the planet is "impossible". There can never be a computer big enough. Go read up on Chaos to understand why that is so. However that doesn't prevent predictions of trends from observed datasets, and those predictions are far better than guesses.

Br Cornelius

Trends, predictions and forcasts does not show cause and effect. I'm sure Sylvia Browne's predictions are far better than guesses but its not science. since its an open system our knowledge is quite limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global Warming hmmmmmm. Anyone heard about Solar Warming? How will we stop the sun getting hotter as it uses up more fuel? I'm not convinced of global warming, but i am convinced that we are polluting the air we breath and the water we drink with emissions and we are polluting the outer atmosphere with space junk. Shiny floating reflective space junk. Imagine all that reflective material magnifying the suns already warming rays onto the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global Warming hmmmmmm. Anyone heard about Solar Warming?

Yeah, that only perceptibly occurs over the span of millions of years. Solar variation over the course of a year (due to the Earth moving closer and farther from the Sun) is about 3.6%, Solar warming is much much much smaller than that.

...we are polluting the outer atmosphere with space junk. Shiny floating reflective space junk. Imagine all that reflective material magnifying the suns already warming rays onto the planet.

There is not nearly enough `space junk' to do anything like that, and even if there were it would have to be very precisely aligned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that only perceptibly occurs over the span of millions of years. Solar variation over the course of a year (due to the Earth moving closer and farther from the Sun) is about 3.6%, Solar warming is much much much smaller than that.

There is not nearly enough `space junk' to do anything like that, and even if there were it would have to be very precisely aligned.

Do you know that for sure? I would like to think you're right but since seeing this, i'm thinking we have a problem on our hands :

mapped debris from NASA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know that for sure? I would like to think you're right but since seeing this, i'm thinking we have a problem on our hands :

mapped debris from NASA

Those dots look like a cloud - but they are not in relative scale. If it were then the earth would fill the room and the dots would remain the same. No chance of them cutting out enough light to make a difference.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those dots look like a cloud - but they are not in relative scale. If it were then the earth would fill the room and the dots would remain the same. No chance of them cutting out enough light to make a difference.

Br Cornelius

Plus if they were focusing additional radiation from the Sun onto the Earth in any significant amount you'd be able to see them during the day. I think they would show up as bright concentric halos around the Sun.

You can sometimes see a single faintish halo around the Sun on very cold winter days when there is a lot of high-altitude ice in the atmosphere (usually only at sunrise though, during midday there aren't enough ice crystals), so I think space junk would look similar, if there were enough of it and if it were properly positioned to have that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it safe to assume that space junk is not negatively affecting the planet in any way? - apart from making it dangerous for functioning equipment and space craft and cluttering up the outer atmosphere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it safe to assume that space junk is not negatively affecting the planet in any way? - apart from making it dangerous for functioning equipment and space craft and cluttering up the outer atmosphere?

Yes, I believe it is safe to say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.