Global Warming Test

[Heibges]

I think it paraphrases Aaron Eckhart's character in "Thank You for Smoking".

[Safe-Keeper]

Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.

:rotfl:

Thank you, waste gate. It's 1:29, I have a written Norwegian book language exam tomorrow, needed a laugh.

People, before you leave, make sure you also stop by for the Pope's interesting quiz about condoms! Totally objective and based on sound science:p!

Looking forward to the "How much do you know about gun related deaths?"-quiz by the NRA.

:rotfl:No, no, take my NorOps quiz first. With questions such as 'which mod leader become Mr. Scandinavia in 2004, 2005, and 2006', it's incredibly enlightening and should give you a far better picture of me, my mod, and this forum.

I stop at Question 3 and it is supposed to be 'scientific'

I didn't make it past the explanation for question 1 - the old, refuted argument that since there's a natural process, everything's fine.

Which of course it isn't when the warming is far faster than the natural one.

It also makes some non sequituir statements, such as 'industry didn't cause global warming in the Middle Ages, so it hasn't caused it this time, either'. It's like a suspected robber going, 'we didn't rob that other bank, so why do you accuse us of robbing this one?'.

[Camaero]

Originally Posted by Heibges

I think it paraphrases Aaron Eckhart's character in "Thank You for Smoking".

[hoagiedriver]

9 out of 10!

Damn orbiting satellites!

[hoagiedriver]

Originally Posted by MSgalileo

totally BS and wrong.
I stop at Question 3 and it is supposed to be 'scientific'

Actually, the science of the thing is accurate, although perhaps missleading

[Letum]

Originally Posted by hoagiedriver

Actually, the science of the thing is accurate, although perhaps missleading

Well, sevral of the questions are both inaccurate and misleading. I highlight Q.10, but there are others. (7, 4 and 6 for starters)

What is an inaccurate question????????????
Questions are niether accurate nor inaccurate they are merely inquiries.
'Misleading' to those who aren't willing to think before answering.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by waste gate

What is an inaccurate question????????????
Questions are niether accurate nor inaccurate they are merely inquiries.
'Misleading' to those who aren't willing to think before answering.

By "question" I meant both the question and/or the answers given by the site.

By "misleading" I mean the questions (and/or answers) lead to conclusions that would not normally be made if one had a wider knowledge of the subject than the knowledge contained in the question (and/or answers).

For a nice example of inaccurate see: My Previous Post

Originally Posted by Letum

By "question" I meant both the question and/or the answers given by the site.

By "misleading" I mean the questions (and/or answers) lead to conclusions that would not normally be made if one had a wider knowledge of the subject than the knowledge contained in the question (and/or answers).

For a nice example of inaccurate see: My Previous Post

That is a very unusual arguement. Questions aren't questions. Questions are also the answer? My experience is that the question is the interrogatory and the answer is the response to that interrogarory.

Questions do not and often will not encompass every possible answer which may or may not be given. Have a seat in a legitimate court and observe how fact is established. One question and one answer at a time, at a time.

Are you saying the questions were not complicated enough? It has been my experience that simple questions engender simple answers. The quiz I posted had multiple answers. It was certainly not unfair, in that only one answer was possible, a person's only reqiurement was to use their knowledge and common sense.

[TheSatyr]

I'd like to hear Gore and his acolytes explain why there is global warming on Mars...and why that is being basically ignored by the media...kind of kills Gore's "It's all the fault of Humans" mantra that he is trying to push off on the various Governments and the people.

If there is global warming on both Earth and Mars than it stands to reason that the Sun is probably causing the problem...since last time I checked we don't have any heavy industrial factories on Mars.

And then you have meteorologists saying that from the data aquired from tree rings,the earth's temperature has always fluctuated and that what's happening isn't that unusual.

And you have some astronomers who do think the Sun has been burning hotter than usual lately.

I can't help thinking that Gore and his followers are just using the global warming thing to get their radical green agenda passed around the world. (Radical may be too mild a word.). What will they do if all they want gets passed and it does nothing to stop temperatures from going up?

I once read a quote from a meterologist that went something like this. "Climatologists are just people who couldn't hold down a real job"

What disturbs me the most is how Gore and his followers keep saying there is no longer any debate about the cause of global warming,when many people say he's wrong. The reason there is no debate is because the global warming types mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. They seem to be afraid of a real debate.

Is the weather weirder than usual?...of course it is. Is there global warming? I personally think there is. But I believe the cause of it is still open for debate.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

I'd like to hear Gore and his acolytes explain why there is global warming on Mars...and why that is being basically ignored by the media...kind of kills Gore's "It's all the fault of Humans" mantra that he is trying to push off on the various Governments and the people.

If there is global warming on both Earth and Mars than it stands to reason that the Sun is probably causing the problem...since last time I checked we don't have any heavy industrial factories on Mars.

Mars is a totally different planet. With a much thinner atmosphere. Further away from the Sun. Are actually suggesting that climate change on Earth isnt human-caused because Mars is getting hotter? Park a carbon copy of Earth in a similiar orbit, then we'll see. Don't compare Earth with Mars. I'm sure you're not a planetary climatologist.

And then you have meteorologists saying that from the data aquired from tree rings,the earth's temperature has always fluctuated and that what's happening isn't that unusual.

Fluctuated, yes it always has. But never this fast. That's cause for alarm in my book. (but again, I'm no scientist)

And you have some astronomers who do think the Sun has been burning hotter than usual lately.

And the flat earth society is still kicking.

I can't help thinking that Gore and his followers are just using the global warming thing to get their radical green agenda passed around the world. (Radical may be too mild a word.). What will they do if all they want gets passed and it does nothing to stop temperatures from going up?

Whyever would they want to push a "radical green agenda" if not to combat climate change? Radical actually is too mild a word. Bandages, not operations.

What disturbs me the most is how Gore and his followers keep saying there is no longer any debate about the cause of global warming,when many people say he's wrong. The reason there is no debate is because the global warming types mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. They seem to be afraid of a real debate.

Politicians and average citizens can't debate climate change, because on the whole we don't have the skills. The scientific community, the people that do have the knowledge, generally agree that climate change is a problem and that it's most likely our fault.
No-one likes this situation, because they can't see it or understand it. Hence messengers are getting shot left right and centre.

Is the weather weirder than usual?...of course it is. Is there global warming? I personally think there is. But I believe the cause of it is still open for debate.

And that's your personal opinion. The professional opinions of many, many scientists stand contrary.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Don't compare Earth with Mars. I'm sure you're not a planetary climatologist.

Neither are you so your rejection of his belief carries about as much weight as the belief itself. At least he has a reference for the theory, your rejection does not.

That's cause for alarm in my book. (but again, I'm no scientist)

You don't have a "book". You're not a scientist remember?

And the flat earth society is still kicking.

Are you back to being a scientist already? How do you know the sun isn't heating up?

Whyever would they want to push a "radical green agenda" if not to combat climate change? Radical actually is too mild a word. Bandages, not operations.

Why does any agenda get pushed? Money and power. Al Gore using enough electricity in his mansion to power a whole neighborhood and excusing it by buying carbon credits from companies that he owns is a prime example of it. Where was Al Gores political career before becoming a global warming crusader?

Politicians and average citizens can't debate climate change, because on the whole we don't have the skills. The scientific community, the people that do have the knowledge, generally agree that climate change is a problem and that it's most likely our fault.
No-one likes this situation, because they can't see it or understand it. Hence messengers are getting shot left right and centre.

That doesn't stop you from debating it so why tell him he can't? Besides "generally" and "most likely" are qualifiers that do not indicate a consensus.

And that's your personal opinion. The professional opinions of many, many scientists stand contrary.

There are just as many that contradict them as well. Oh but that's right, everyone who doesn't jump on the 100% human caused global warming bandwagon is either stupid or in the pay of the ebil oil companies, right?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by August

Neither are you so your rejection of his belief carries about as much weight as the belief itself. At least he has a reference for the theory, your rejection does not.

If there was a reference I would have responded. "If there is global warming on Earth & Mars" isnt really a reference. maybe a link or quote from an authority would suffice.
Anyway, I think it's pretty disingenuous to compare the two and base a very important decision on it. Of course, I dont know enough about the atmospheres of either of the two planets to make an informed decision. The way I see it, you don't need to be a genius to see that they are very different, but it takes a lot of smarts and resarch to see the climatic similiarities.

You don't have a "book". You're not a scientist remember?

Semantics. Okay then. Earth is warming faster than ever. I dont need an M.Sc. to see that.

Why does any agenda get pushed? Money and power. Al Gore using enough electricity in his mansion to power a whole neighborhood and excusing it by buying carbon credits from companies that he owns is a prime example of it. Where was Al Gores political career before becoming a global warming crusader?

President of the United States, but lets not get into that.

Money and power, you serious? There are easier ways to get both of those than telling people they're killing the planet and limiting toilet flushes.
I'll consider shady motives when they make sense.

I mean, money and power from tellling people not to use oil and gas? The two major hydrocarbons that are running out and rocketing in price? There's wind and sunlight everywhere, yet the world s most powerful military is camped on top of oil. Money and power....

That doesn't stop you from debating it so why tell him he can't? Besides "generally" and "most likely" are qualifiers that do not indicate a consensus.

Certainty is pretty dumb. It's why you get numbers like 90% from the IPCC. That was the certainty level they gave for human cause.
Didnt mean to say he cant debate it, but many people just declare their ideas without realising how little they know. It's kind of like Astrophysics. You get someone coming along and saying "I reject the Big Bang!". Just like that. It takes years of complicated mathematics to even begin to understand the question that "the Big Bang" is an answer to, yet someone with a couple of memorised psalms knocks it off the table.
Of course, anyone can argue this stuff, it's the unfounded blanket statements I don't like. Feel free to pick any such statements out of my posts, or go back to my publishing record.

There are just as many that contradict them as well. Oh but that's right, everyone who doesn't jump on the 100% human caused global warming bandwagon is either stupid or in the pay of the ebil oil companies, right?

[/quote] That's right. I'm Jesus don't you know.

Many many scientists

[Lagger123987]

I suck at this test what is global warning anyway?

[Tchocky]

Here's an article on Mars, for anyone interested.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

It deals with how different Mars' climate is from our own.