04 Aug 14
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganThe direct question was: What should the temperature be if not for man's influence. To do that we need to know what the temperature is now and what it would be if man had never lit a fire or reached our level of industrialisation with all the benefits we enjoy and billions of lives lived.
You talk such rubbish. You are asking slightly silly questions of people unqualified to answer and I pointed that out, with reference to where the authoritative answers may be sought. You seem to consider that relying on published scientific reports is evasive when it clearly is not evasive at all - it directly deals with your [silly] question.
Any sug ...[text shortened]... stupid it stands out for stupidity; in any contest for the most stupid response it will do well.
I don't consider posting links that do not answer that question as dealing directly with that question.
Nothing you posted dealt with that.
(Edited out reference to practical experience)
Your snarky responses are just a cover for your own ignorance.
04 Aug 14
Originally posted by Wajomawhat part of consensus don't you understand?
The direct question was: What should the temperature be if not for man's influence. To do that we need to know what the temperature is now and what it would be if man had never lit a fire or reached our level of industrialisation with all the benefits we enjoy and billions of lives lived.
I don't consider posting links that do not answer that question as ...[text shortened]... rence to practical experience)
Your snarky responses are just a cover for your own ignorance.
05 Aug 14
Originally posted by WajomaYou mean what would the temperature be without Man's influence.
The direct question was: What should the temperature be if not for man's influence.
A little googling will give you a range of answers.
But cooler by a degree or two?
World Climate is of course a chaotic system (in the mathematical sense)
so it is impossible to give an exact figure. However the answer can be bounded.
05 Aug 14
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59You blokes need to get together and get your story straight, Mr Self Righteous Indignation posted a link that shows the deviation as crossing the 0 mark in 1940 and it is now around .5 degree above that now, 50 years later. And now you're exaggerating that by between 2 and 4 times as much.
You mean what would the temperature be without Man's influence.
A little googling will give you a range of answers.
But cooler by a degree or two?
World Climate is of course a chaotic system (in the mathematical sense)
so it is impossible to give an exact figure. However the answer can be bounded.
Making it sound twice as bad, or really scaring us by making it sounds 4 times worse.
05 Aug 14
Originally posted by Wajoma"crossing the 0 mark in 1940" what the hell does that mean?
You blokes need to get together and get your story straight, Mr Self Righteous Indignation posted a link that shows the deviation as crossing the 0 mark in 1940 and it is now around .5 degree above that now, 50 years later. And now you're exaggerating that by between 2 and 4 times as much.
Making it sound twice as bad, or really scaring us by making it sounds 4 times worse.
As to "getting our story straight" I don't need to confer with anyone.
My reply of 1 or 2 degrees was off the top of my head based on what I have
read through the years. To say that I am exaggerating by 2 or 4 times is
ridiculous - the figures are of the same degree of magnitude - and I
don't know what they relate to. Do you?
05 Aug 14
Originally posted by Wajomaso you don't understand any part of consensus.
I'm sure Finnegan will take great comfort at being in consensus with such intellects as your zahlanzi.
that's your problem, you think this is a debate between us and you and obviously you having the more impressive intellect means you get to dictate what the result is.
it is not. the consensus is between scientists, people that study this issue, that actually know what da fuk they are talking about. we are merely reporting on their findings. and even so, we have an advantage over you because we actually researched this issue rather than gobble up what glen beck has said. or your US congressmen who in the same sentence say they have no scientific proof but that global warming cannot be true.
05 Aug 14
Originally posted by Wajoma"crossing the 0 mark in 1940" what the hell does that mean?
Wolfgang I would suggest you don't ask questions like that because Mr Self Righteous Indignation will call you ignorant and bigoted.
So you haven't the balls to admit you don't understand what it means?
But are happy to post it within a question to me?
Trying to show off your pseudo-intellect? Did you finish High School?
06 Aug 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59I left school and started work after the 5th form, not sure what that translates to in the US system, I'd just turned 16.
"crossing the 0 mark in 1940" what the hell does that mean?
So you haven't the balls to admit you don't understand what it means?
But are happy to post it within a question to me?
Trying to show off your pseudo-intellect? Did you finish High School?
06 Aug 14
Originally posted by WajomaI don't think people should be insulted when they have left school at the earliest age when they are legally permitted to leave, typically with limited if any academic qualifications. In any event, countless people remedy that educational deficit in other ways. (Countless people otherwise do no such thing and proclaim their inner wisdom is sufficient as an alternative to effort.) It is risky to patronise someone on the ground that they left school early because of this - you have to take people and their arguments as you find them. Sometimes, we find them falling short alas. The trouble is that you really do need some educational preparation for dealing with and taking part in such debates in an informed manner.
I left school and started work after the 5th form, not sure what that translates to in the US system, I'd just turned 16.
What is tiresome is when people are prepared to be outspoken and opinionated without demonstrating that they even understand the issue. The fact is that even people with postgraduate degrees are routinely guilty of this fault. Often, such people are operating with twisted motives and intentionally misrepresenting the issue. Of course one task of education is learning how to critically evaluate opinions to see if they hold water. People with limited education often fall victim to simplistic and ill formed opinions because they lack the critical skills they need.
So all in all, there is a risk of arrogance, but lack of education is a disability.