1
   

Climate Change Politics

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 09:00 am
@kennethamy,
Discussion of this topic resembles religious discussion more and more. And, as in religious discussion, there are extremists on both sides.
memester
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 09:20 am
@xris,
xris;115549 wrote:
So you dont understand what I mean when I mention temperature rising ? If your life depended on it, you'd find the understanding. You are apparently not interested in coming to a debate with any honest reasoning but to play silly games of chi chat.
This summer we had a very cool season here, not even one really hot day. and yet we have had many milder winters on the last 20 years, more than I think we had in the previous 40 years.

You need to make your questions coherent and meaningful.
You could mean practically ANYTHING by the question you asked.

The actual problem seems to be that you have no idea how vague it is.

---------- Post added 12-30-2009 at 10:25 AM ----------

xris;115549 wrote:
So you dont understand what I mean when I mention temperature rising ? If your life depended on it, you'd find the understanding. You are apparently not interested in coming to a debate with any honest reasoning but to play silly games of chi chat.
Oh, for sure I'd even MAKE up something and act as though your question was coherent and meaningful, if my life depended on it. But in gainful discussion, I find it's better NOT to make stuff up ... to paraphrase, to organize, to modify your question - in order to help make it make sense.

You give no time frame, so I replied about instantaneous heating or cooling. That's the only logical reply possible.

but now you whine.

so why don't you just rephrase your question to be specific, and say what you mean ? Can you do that ?

I can show that your question arose in a post, where you did not properly reply to my request that you provide the relevant info from your non working link ( over which you were becoming exercised, because, according to you, no "deniers" would respond to it ) , but instead you forwarded the incoherent question.
Quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by memester
Seems it's not really a good link... eh ? bunk ?

why don't you quote relevant points from whatever bunk site you are viewing ?
OK but lets hear your exact opinions. Have we temperature rises or not?


---------- Post added 12-30-2009 at 11:38 AM ----------

kennethamy;115558 wrote:
Discussion of this topic resembles religious discussion more and more. And, as in religious discussion, there are extremists on both sides.
Extremists are also people holding views that can be dealt with. Unfortunately, it goes worse. Some of the less talented extremists make loud noises in an attempt to push others into defending extreme views, so that they may counter with prefab arguments. That is a bit unsettling, as it must be confronted in order to continue forward in discussion.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 11:09 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;115558 wrote:
Discussion of this topic resembles religious discussion more and more. And, as in religious discussion, there are extremists on both sides.
Its got nothing to do with holding extreme views its accepting that we have a problem. This silly academic nit picking is ludicrous in the extreme.
memester
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 11:16 am
@xris,
xris;115585 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethamy http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
Discussion of this topic resembles religious discussion more and more. And, as in religious discussion, there are extremists on both sides.

It's got nothing to do with holding extreme views its accepting that we have a problem. This silly academic nit picking is ludicrous in the extreme.


Discussion of this topic ( Climate Change Politics ) has nothing to do with holding extreme views ? Yours is a statement that for me, needs some explaining - so that I can understand what you mean.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 11:21 am
@xris,
Met Office: New evidence confirms land warming record

I posted this link for mem, to observe and make comment on but alas he was too busy nit picking his way through his academic reasoning. For most average souls the idea that we have a global warming problem, infers that temperatures are rising and show no signs of stabilizing. If this concept is too darned difficult to answer i suggest he gives his take on the global warming claims by coming out of his cosy closet and explaining his views.
memester
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 11:42 am
@xris,
xris;115589 wrote:
Met Office: New evidence confirms land warming record

I posted this link for mem, to observe and make comment on but alas he was too busy nit picking his way through his academic reasoning. For most average souls the idea that we have a global warming problem, infers that temperatures are rising and show no signs of stabilizing. If this concept is too darned difficult to answer i suggest he gives his take on the global warming claims by coming out of his cosy closet and explaining his views.
While I do have difficulty understanding how an idea infers something, I'll go with my thought that many people will infer something from an idea. that leads to me say "So what ?". Many people would infer something.

As to your assertion that I will not disclose my position, I have made it clear, but you will not accept it.

I think that probably the earth's surface temps have been in general decline since life began, with rises and falls of greater and lesser magnitude, with smaller waves within the waves.

Whether we are lately experiencing a never-happened-before high stretch vis a vis centuries, or decades, or years, and the reasons for it, that is to be determined, and commented upon.

If we are talking about what surface temperature has been doing since people existed or since mammals existed, or since ten thousand years, - all of that is not clear in your line of questioning.

Plus, you now gone from asking about actual temps, what they are doing, to talking about "warming problem".

and that is really analagous to the religious soul who translates a discussion on an actual behaviour e.g. a sexual behaviour, into talk of inferrred "sin problem"
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 11:54 am
@memester,
memester;115595 wrote:
While I do have difficulty understanding how an idea infers something, I'll go with my thought that many people will infer something from an idea. that leads to me say "So what ?". Many people would infer something.

As to your assertion that I will not disclose my position, I have made it clear, but you will not accept it.

I think that probably the earth's surface temps have been in general decline since life began, with rises and falls of greater and lesser magnitude, with smaller waves within the waves.

Whether we are lately experiencing a never-happened-before high stretch vis a vis centuries, or decades, or years, and the reasons for it, that is to be determined, and commented upon.

If we are talking about what surface temperature has been doing since people existed or since mammals existed, or since ten thousand years, - all of that is not clear in your line of questioning.
I think its easier peeling a hot chestnut than obtaining a straight and honest answer from you. You are determined by any subterfuge to avoid the question posed. If you do not accept that temperatures have risen for whatever reason or if they are natural or unnatural in their increase, this debate is pointless. Comment on the link..
memester
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 12:10 pm
@xris,
first thing I notice is this
Quote:
It uses all available surface temperature measurements
and that statement is of particular interest. We need to know what exactly "uses" the stated "all available" measurements. We need to see that they really are the "all available" - in that way the statement may quickly be subjected to falsification.

I would suggest that you might examine what you think it means, let's say with these as given:
that we are talking about unadjusted thermometer readings for part of the available measurements.
We would be talking about undjusted thermometer readings from this year, or last from year, and back minimum of 20 years like that ( remembering that much of the older evidence has been, unfortunately, disposed of ), as a "for instance", and those readings coming from every available station in Canada.

Isn't that logical to assume, as if they intended you to understand it like that ?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 12:48 pm
@memester,
memester;115603 wrote:
first thing I notice is this and that statement is of particular interest. We need to know what exactly "uses" the stated "all available" measurements. We need to see that they really are the "all available" - in that way the statement may quickly be subjected to falsification.

I would suggest that you might examine what you think it means, let's say with these as given:
that we are talking about unadjusted thermometer readings for part of the available measurements.
We would be talking about undjusted thermometer readings from this year, or last from year, and back minimum of 20 years like that ( remembering that much of the older evidence has been, unfortunately, disposed of ), as a "for instance", and those readings coming from every available station in Canada.

Isn't that logical to assume, as if they intended you to understand it like that ?

At last we have a glimmer of an answer. From this reply I assume you dont believe temperatures have risen? those temperatures that this link is referring to, that is.........
memester
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 12:56 pm
@xris,
xris;115607 wrote:
At last we have a glimmer of an answer. From this reply I assume you dont believe temperatures have risen? those temperatures that this link is referring to, that is.........


No, you cannot assume such a thing from my response unless you can justify infering it, somehow.

I was to comment on your link, and I did. Now you wish to say that you can infer this from from that - your inference being something which you have not justified as a reasonable inference, in any way shape or form.

It appears to me, that per decade, winters are warmer and summers cooler than when I was a child...but that has to be taken in consideration of extremely small geographical area , frailties of human recollection, addition of significance or importance to some events, short chronology, and so on. Massive pavement and building increases in my location, too. Winter ploughing and heavy salting that exposes the roads to radiation. It snowed a meter, the mayor calls in the army. 10 years later, Mel Lastman proud he called in army - thestar.com


In the end, it is not something to base global stategies on.

:detective:

If instead, the Climate Change Expert consensus was that we are entering an Ice Age, and I considered my locale, I would also be frightened...seeing the real dud of a summer this year , seeing colder summers repeated recently..knowing that winter temps might be "adjusted downward" to fit with urbanization here.

Scary !
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 01:46 pm
@memester,
memester;115611 wrote:
No, you cannot assume such a thing from my response unless you can justify infering it, somehow.

I was to comment on your link, and I did. Now you wish to say that you can infer this from from that - your inference being something which you have not justified as a reasonable inference, in any way shape or form.

It appears to me, that per decade, winters are warmer and summers cooler than when I was a child...but that has to be taken in consideration of extremely small geographical area , frailties of human recollection, addition of significance or importance to some events, short chronology, and so on. Massive pavement and building increases in my location, too. Winter ploughing and heavy salting that exposes the roads to radiation. It snowed a meter, the mayor calls in the army. 10 years later, Mel Lastman proud he called in army - thestar.com


In the end, it is not something to base global stategies on.

:detective:

If instead, the Climate Change Expert consensus was that we are entering an Ice Age, and I considered my locale, I would also be frightened...seeing the real dud of a summer this year , seeing colder summers repeated recently..knowing that winter temps might be "adjusted downward" to fit with urbanization here.

Scary !
I will give you one more chance to give a straight answer to a very simple question. Im not talking about local variations or local causes for erratic temperature readings, as if you did not know, but global figures that this link is referring to. Not our human nature to recall warmer better summers or how cold it was when i was a child...Scientific , reasoned, responsible , accurate readings. do you agree or not agree that temperatures have risen, as the link indicates..Come on now no more dithering..
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 02:03 pm
@kennethamy,
Have glaciers and polar ice sheets generally grown or shrunk compared with 100 years ago?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 02:07 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;115642 wrote:
Have glaciers and polar ice sheets generally grown or shrunk compared with 100 years ago?


But why do you ask about that particular time span?
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 02:11 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;115643 wrote:
But why do you ask about that particular time span?
Because it temporally corresponds with 1) thermometry data, 2) photographic evidence, and 3) mass industrialization.

So it's the time period of interest. Sure seems like a good proxy measure for global warming vs global cooling -- what is happening with ice all over the world -- is there more of it or less of it?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 02:15 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;115645 wrote:
Because it temporally corresponds with 1) thermometry data, 2) photographic evidence, and 3) mass industrialization.

So it's the time period of interest. Sure seems like a good proxy measure for global warming vs global cooling -- what is happening with ice all over the world -- is there more of it or less of it?


But there were glaciers in the south of North America 1,000 years ago too, And then global warming happened too. Why do you think that what is happening now is not part of a natural cycle?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 02:18 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;115648 wrote:
But there were glaciers in the south of North America 1,000 years ago too, And then global warming happened too. Why do you think that what is happening now is not part of a natural cycle?
So you accept we have global warming?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 02:25 pm
@xris,
xris;115650 wrote:
So you accept we have global warming?


Yes, whatever that implies.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 02:32 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;115652 wrote:
Yes, whatever that implies.
So the questions about the temperature falsification is a red herring the sceptics are using to deny its happening?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 02:35 pm
@xris,
xris;115654 wrote:
So the questions about the temperature falsification is a red herring the sceptics are using to deny its happening?


I mentioned temperature falsification? And why is it a red herring if it happened?
memester
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 02:40 pm
@xris,
xris;115635 wrote:
I will give you one more chance to give a straight answer to a very simple question. Im not talking about local variations or local causes for erratic temperature readings, as if you did not know, but global figures that this link is referring to. Not our human nature to recall warmer better summers or how cold it was when i was a child...Scientific , reasoned, responsible , accurate readings. do you agree or not agree that temperatures have risen, as the link indicates..Come on now no more dithering..
You're offering me one more chance to do what ? To give straight answer to this wonderfully worded question: "That "temperatures have risen according to scientific, reasoned, responsible, accurate readings" haven't they ?

Meaning, of course, risen "according to your scantly LINK INFO".
Nothing shown as to how that info is obtained. Just told that "all available surface temperature measurements were used". A FALSE statement, TO BE SURE.

We are not given opportunity to know what was used and what was not used, are we ?

BUT..finding that not all available surface temperature readings were used..will falsify it !
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/07/2025 at 11:11:49