The Liberals' War on Science

Guille said:
Let's get back to the point of the OP...politics distorts science. What you just did is a perfect example of that.

You posted a graph with an ominous looking curve. Two problems with that though:

1) Your graph doesn't prove causation.
2) Your graph covers a period of just shy of 140 years. 290ppm to 403ppm looks like a huge increase on that graph but when charted as part of the entire known history of CO2 levels it wouldn't be that large of a curve, in fact that time period would be very short and very low compared to much of our planet's history and pretty flat too.

You just did what the OP complained about.
Click to expand...

You ignore the fact that CO2 levels have not been this high for at least about the last million years, perhaps much longer. So, your claim that the graph would be flat is incorrect. It would be relatively flat UNTIL the last 150 years.
 
domer76 said:
You ignore the fact that CO2 levels have not been this high for at least about the last million years, perhaps much longer. So, your claim that the graph would be flat is incorrect. It would be relatively flat UNTIL the last 150 years.
Click to expand...

1) Causation hasn't been proven.
2) AFAIK the max CO2 level recorded is ~6800ppm. That was a long time ago but the 280-400 range is not historically high. You get 3X that in an average office building and that's assuming they have top flight ventilation.
3) The 403ppm is extremely debatable.
 
Guille said:
1) Causation hasn't been proven.
2) AFAIK the max CO2 level recorded is ~6800ppm. That was a long time ago but the 280-400 range is not historically high. You get 3X that in an average office building and that's assuming they have top flight ventilation.
3) The 403ppm is extremely debatable.
Click to expand...

6800 ppm "a long time ago"? When was that?

You act as if you require the same level of proof with the same certainty that you will someday die. A rather naive concept of how science operates.

The level of 400 ppm IS historically high in the last million years or so

That you would compare global levels to an office building is laughable.

The 400 ppm is a measured value. I already covered uncertainty in measurements. Provide your alternative data if you wish.
 
domer76 said:
6800 ppm "a long time ago"? When was that?

You act as if you require the same level of proof with the same certainty that you will someday die. A rather naive concept of how science operates.

The level of 400 ppm IS historically high in the last million years or so

That you would compare global levels to an office building is laughable.

The 400 ppm is a measured value. I already covered uncertainty in measurements. Provide your alternative data if you wish.
Click to expand...

No it's not considering how it was measured.
 
Guille said:
No it's not considering how it was measured.
Click to expand...

The measurements are consistent whether measured in Hawaii or Antarctica. That the 400 ppm was breached in September is significant. You have failed to provide alternative numbers.

You like facts? The facts are that the atmospheric levels of CO2 have not been this high for a million years or more.
 
domer76 said:
The measurements are consistent whether measured in Hawaii or Antarctica. That the 400 ppm was breached in September is significant. You have failed to provide alternative numbers.

You like facts? The facts are that the atmospheric levels of CO2 have not been this high for a million years or more.
Click to expand...

Consistency? How do you figure the 403ppm measurement from Mauna Loa is consistent with anything?
 
Guille said:
Believe doesn't enter into the equation. That's the point I've been consistently making in this thread. It's what you can prove that matters, not faith.
Click to expand...
I agree......its what you can prove that matters in science.......unfortunately, you can't prove anything......
 
Guille said:
Consistency? How do you figure the 403ppm measurement from Mauna Loa is consistent with anything?
Click to expand...

It's consistent with other monitoring stations, including Antarctica. Satellite data as well.

Gilroy, you can deny all you want. CO2 levels are rising and are at record levels for the past million or so. The consequences of that may be more arguable, but the data is not.
 
domer76 said:
It's consistent with other monitoring stations, including Antarctica. Satellite data as well.

Gilroy, you can deny all you want. CO2 levels are rising and are at record levels for the past million or so. The consequences of that may be more arguable, but the data is not.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Mauna Loa reading wasn't "consistent" with anything.

1) If you are trying to prove man is warming the planet then why put a monitoring station on top of an active volcano?
2) The point of having many measuring stations is to take readings and average them. But, the 403ppm reading hasn't been averaged, it's been used stand alone...for shock value.
 
Guille said:
Sure I can. I can show the effects of centripetal force and can show a shitload of fossils. If none of that is good for you then tough shit.
Click to expand...

I can show you a box of sand......does that prove how far the sun is from the earth?.......by "tough shit" do you mean "fuck the old scientific method"?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I can show you a box of sand......does that prove how far the sun is from the earth?.......by "tough shit" do you mean "fuck the old scientific method"?......
Click to expand...

Your box of sand means nothing as far as gravity or evolution is concerned. But I'm sure it's important to you.

By tough shit I mean don't bring your box of sand to an event it doesn't belong at. Facts are facts, suck it up buttercup.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
which is why it is exactly like your box of fossils.......I can prove sand exists......you can prove some fossils exist......
Click to expand...

Technically, you can only prove some sand exists. And I never said I had a box of fossils.

Just curious, gravity came up earlier. What's your take on gravity? Or do you even have one?
 
Guille said:
Technically, you can only prove some sand exists. And I never said I had a box of fossils.

Just curious, gravity came up earlier. What's your take on gravity? Or do you even have one?
Click to expand...

gravity?.....works for me.......and I never believed you really had a box of fossils.....just more of your lies.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top