@MontereyJack,
I don't read Wikipedia. Scholars don't recommend it. It can be editied by anyone. Even the founder doesn't recommend it.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation/2305
@Renaldo Dubois,
Try reading about Milankovitch cycles on any other source you approve of then.
@parados,
Which do you think has the largest impact on the climate and weather on earth? Man or the sun?
That's not the relevant question today. The output of the sun isn't changing significanl]tly (and has indeed gone down slightly over the last several solar cycles, when we could measure it directly). And the temperature has gone up, as have anthropogenic greenhouse gases. the relevant question is, which if either is affecting the climate more TODAY. And the content of Wikipedia has been compared against traditional expert-written encyclopedias and compares favorable. You're wrong there too.
@MontereyJack,
No, I am not wrong. The FOUNDER of Wikipedia says it is not to be used for scholarly matters. Case closed.
If the sun and the tilting of the earth are responsible for global cooling and global warming, then why in the wide wide world of sports are you enviro nuts making such a big deal about things? I am a conservationist in the strictest sense. Clean air, clean water, forestry, etc. I live in the beautiful American Northwest so I love the environment and don't want to destroy it, but I have to say that you enviro nuts are barking up the wrong tree. Your policies have nothing to do with anything other than power, control and money.
And independent tests of the articles in Wikipedia say their accuracy is on a par with other encyclopedias. CASE CLOSED.
Periodic changes in the earth's orbit (NOT changes in the sun's output) are responsible for ice ages. We are not presently, nor will we be for the next several tens of thousands of years at combination point of those changes where an ice age will return.
Therefore comparing what is causing changes to climate tloday to what caused changes to bring about the cyclic ice ages has no relevance. Changes in the sun's output can change climate too (though far less drastically than an ice age). Changes in greenhouse gases can change climate as well, tho again usually far less drastically than an ice age (though changes in greenhouse gases certainly exacerbate or diminish, depending on where in the cycle you are, the effects of an ice age, they're generally considered a feedback, not a forcing, in the strict sense of ice ages)/
Over the period since the late seventies when we've had direct measurement of the sun's output from satellites, the output has decreased slightly. that's also the period when CO2 and temperature have increased the most. The evidence is that the sun is at most reesponsible for a minor fraction of the change. The scientific evidence says that rising temps are due to human causes. The only people who say it's a doomsday scenario are the contrarians who claim the other side say that. We don't. It looks like it's going to be very expensive to deal with and to mitigate the effects, and the sooner we start, the less ultimately expensive and disruptive it will be.
So if you're a strict conservationist, clean air clean water forests, Renaldo, presumably you're against high-sulfur-coal power plants producing sulfur compouns that cause lung diseases and death and kill off the forests of those of us who live in the NE and are downwind, when alternatives are available? Presumably you oppose deforestation for unsustainable agricultural use of the land and for the rapacious short-term profit of greedy entrepreneurs when alternatives are available. Presumably you oppose strip mining and illegal or quasi=legal mining which dumps toxic chemicals in huge quantities and silt which kills the life in rivers (and the humans who ingest that water downstream). Presumably you oppose those things which capitalism run amok so often produce. Or is that enviro-nuttiness to you? Do you just talk about being a conservationist, or do you actually support anything that actually does conserve? Or do you just call it enviro nuttiness and leave your head firmly in the (increasingly hot) sand?
@MontereyJack,
The founder said Wikipedia is not for scholarly studies. Case closed. Peddle that crap to someone who will buy it. I've heard your mantra all over the internet. You're a parrot quoting Wikipedia, a site it's own founder says is not worthy of scholarly studies. How can I take you seriously?
@Renaldo Dubois,
Quote:Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is a leading provider of learning and knowledge products. We're proud to be one of the world's most trusted sources of information on every topic imaginable - from the origins of the universe to current events and everything in between.
But I suppose, because the company's seat is in Chicago, you won't accept quotes from Encyclopædia Britannica neither ...
@Walter Hinteler,
I think that is called an ad hominem". Correct me if I'm wrong.
@Renaldo Dubois,
Nice Red Herring Renaldo.
Rather than discuss the science you want to divert the issue to talking about Wikipedia.
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
I think that is called an ad hominem". Correct me if I'm wrong.
No.. that would be falling for your red herring. It's your logical fallacy and not Walter's.
But you still haven't addressed the issue of Milankovitch cycles and how they were the likely the cause of ice ages in history.
@parados,
I'm talking science. If we are going to talk about science then use reputable sources for your information. Reputable professors will not accept it and the founder even said his own site is not scolarly.
@parados,
That really isn't the issue. The issue is how much man is responsible for when it comes to the earth cooling or heating up. You think somehow everyone is supposed to believe a bunch of corrupt politicians and academics that you call "experts". There has been enough exposed in the last couple years to completely destroy your credibility.
@Renaldo Dubois,
Yeah. What do academics have to say about science?
Renaldo, you talk hogwash. Read the original research that has been collated in the IPCC reports. Realize that every major scientific body in the world endorses the climate consensus Realize that 240 members of the NAS< America's unquestioned premier body of prestigious scientists recently signed an open letter to America's leading scientific journal Science, endorsing the consensus that climate is changing, it is warming, it is serious, and it is largely anthropogenic in origin. if you're talking about the whole Climategate thing, it has repeatedly been investigated and the science and the scientists involved have uniformly been exonerated.
If you don't trust Wikipedia, find a REPUTABLE source, one with some actual scientific credentials, and see what they say causes ice ages. they're going to say it's Milancovitch cycles. I repeat, we are nowhere near the confluence of cycles where an ice age would start. Or end. What happens to cause ice ages or interglacials is not what's causing changtes today. The sun's output has been decreasing over the last three solar cycles. Check that out too. Look at what is actually happening NOW, and the conditions NOW, not what happened a hundred thousand years ago under different conditions. Then perhaps you'll be able to talk something other than nonsense.
The following post was a response to your post claiming you're a conservationist, Renaldo. You didn't respond, so I'm reposting it. Do you walk the walk, or do you just talk the talk? Do you just pat yourself on the back and say you're a conservationist, or do you actually believe that actions must be taken to conserve our air, our water, and our forests. Or do you actually believe they're doing just fine with no action needed on our part? Just how far in the sand is your head in actuality?
Quote: So if you're a strict conservationist, clean air clean water forests, Renaldo, presumably you're against high-sulfur-coal power plants producing sulfur compouns that cause lung diseases and death and kill off the forests of those of us who live in the NE and are downwind, when alternatives are available? Presumably you oppose deforestation for unsustainable agricultural use of the land and for the rapacious short-term profit of greedy entrepreneurs when alternatives are available. Presumably you oppose strip mining and illegal or quasi=legal mining which dumps toxic chemicals in huge quantities and silt which kills the life in rivers (and the humans who ingest that water downstream). Presumably you oppose those things which capitalism run amok so often produce. Or is that enviro-nuttiness to you? Do you just talk about being a conservationist, or do you actually support anything that actually does conserve? Or do you just call it enviro nuttiness and leave your head firmly in the (increasingly hot) sand
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
I think you're as confused as a termite in a yo yo. Have fun playing with yourself.
That's a very confusing metaphor. Most yo-yos are made of plastic not wood. That said, you called my 24% claim a lie then requires it. You failed to explain how it was a lie. Are you backing down from your claim since you chose not to defend it?
A
R
Termites
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
The founder said Wikipedia is not for scholarly studies. Case closed. Peddle that crap to someone who will buy it. I've heard your mantra all over the internet. You're a parrot quoting Wikipedia, a site it's own founder says is not worthy of scholarly studies. How can I take you seriously?
I'd put wikipedia up against the sources you post from. You won't accept wiki, but you will accept right wing blogs? I'm positive those aren't academically credible either. More so.
A
R
T
