Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Kyoto Accord, good or bad?


Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic
Author Message
PhyrePhox



Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 40

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Al Gore talked about the consensus on global warming. If it was really a consensus, he would not have to say so. No one goes around saying it is a consensus that gravity exists, because it truly is one. Nonetheless, science has never been done by consensus, and never will be.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kfcman wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
Also, unless you have evidence that all of the over 400 scientists collected by the U.S. Senate who openly oppose the theory of global warming, you really have no right to claim that they are all biased.


If ALL of the scientists picked by congress openly oppose the idea of global warming, wouldn't that mean that they are biased in not supporting the theory? Also, keep in mind that if you get scientists that have consistent opinions and thoughts on the subject, it would be easy for them to spit out test results that would be decievingly in favor of the falseness of global warming.

Eldariel wrote:
America = a continent, not a country. That wasn't a personal attack, that was a statement that should contain sufficient information to draw upon; you seem to selectively be choosing sources which support your claims ignoring all the evidence in the contrary.


Yes, however, when you simply say, "America" and not South or North America, it would to most people mean, The United States of America, so it can get confusing. So it's just a matter of misunderstanding and clarification, as it's a little harder to clarify yourself due to absence of speech inflections over the internet.

And i must i agree that the same with many persuasive arguments there is source selection in favor of his position. But, many of the sources you can get information on about such a debated topic as global warming, even if you accept all sources, once proving their validity and credibility, that that information can be biased and maticulously selected. Most notably when specifically speaking of global warming, the scientists who do tests for the US Congress, who do not support the theory of global warming like i said before, they can do specific tests or alter test results to make it look as if global warming does not in fact exist.



The scientists were not picked by congress, nor do they do any work for congress. They have previously, and still today, disagree with Global Warming, and the US Senate merely compiled their names.
Back to top
YTheAlien



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PhyrePhox wrote:
Al Gore talked about the consensus on global warming. If it was really a consensus, he would not have to say so.


Obviously, the reason Al Gore has to say so is that there is not a public consensus on the issue. The reason there is no discussion about gravity (which, by the way, does not have a scientific consensus on a theory explaining it) is because there is no public controversy over it. I find it difficult to believe you could produce that post yourself and not think of this possibility, so you are most likely just repeating verbatim a talking point.

At least coolcreep, even if he is fakeposting (which he is) didn't just throw out a pithy "clever" burn on Al Gore as though that solves the issue.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eldariel wrote:
America = a continent, not a country. That wasn't a personal attack, that was a statement that should contain sufficient information to draw upon; you seem to selectively be choosing sources which support your claims ignoring all the evidence in the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Here's a quote:
"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions."

I simply don't see a reason to present elaborate arguments on trivial facts. No new information can be derived from it; it's only spreading the information already available to those who would have missed it so having a discussion on the matter would be rather pointless.

Further, both sides are also likely to remain convinced on their viewpoints. There's enough data to go both ways on the internet for both sides to remain adamant in their views. Thus, the discussion wouldn't even relevantly impact the participating people, and god knows it wouldn't matter even if it did.


Please do not attack my sources and cite wikipedia in the same post.
Back to top
Eldariel
Level 3 Judge


Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 277

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wikipedia's accuracy is approximately the same as that of a good encyclopedia. It's a reliable source of information, and also the easiest one at that.
Back to top
YTheAlien



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eldariel wrote:
Wikipedia's accuracy is approximately the same as that of a good encyclopedia. It's a reliable source of information, and also the easiest one at that.


I would fail you in a college-level course for citing Wikipedia and I think any respectable professor would. You should probably be failed in high school. Of course, the reasonable thing to do is farm the Wikipedia article for sources and cite those instead.

Of course, I'd also take umbrage at citing tabloid internet publications such as WorldNetDaily.
Back to top
Eldariel
Level 3 Judge


Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 277

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YTheAlien wrote:
Eldariel wrote:
Wikipedia's accuracy is approximately the same as that of a good encyclopedia. It's a reliable source of information, and also the easiest one at that.


I would fail you in a college-level course for citing Wikipedia and I think any respectable professor would. You should probably be failed in high school. Of course, the reasonable thing to do is farm the Wikipedia article for sources and cite those instead.

Of course, I'd also take umbrage at citing tabloid internet publications such as WorldNetDaily.


Of course you don't directly cite Wikipedia, but the fact is that the data in there is from reasonably reliable sources so digging up the sources used will get you what you want.

The only reason I cited Wikipedia is because I'm not arguing, I'm pointing out the pointlessness of the argument.
Back to top
flea



Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you can just think about it logically to determine if we should work to prevent future global warming. Even IF you disregard the scientific evidence that indicates its obvious presence as a potential catastrophe, you can make a chart.

Global warming does not exist | Global warming exists
|
We act | |
|
|
|
|
We dont act | |

Fill it out:
If we act and it exists, we save our skins. A global disaster was avoided and we can continue to protect the environment to prevent future environmental troubles.

Assuming global warming does not exist, if we act, we lose economic opportunity and limit production, but we are at least reassured that the problem does not exist.

If global warming does not exist and we dont act, we have not waisted any economic strength and have simply been worried over a false idea. Note that there is strong scientific evidence warning against the destruction of the atmosphere because of global warming, so not acting is a very slim gamble.

The worst will happen if we disregard the warnings of credited scientists and then the world collapses completely.

Im not willing to risk an apocalypse early, so therefore, use logic and assume we must fight this problem
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flea wrote:
you can just think about it logically to determine if we should work to prevent future global warming. Even IF you disregard the scientific evidence that indicates its obvious presence as a potential catastrophe, you can make a chart.

Global warming does not exist | Global warming exists
|
We act | |
|
|
|
|
We dont act | |

Fill it out:
If we act and it exists, we save our skins. A global disaster was avoided and we can continue to protect the environment to prevent future environmental troubles.

Assuming global warming does not exist, if we act, we lose economic opportunity and limit production, but we are at least reassured that the problem does not exist.

If global warming does not exist and we dont act, we have not waisted any economic strength and have simply been worried over a false idea. Note that there is strong scientific evidence warning against the destruction of the atmosphere because of global warming, so not acting is a very slim gamble.

The worst will happen if we disregard the warnings of credited scientists and then the world collapses completely.

Im not willing to risk an apocalypse early, so therefore, use logic and assume we must fight this problem




You have obviously not read the essay in its entirety. If you had, then you would know that I do support taking reasonable precautions to fight Global Warming, and you would also know that Kyoto is not a be-all and end-all solution to the problem.
Back to top
Feodoric



Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just one final note. You criticize Eldariel for using wikipedia, but the sources you cite are much worse:
[1]http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/dont-confuse-ch.html
This is a blog, not a source.
[2]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/17/earthlog117.xml
This is also a blog, and the information you state actually comes from someone else the blogger is quoting. Bad citation practices.
[3] http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/Manns-hockey-stick.gif
Who runs this site? This site claims that a new ice age is coming, and is written in a tone that sounds a little deranged. Not trustworthy.
[4] http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf
As I stated before, the author is a former mining executive...
[5]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
This is an op-ed, i.e. an opinion piece.
[6] http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/cat_climate_part_2.html
Again, a blog.
[7] http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/
same as [3]
[7] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319
worldnetdaily is a tabloid...
[8] http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
While Time is often semi-trustworth, ironically here it is BS. The main difference between the brief global cooling scare in the 70s and the global warming crisis of today is that there were no daily headlines, major scientific articles, UN treaties, commissions, and G8 summits on the issue. There was just one trashy book, a few magazine articles, and a teensy bit of scientific speculation. Also, the freon being released into the atmosphere did have a cooling effect.

So anyways, all of the sources you cite have serious flaws, but you quote them as fact. Hopefully your teacher won't check. For now I challenge you to find a legitimate source that challenges global warming.

In contrast, here are a few nonbiased sources, which together constitute a scientific consensus on the nature and causes of global warming:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

I don't think you'll find any flaws with these sites.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feodoric wrote:
Just one final note. You criticize Eldariel for using wikipedia, but the sources you cite are much worse:
[1]http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/dont-confuse-ch.html
This is a blog, not a source.
[2]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/17/earthlog117.xml
This is also a blog, and the information you state actually comes from someone else the blogger is quoting. Bad citation practices.
[3] http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/Manns-hockey-stick.gif
Who runs this site? This site claims that a new ice age is coming, and is written in a tone that sounds a little deranged. Not trustworthy.
[4] http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf
As I stated before, the author is a former mining executive...
[5]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
This is an op-ed, i.e. an opinion piece.
[6] http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/cat_climate_part_2.html
Again, a blog.
[7] http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/
same as [3]
[7] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319
worldnetdaily is a tabloid...
[8] http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
While Time is often semi-trustworth, ironically here it is BS. The main difference between the brief global cooling scare in the 70s and the global warming crisis of today is that there were no daily headlines, major scientific articles, UN treaties, commissions, and G8 summits on the issue. There was just one trashy book, a few magazine articles, and a teensy bit of scientific speculation. Also, the freon being released into the atmosphere did have a cooling effect.

So anyways, all of the sources you cite have serious flaws, but you quote them as fact. Hopefully your teacher won't check. For now I challenge you to find a legitimate source that challenges global warming.

In contrast, here are a few nonbiased sources, which together constitute a scientific consensus on the nature and causes of global warming:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

I don't think you'll find any flaws with these sites.


Firstly, I would like to note that there is no such thing as a source worse than wikipedia. In all of the sources that I used, you know who wrote what is being cited. This is not the case for wikipedia. Secondly, a lot of my sources each provide only one small piece of information. Thirdly, your desperation to discredit my sources is very evident. For example, you called one source "not-trustworthy" without any quotes or information to back it up. You also call Time "BS". That was an actual article published by Time magazine in 1974. Unless you have some evidence that the article was never actually published, you should probably retract your "B.S." statement. I have more to say, but I have to go and will post again later.
Back to top
Feodoric



Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mm. Sorry if I let my emotions trickle into my arguments. I'll try to be better about that.

I looked over www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com again. It's by a swedish man with a masters in applied physics and electronics. I was wrong to judge it so quickly. However, the argument he makes (that variations in the sun's power influence our climate), while correct, doesn't really challenge global warming. Greenhouse gases still influence the climate in a significant way, they just aren't the only influence.

The reason why I found the site untrustworthy is because its claims that devastating global cooling is imminent seem ridiculous. Of course, it may be brilliant satire... the fact that global cooling seems ridiculous to me may reveal my bias. But the site seems serious. Let me quote:
Quote:
Global Cooling Emergency Manifest!

The Earth is now entering a phase with unstoppable and dramatic global cooling which will initiate a new Little Ice Age within the next decade. The cause of this cooling is the predicted and now real reduction in solar activity that we now can see. These conditions will persist during the next solar cycles.

The reason for the lower solar activity is a temporary reduction of the tidal gravitational tug on the Sun's plasma caused by the alternating gravitational effect on the Sun from the 4 gas planets of the solar system. This causes a reduction in the normal buildup of frictional energy in the Sun's plasma that is necessary for the Sun's magnetic and eruptional activity. Similar events have been well documented and they are always strongly correlated to periods of between 30 to 60 years of sharply lower Earth temperatures. The last times these types of climate events occurred were during The Maunder Minimum and The Dalton Minimum.

This will have a devastating effect on agriculture, lowering food production and increase the risk of widespread famine. This will also increase the demand for fuel.

The world is misinformed and ill-prepared for this now imminent and real climate change. This lack of information has been made worse because of the perceived temperature increase which has been expected due to current global warming alarm.


However, the fact that this claim is a little overblown doesn't counter the more scientific arguments he makes. He just doesn't make a strong case that greenhouse gases have an insignificant effect on the climate.

I think my other criticisms of your sources still stand. It's ok to find information from blogs, but you can't quote that information as fact in an academic paper. Instead you should say, "So-and-so argues that the mann's hockey-stick graph is wrong for the following reasons," or "a study by so-and-so shows that higher temperatures lead to higher CO2 emissions, and not the other way around." Framing your arguments that way would bolster them and make it seem like there's some consensus concerning your position. If your position truly is an arguable one, it shouldn't be too hard to do so.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feodoric wrote:
Mm. Sorry if I let my emotions trickle into my arguments. I'll try to be better about that.

I looked over www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com again. It's by a swedish man with a masters in applied physics and electronics. I was wrong to judge it so quickly. However, the argument he makes (that variations in the sun's power influence our climate), while correct, doesn't really challenge global warming. Greenhouse gases still influence the climate in a significant way, they just aren't the only influence.

The reason why I found the site untrustworthy is because its claims that devastating global cooling is imminent seem ridiculous. Of course, it may be brilliant satire... the fact that global cooling seems ridiculous to me may reveal my bias. But the site seems serious. Let me quote:
Quote:
Global Cooling Emergency Manifest!

The Earth is now entering a phase with unstoppable and dramatic global cooling which will initiate a new Little Ice Age within the next decade. The cause of this cooling is the predicted and now real reduction in solar activity that we now can see. These conditions will persist during the next solar cycles.

The reason for the lower solar activity is a temporary reduction of the tidal gravitational tug on the Sun's plasma caused by the alternating gravitational effect on the Sun from the 4 gas planets of the solar system. This causes a reduction in the normal buildup of frictional energy in the Sun's plasma that is necessary for the Sun's magnetic and eruptional activity. Similar events have been well documented and they are always strongly correlated to periods of between 30 to 60 years of sharply lower Earth temperatures. The last times these types of climate events occurred were during The Maunder Minimum and The Dalton Minimum.

This will have a devastating effect on agriculture, lowering food production and increase the risk of widespread famine. This will also increase the demand for fuel.

The world is misinformed and ill-prepared for this now imminent and real climate change. This lack of information has been made worse because of the perceived temperature increase which has been expected due to current global warming alarm.


However, the fact that this claim is a little overblown doesn't counter the more scientific arguments he makes. He just doesn't make a strong case that greenhouse gases have an insignificant effect on the climate.

I think my other criticisms of your sources still stand. It's ok to find information from blogs, but you can't quote that information as fact in an academic paper. Instead you should say, "So-and-so argues that the mann's hockey-stick graph is wrong for the following reasons," or "a study by so-and-so shows that higher temperatures lead to higher CO2 emissions, and not the other way around." Framing your arguments that way would bolster them and make it seem like there's some consensus concerning your position. If your position truly is an arguable one, it shouldn't be too hard to do so.



Fair enough. As to your point about GHGs not having a significant impact, I would say that this is not the argument at all. The argument is that CO2 specifically does not have a significant impact on the environment. This is because it makes up only a very tiny portion of the atmosphere, and because it is not as effective a GHG as, for example, water vapour.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy