Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Captain_BluTac]

It's called CLIMATE CHANGE PEOPLE

Seriously people... try reading up on something before starting dumbass threads... every month there is a "Is Global Warming Real???" thread... if anyone was educated in the modern day you should know Global Warming is a misnomer anyway.

Everyone here bar the religious fanatic idiot who started this thread is aware that climate change is real.:o

[Arc-Light]

Brrrr... The Disappearing Arctic Ice Is Back And It's Thick



Is it safe to say we've been scammed yet?
A record cold January has helped winter sea ice grow (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html)across the Arctic.
http://bp0.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R7dwHQYqymI/AAAAAAAALVo/QOard3poM8s/s400/sea+ice.jpg (http://bp0.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R7dwHQYqymI/AAAAAAAALVo/QOard3poM8s/s1600-h/sea+ice.jpg)

Temperatures in January set cold weather records and caused the Arctic Sea Ice to expand to its previous levels.
The Financial Post (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/02/15/yo-peter-the-northern-sea-ice-is-back-corcoran.aspx)reported:
The Cryosphere (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) reported that the Arctic sea ice is back... and it's thick.


The disappearing sea ice that was supposedly going to dramatically change the North, if not the world, is back. Thanks to really cold weather -- gee, where did that come from?--winter sea ice has been growing across the North. "Clearly we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," says Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.

There goes a good story. And if you doubt me on this, the source is as biased on climate change as sources get: The CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html). And if the weather stays cold, the ice will get even thicker, says the report...

This isn't the only sign of rising sea ice and extra-cold temperatures. The U.S. National Climatic Date Center reported the other day that temperatures in the United States set cold records in January. "The average temperature in January 2008 was 30.5 F. This is -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 49th coolest January in 114 years."

...As for ice, A University of Illinois report (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) showed that Arctic sea ice is back to its previous level. The American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/02/so_polars_bears_arent_drowning.html) reported that not only is the ice growing, but it is growing thick.

Previously:
Brrrr... Antarctica Records Record High Ice Cap Growth (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap-growth-reaches.html)
Brrrr... South America Has Coldest Winter in a 90 Years (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/brrrr-south-america-has-coldest-winter.html)
Brrrr... Iraqis See First Snow in 100 Years As Sign of Peace (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/iraqis-see-first-snow-in-100-years-as.html)
Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in a Decade in China Cause Rioting (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/disaster-china-suffers-from-worst.html)
Brrrr... Jerusalem Grinds to a Halt As Rare Snowstorm Blasts City (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/brrrr-rare-snowstorm-shuts-down.html)
Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in 50 Years Continue to Cripple China (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-worst-snowstorms-in-50-years.html)
Brrrr... China Suffers Coldest Winter in 100 Years (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-china-suffers-coldest-winter-in.html)
Brrrr... Pakistan Suffers Lowest Temps in 70 Years-- 260 Dead (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-260-dead-in-south-asia-pakistan.html)
Brrrr... Record Cold Hits Central Asia-- 654 Dead in Afghanistan (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-record-cold-hits-central-asia-654.html)
Brrrr... Severe Weather Kills Dozens in Kashmir (http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/02/severe-winter-weather-kills-dozens-in.html)
Brrrr... Tajikistan Crisis!! Coldest Winter in 25 Years! (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-tajikistan-crisis-coldest-winter.html)
Brrrr... Record Cold Wave Blasts Mumbai, India (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-record-cold-wave-blasts-mumbai.html)
Brrrr... Snow and Ice in San Diego? (http://instapundit.com/archives2/015434.php)
Brrrr... Wisconsin Snowfall Record Shattered (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-wisconsin-snow-record-shattered.html)

:lmao:

"NO!!! HEAT UP!!!" I'LL BE A LAUGHING STOCK!"

http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/GoreBreatingFire2.jpg


http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd45/INBuckeye/moron.jpg

[FaT_tONle]

Just don't like pointing individuals out. But people are dumbasses sometimes myself included... but ***** like this, when it comes to global issues and globally accepted facts in the scientific community based on scientific data and research... this type of ***** drives me nuts...

[Sugarculted]

On the thicker ice.:waa:

Antartic? Ice? Tell my sister's boyfriend that. He claimed that that the Antartic was the biggest desert ever...:dry::down

[Captain_BluTac]

Antartic? Ice? Tell my sister's boyfriend that. He claimed that that the Antartic was the biggest desert ever...:dry::down

not biggest, dryest they measure how dry a dessert is by rainfall and it's something ridiculous like 500 years since there has been rain in some regions of the Antarctic.:o

[Tron5000]

Climate does change, but it has done so since far before humans were here and will continue to do so long after humans are gone. It's mostly affected by external forces such as solar flares. And when it comes to carbon emissions by humans, much more emissions are put into the atmosphere by animals, plantlife and natural occurrences such as volcanic eruptions.

Carbon in the atmosphere has been much higher in historic times that it presently is, and this was before humans were around driving their evil SUVs and flying to awards shows and benefit concerts on their private jets. And when closely analyzed, the data usually do show a correlation between rises in temperatures and rises in carbon levels; however, the relationship is such that the carbon levels rise after average temperature rises, rather than the opposite being true.

[Captain_BluTac]

Antartic? Ice? Tell my sister's boyfriend that. He claimed that that the Antartic was the biggest desert ever...:dry::down

Here educate yourself
http://www.flex.net/~lonestar/coldest.htm

And start watching QI, it's just full of awesome. :o

[Sugarculted]

Here educate yourself
http://www.flex.net/~lonestar/coldest.htm (http://www.flex.net/%7Elonestar/coldest.htm)

And start watching QI, it's just full of awesome. :o

Crikey, I'm tell my sister that he's a keeper. Now, I feel daft.
I am a keen watcher of QI. You just can't get enough of Alan Davies and Stephen Fry :up:

[Arkady Rossovich]

Unless i hear the news from a credible source,nothing has changed. People will belive anything they hear.

[Ice-man]

well there is global waming, and it is affecting us, but if the cooler weather keeps up in the polar reigns and arctic, than thats good, it can either stop the ice caps from melting altogether or if cool enough can freeze over more of the water and make new ice sheets.

yea people don't like cold weather but we need it to re sustain our planet.

[Carcharodon]

Climate does change, but it has done so since far before humans were here and will continue to do so long after humans are gone. It's mostly affected by external forces such as solar flares. And when it comes to carbon emissions by humans, much more emissions are put into the atmosphere by animals, plantlife and natural occurrences such as volcanic eruptions. Actually, that's incorrect. We've surpassed the natural carbon emitters in the last few years.

Nice try, though.

[Tron5000]

Actually, that's incorrect. We've surpassed the natural carbon emitters in the last few years.

Nice try, though.

Take 3 minutes. Check this out, if it won't get in the way of your already deeply-held beliefs.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/harrelson2131/greenhouse_sources3.gif

"Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

"So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)"

[Carcharodon]

Take 3 minutes. Check this out, if it won't get in the way of your already deeply-held beliefs.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/harrelson2131/greenhouse_sources3.gif

"Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

"So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)"My source was wrong. :o

[Tron5000]

Is your source Al Gore?

[Carcharodon]

Is your source Al Gore?Oh, you're funny.

[Tron5000]

Oh, you're funny.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week, and remember to tip your waitress.

[Carcharodon]

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week, and remember to tip your waitress.So you think that our CO2 output is doing nothing to harm the environment?

Be very careful with your answer. :yay:

[Ice-man]

of course were messing up our atmosphere, since the industrial revolution co2 emissions have just about tripled maybe even quadrupled.

eaither way you wanna look at it, weve done a great deal of damage to earth, the only way i see us helping that is by banning most fossil fuels. and making it mandatory for people to own cars that are better for the environment.

[Tron5000]

So you think that our CO2 output is doing nothing to harm the environment?

Be very careful with your answer. :yay:

I think the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humans is so insignificant compared to the total that we are kidding ourselves if we really believe that our actions are causing the planet to warm or causing changes in weather patterns.

I do believe that there are many, many things than man is doing that harm the environment. The idea that our actions have caused the planet to warm and are causing weather patterns to change is not one of them.

I believe that we need to invest heavily in researching, finding and developing alternative, renewable sources of energy.

I also believe that the "global warming" scam is being perpetrated to slow down economic progress, to redistribute funds from wealthy nations to undeveloped ones, and to make certain people and industries very, very rich through selling the idea of "green", through lobbying and litigation, and through the carbon-trading and carbon-offset schemes.

...hope that was "careful" enough for you...

[Carcharodon]

I think the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humans is so insignificant compared to the total that we are kidding ourselves if we really believe that our actions are causing the planet to warm or causing changes in weather patterns.

I do believe that there are many, many things than man is doing that harm the environment. The idea that our actions have caused the planet to warm and are causing weather patterns to change is not one of them.

I believe that we need to invest heavily in researching, finding and developing alternative, renewable sources of energy.

I also believe that the "global warming" scam is being perpetrated to slow down economic progress, to redistribute funds from wealthy nations to undeveloped ones, and to make certain people and industries very, very rich through selling the idea of "green", through lobbying and litigation, and through the carbon-trading and carbon-offset schemes.

...hope that was "careful" enough for you...Oh, it was careful. However, I have one major critique of your argument. Are you familiar with the carbon cycle?

[Tron5000]

I believe the carbon cycle is a product of, not the cause of, the earth warming.

[Carcharodon]

It comes down to this: the planet has a natural system for maintaining stable atmospheric carbon concentrations. It's a means of, "recycling," atmospheric carbon. Hell, there are even means of locking it away in a form that really can't be released naturally (i.e., oil, coal, etc.).

Then comes man, who exploits these natural carbon reservoirs via completely un-natural processes that end up releasing said carbon into the atmosphere.

Now, you don't see how that could upset a naturally maintained balance? How the means of recycling this carbon might be strained to do so? The oceans are a huge carbon sink, and they're working overtime...so much so, in fact, that they're acidifying. Pretty badly, as a matter of fact.

For you to say that our carbon production is insignificant, even in the face of those other sources, is a bit ridiculous. You could say they're small, or miniscule, but insignificant?

Don't think so.

[Carcharodon]

I believe the carbon cycle is a product of, not the cause of, the earth warming.The carbon cycle is independent of warming. It has nothing to do with it, really.

[Bubonic]

I think the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humans is so insignificant compared to the total that we are kidding ourselves if we really believe that our actions are causing the planet to warm or causing changes in weather patterns.

I do believe that there are many, many things than man is doing that harm the environment. The idea that our actions have caused the planet to warm and are causing weather patterns to change is not one of them.

I believe that we need to invest heavily in researching, finding and developing alternative, renewable sources of energy.

I also believe that the "global warming" scam is being perpetrated to slow down economic progress, to redistribute funds from wealthy nations to undeveloped ones, and to make certain people and industries very, very rich through selling the idea of "green", through lobbying and litigation, and through the carbon-trading and carbon-offset schemes.

...hope that was "careful" enough for you...

Damn those greedy third world people, trying to get in on our action... What a shame!

http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/darfur_child_starving.JPG

[Tron5000]

I don't see these "sources" of which you speak.

[Tron5000]

Damn those greedy third world people, trying to get in on our action... What a shame!

http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/darfur_child_starving.JPG

The United States provides more aid, through federal and charitable means, than most other industrialized nations combined. Stop the hate, child.

[Carcharodon]

I don't see these "sources" of which you speak.The ones you mentioned...e.g., volcanic activity, respiration, etc. Remember those?

[The Senator]

Here's the problem with this argument: While the Earth may have cooled one year, the temperature of the Earth still rose 100 years before it. One year isn't going to reverse the trend.

To put it in simpler terms, it's like this:

If I have five dollars, and I take one dollar away, I'm left with four dollars. But if I add another five dollars to the pot, and take away another dollar, I'm left with eight. The rate at which the money is coming in far exceeds the rate at which it is leaving. You wouldn't say you were losing more money than you were gaining with this trend, would you?

Even if the temperature falls one degree every hundred years, or even every other year, the Earth is still warmer than it was all those years before it. The damage has still been done. Species are still dying. Ecosystems are still headed towards total annihilation. Cooling one degree every so often isn't going to reverse what has already come before it. Yeah, the earth cooled one degree last year... but will that instantaneously bring back all the species and ecosystems which have been lost along with that temperature change? No, it won't. Unless the Earth starts cooling for a hundred years, the damage will still persist.

It took thousands of years for the Northwest Passage to form. It took one hundred years for it to subside. It's going to take a hell of a lot longer for that ice to form back to a fraction of what it once was. So this is still a problem which will take time and technology to solve.

[Tron5000]

Look, when human activity accounts for less than one-third of 1 per cent of all carbon in the atmosphere, yes, I believe my categorization of that as "insignificant" is on base.

The world has witnessed times when the carbon levels were over 3 times higher than they are today. There were no factories, no SUVs. Who caused that? This was before humans. The weather cycle has changed and will continue to change regardless of what humans do.

The other planets in our solar system our warming. Our sun (that big thing that heats all of the planets) is growing hotter. We don't control that. I don't think our Mars Rovers are putting enough CO2 into Mars's atmosphere to cause its temperature to rise.

Mother Nature doesn't care what we do. She'll warm, she'll cool, she'll kill us all when she wants to.

[Tron5000]

Species have faced annihilation since long before we were here. It's the natural cycle of things. Plants and animals have come and gone and humans had nothing to do with it. Granted, certain species have been eradicated due to man and his interaction with the world, going back to the beginning of time. But the weather patterns of the world, the warming and cooling cycles, are so complex that we are way too arrogant if we believe that we are causing them to, or can prevent them from, change.

And can anyone answer me this? If the world is getting too warm, then what is the ideal temperature? What are we aiming for here, where we'll save the world?

[Bubonic]

The United States provides more aid, through federal and charitable means, than most other industrialized nations combined. Stop the hate, child.

Reach back and tap yourself on the back.
There'd be no third world if it weren't for the colonial powers, and then the U.S. intervention in these countries after WW2.

Development is a scam.
Let us fill your country with all these technologies, in return you can use them to expropriate your raw materials, oh, and to pay off the favour, sell your livelihoods for dirt.

You guys flooded many countries with aid, true, so much so that you created a dependency.

Anyways back to the topic at hand, don't worry, despite your donations the underdeveloped countries have become progressively worse since WW2.

[Tron5000]

Reach back and tap yourself on the back.
There'd be no third world if it weren't for the colonial powers, and then the U.S. intervention in these countries after WW2.

Development is a scam.
Let us fill your country with all these technologies, in return you can use them to expropriate your raw materials, oh, and to pay off the favour, sell your livelihoods for dirt.

You guys flooded many countries with aid, true, so much so that you created a dependency.

Anyways back to the topic at hand, don't worry, despite your donations the underdeveloped countries have become progressively worse since WW2.

You're telling me without the "colonial powers" African nations would've found some way to become industrialized? To provide a commodity that is wanted by the rest of the world?

It's obvious you have an extremely anti-US bias, so I won't even bother trying to discuss that topic. But hopefully, if Hillary or Obama aren't elected, you can still come here for your health care when the lines get too long.

[chaseter]

There is proof that the global carbon cycle has been distrupted and that more carbon dioxide is in the air. Scientists all across the world recently released their findings at a global climate change summit in 2007 and predict the temperatures to raise an average of 2-3 degrees each decade. So, if nothing is done, the polar ice caps will melt, people of the Maldeves will die, precipitation patters will change, severity of storms will increase, tropical diseases will spread further north, and tropical hurricanes will increase due to the heat fluxuations. It's a fact that man is the cause of the influx of carbon dioxide and it's a fact that it is changing our environment.

Why risk not doing anything and something bad happening than doing something and preparing for something even if nothing happens.

[Carcharodon]

Look, when human activity accounts for less than one-third of 1 per cent of all carbon in the atmosphere, yes, I believe my categorization of that as "insignificant" is on base.As would anybody with a general lack of understanding of the processes I've talked about (the carbon cycle). :up:

You're missing the bigger picture here. We're interfering with an intricate natural cycle. And no, I'm not talking about climate.

Adding carbon dioxide and lowering the planet's ability to rid the atmosphere of it (deforestation, anyone?) is a bad combination. Period.

The world has witnessed times when the carbon levels were over 3 times higher than they are today. There were no factories, no SUVs. Who caused that? This was before humans. The weather cycle has changed and will continue to change regardless of what humans do.Put this into context, though. When was this? What was the world like back then? The world has probably witnessed times where the carbon levels were far greater than 3 times higher than today...like during earth's extremely early periods.

The other planets in our solar system our warming. Our sun (that big thing that heats all of the planets) is growing hotter. We don't control that. I don't think our Mars Rovers are putting enough CO2 into Mars's atmosphere to cause its temperature to rise.The atmosphere of Mars is > 90% CO2 as it is. Try again.

Mother Nature doesn't care what we do. She'll warm, she'll cool, she'll kill us all when she wants to.Yeah. Humans have no moral obligation to maintain global health. :up:

A bit contradictory, given what you said before about man's negative effects on our environment.

[Tron5000]

Look, I already told you that there were many things that man has done and continues to do that are harmful to the environment. I also said that we should invest in renewable resources. I think we should try to preserve things as much as possible, but not at the risk of destroying our economy. So your insinuation is false.

My statements are based solely in the context of global warming (the title, and point of, this thread). However, it is obvious that other agendas are at work here, so I'll let both of you guys just go ahead and think I'm an idiot. The evidence (yes, lots of it) is out there, whenever you choose to look for it. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

[Bubonic]

You're telling me without the "colonial powers" African nations would've found some way to become industrialized? To provide a commodity that is wanted by the rest of the world?

It's obvious you have an extremely anti-US bias, so I won't even bother trying to discuss that topic. But hopefully, if Hillary or Obama aren't elected, you can still come here for your health care when the lines get too long.

Actually I'm saying that African nations and other colonized nations would have been better off from the get go if they'd never had the pleasure of being conquered, and would have probably evolved systems of market different then our own but still functional.

I'm not extremely anti-US, although I think it is healthy to point out its flaws. For all intents and purposes it may be the lesser of evils, but so far as the third world is concerned, it is just were it needs to be for Western interest.

So I was quite shocked when you theorized that part of the "global warming scam" was to redistribute wealth to these battered regions of the world.

[Carcharodon]

Look, I already told you that there were many things that man has done and continues to do that are harmful to the environment. I also said that we should invest in renewable resources. I think we should try to preserve things as much as possible, but not at the risk of destroying our economy. So your insinuation is false.

My statements are based solely in the context of global warming (the title, and point of, this thread). However, it is obvious that other agendas are at work here, so I'll let both of you guys just go ahead and think I'm an idiot. The evidence (yes, lots of it) is out there, whenever you choose to look for it. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.Hey, I've already said that I'm not 100% convinced by the climate change argument. Take it or leave it, I guess.

My beef with you shifted when you said that our activities were insignificant. I'll call B.S. on that all day long.

[Carcharodon]

Just to toss another bit into the discussion:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm

The sun is getting hotter. The idea that this somehow disproves the greenhouse effect is bull****, however, and the article supports that point.

[Tron5000]

I didn't say our activities were insignificant. I said that the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by man is insignificant when you compare it to the overall amount, considering mankind's contribution accounts for 0.28% for all CO2. That's what I said, that's it. Don't make it more than it is.

[Ice-man]

Just to toss another bit into the discussion:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm

The sun is getting hotter. The idea that this somehow disproves the greenhouse effect is bull****, however, and the article supports that point.


Well the greenhouse thing is a factor but yea i didnt account for the sun getting hotter, i forgot our sun is in its last cycles, in about a billion years or less itl explode.

[The Senator]

Species have faced annihilation since long before we were here. It's the natural cycle of things. Plants and animals have come and gone and humans had nothing to do with it. Granted, certain species have been eradicated due to man and his interaction with the world, going back to the beginning of time. But the weather patterns of the world, the warming and cooling cycles, are so complex that we are way too arrogant if we believe that we are causing them to, or can prevent them from, change.

And can anyone answer me this? If the world is getting too warm, then what is the ideal temperature? What are we aiming for here, where we'll save the world?

If this was the sole work of Mother Nature, then why did the Earth suddenly start to warm at an exponential rate in the past sixty years? Yes, there is a natural cycle about these things, but that doesn't explain why the largest free-floating mass of ice in the world just magically evaporated into thin air. If it was a controlled, natural process, it wouldn't have happened in the course of a decade. Scientists would have been able to see this one coming, but the fact that they couldn't explains that there is some other phenomenon which is at play here.

Now, we can't fix what's already been started. But you can't argue that raising emissions standards and forcing companies to comply with those standards wouldn't benefit the environment in some way, shape or form. While some of these emissions may not be the sole contributor to a global effect, they have resounding local effects. Look at what's going on the Rust Belt. All those steel factories, coal and oil power plants, and other industries which have been emitting excessive carbon-based emissions has resulted in acid rain in the Northeast and localized pollution in the Midwest. We've seen lakes, ponds and rivers polluted to a point where they can't be turned around. We've seen species die or severely hindered because of these emissions and the dumping of toxic waste. Worst of all, there are entire communities in Ohio and Michigan where people are breathing in toxic fumes on a daily basis. That severely effects people's health. Why shouldn't we force companies to take a cleaner approach to disposing of their chemical waste if it will help stall some of the more immediate challenges we face?

If we were to cap carbon emissions, not only would these localized problems be stalled, but we could very well stall some of the adverse effects these industries have on the global environment. We have the second-highest amount of emissions in the world. We account for a significant percentage of global pollution. And while we can't fix everything on a global scale, we have the ability and the responsibility to clean up matters on a local stage. Common sense says that if you start fixing things locally, eventually it'll escalate to a much higher level.

[Carcharodon]

I didn't say our activities were insignificant. I said that the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by man is insignificant when you compare it to the overall amount, considering mankind's contribution accounts for 0.28% for all CO2. That's what I said, that's it. Don't make it more than it is.The problem is that it isn't insignificant, even in that context, when you look at the bigger picture. That's my entire point.

You can look at the numbers and easily say that it's insignificant, but that reflects a much deeper lack of understanding of the processes that govern the earth's regulatory cycles.

[Danalys]

I didn't say our activities were insignificant. I said that the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by man is insignificant when you compare it to the overall amount, considering mankind's contribution accounts for 0.28% for all CO2. That's what I said, that's it. Don't make it more than it is.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

well i looked at the data in this link and that percentage doesn't really tell the whole story. if you look from the industrial revolution onwards, you see we've contributed 17% of the additional CO2 in that time.

[Zero_Vault]

I want the end to come.

I want the whole world to end, including me. Earth should die, and I want noone to live on it anymore.

Let it die peacefully and galantlly, people. Why prolong death, when you can embrace it? Let it die.

And it will, thank f**king God.

[Darthphere]

The global warming debate is ludicrous for one reason. Lets say Global Warming is one giant hoax, what is so wrong about searching for alternate energy sources? What is so wrong with using a little less electricity and changing the type of light bulb we use and saving some money in the process? What's so wrong about buying a hybrid vehicle and saving some money on gas? Whats so wrong with it?

[Tron5000]

The global warming debate is ludicrous for one reason. Lets say Global Warming is one giant hoax, what is so wrong about searching for alternate energy sources? What is so wrong with using a little less electricity and changing the type of light bulb we use and saving some money in the process? What's so wrong about buying a hybrid vehicle and saving some money on gas? Whats so wrong with it?

I don't have a problem with any of that. I believe we should conserve energy (it'll lower your bills...good reason right there). I believe we should invest in alternative, renewable sources of energy.

What I have a problem with is the fact that the people pushing the global warming hysteria are using fear-mongering to line their pockets, to stifle economic production, and to confiscate earned wealth and redistribute it to others. The carbon-trading and carbon-offset schemes exist purely to make people like Al Gore, lobbyists, and environmental lawyers very, very rich.

Plus, they just flat-out lie about the data, all to push a specific agenda of doom and gloom. They tell "normal" people to carpool, walk or ride a bike, while they fly around in personal jets. They talk to us about our "carbon footprints," yet believe that they can do whatever they want if they pay someone (like the company of which Al Gore is on the board and highly paid) to plant a tree in a forest somewhere. It's bogus, it's hypocritical, and it's a scam.

Save the planet. Fine. But don't do it through retarding economic development and instituting wealth-distribution schemes. And don't point your finger at me and tell me I need to change my life when you won't make certain changes in yours. Al Gore's home uses up over 20 times the energy of an average American household, energy-saving light bulbs and all. You telling me he can't turn off some of the lights when he leaves the house?

What has Kyoto solved? Absolutely nothing. The major nations that signed on to Kyoto have all fallen far, far short of their goals (because matching the goals would result in the utter collapse of their economies). The result? Well, they're just highly "taxed," and that money is sent to other nations. Nothing, nothing is being solved by the Kyoto treaty. And I'm glad we didn't sign on to it, because it is impossible to live up to its standards.


Edit: BTW, the carbon offset firm part-owned and chaired by Al Gore is General Investment Management. And he doesn't buy "carbon offsets", he buys stocks. Dude's getting mad rich of this scam. Rich off the people that are actually falling for his nonsense.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

[Ice-man]

I want the end to come.

I want the whole world to end, including me. Earth should die, and I want noone to live on it anymore.

Let it die peacefully and galantlly, people. Why prolong death, when you can embrace it? Let it die.

And it will, thank f**king God.



"I have a suggestion to keep you all occupied... Learn to swim."

"I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.
I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.
I wanna see it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in.
Watch you flush it all away."


trip out and listen to this song, Aenima by Tool.


its about him wanting the world to end cuz the guy in the story of the song cant take how life came to be.

[Memphis Slim]

Look, I already told you that there were many things that man has done and continues to do that are harmful to the environment. I also said that we should invest in renewable resources. I think we should try to preserve things as much as possible, but not at the risk of destroying our economy. So your insinuation is false.

My statements are based solely in the context of global warming (the title, and point of, this thread). However, it is obvious that other agendas are at work here, so I'll let both of you guys just go ahead and think I'm an idiot. The evidence (yes, lots of it) is out there, whenever you choose to look for it. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.


Give it up Tron....these guys are so fixed on this thing it's beyond understanding. :whatever: Al Gore never accepted one debate on this issue. They chnged from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so they could still say they were right! :applaud This earth is doing just fine. Gore needed a legacy....this is it. But this one is gonna blow up in his face.

[Tron5000]

The only thing blowing up is Al Gore's bank account. He'll never be president, but he is getting very, very rich.

[Memphis Slim]

Tron:
What has Kyoto solved? Absolutely nothing. The major nations that signed on to Kyoto have all fallen far, far short of their goals (because matching the goals would result in the utter collapse of their economies). The result? Well, they're just highly "taxed," and that money is sent to other nations. Nothing, nothing is being solved by the Kyoto treaty. And I'm glad we didn't sign on to it, because it is impossible to live up to its standards.



China is the biggest polluter of all. Do you really think they care about Kyoto??

[Memphis Slim]

The only thing blowing up is Al Gore's bank account. He'll never be president, but he is getting very, very rich.
:funny:

[Carcharodon]

Give it up Tron....these guys are so fixed on this thing it's beyond understanding. :whatever: Al Gore never accepted one debate on this issue. They chnged from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so they could still say they were right! :applaud This earth is doing just fine. Gore needed a legacy....this is it. But this one is gonna blow up in his face.Actually, I don't view Gore as some messiah. I'm certain he does stand to make a few bucks on this issue. The people I listen to are the ones in the field. I get some pretty nice access to scientific journals. If you head over to Raybia's resource thread, you can find lots of great, peer-reviewed journals.

You could learn a thing or two, actually. At least Tron and SupermanBeyond came in here with some form of a coherent argument. Your first post was just a cluster**** of stupidity and ignorance.

China is the biggest polluter of all. Do you really think they care about Kyoto??China is the biggest polluter. The thing is, they actually have one of the world's smallest footprints.

[Ice-man]

actually USA surpasses china's pollution emissions

[Tron5000]

At least Tron and SupermanBeyond came in here with some form of a coherent argument.


Some form? Wow, thanks for giving me a bit of credit. I posted with logic, reasoning, respect and, most importantly, sources. And I have plenty more if you'd care to examine the data that refutes the myth that humans are causing the planet to warm and weather cycles to change. There is also extensive data concluding that we are headed into another ice age, which would be far worse for this planet than the warming that was experienced in the previous century. My guess is you have no desire to examine such data and sources, so I won't waste my time.

And I still need the answer...What is the prefect temperature? If you believe that the planet growing warmer is a problem, then what temperature should we aim for? Where should we set the thermostat?

[Carcharodon]

Some form? Wow, thanks for giving me a bit of credit. I posted with logic, reasoning, respect and, most importantly, sources. And I have plenty more if you'd care to examine the data that refutes the myth that humans are causing the planet to warm and weather cycles to change. There is also extensive data concluding that we are headed into another ice age, which would be far worse for this planet than the warming that was experienced in the previous century. My guess is you have no desire to examine such data and sources, so I won't waste my time.I meant no offense, dude. By the way, do you even know how the cooling data was extrapolated? It was established a long, LONG time ago and it was just that: an extrapolation. I've been exposed to this data several times, both by global warming theory advocates and people who think it's some, "magic bullet," to disprove the theory.

What that data tells us is that we should be in a general cooling trend based on data indicating past variation in climate. Doesn't it then seem a bit odd to you that we aren't in a general cooling trend?

There was the anomalous data that SupermanBeyond posted, but until further data can be gathered, it's just that: anomalous.

And I still need the answer...What is the prefect temperature? If you believe that the planet growing warmer is a problem, then what temperature should we aim for? Where should we set the thermostat?There's no such thing as a, "perfect," temperature. The idea that you're asking me this after going on and on about your logical arguments is sort of astounding, really.

For those of us that know that climate does, in fact, operate in cycles, the question is ridiculous (and a bit condescending). What we can tell, however, is how and to what degree these changes in the average global temperature will cause ecological (and, consequently, economical) instability. Not perfectly, mind you, and yes, there IS a LOT of sensationalism out there, but there's a ballpark view.

[Carcharodon]

actually USA surpasses china's pollution emissionsIf China hasn't already surpassed us, it sure as hell won't be long until they do. :huh: I was under the impression that they had.

[Tron5000]

I prefer to use data that's a bit more recent, say, from the past year.

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/harrelson2131/Global%20Warming/7390_hadcrut.jpg

"Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

"Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

"Let’s hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans — and most of the crops and animals we depend on — prefer a temperature closer to 70.

"Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news."

[Carcharodon]

Oh, one more thing: "My guess is you have no desire to examine such data and sources, so I won't waste my time."

I'd love to read those sources, dude. How many times do I have to tell you I'm not 100% convinced by global warming theory? Honestly, it's more like 60 - 70%.

It's like you have this completely preconceived notion that anybody that argues against your logic is some die-hard proponent. You and Slim are very much the same in that regard.

So go ahead, WOW me. Show me some (relatively) unbiased sources, or better yet, peer-reviewed articles. I'll be waiting.

[Tron5000]

If China hasn't already surpassed us, it sure as hell won't be long until they do. :huh: I was under the impression that they had.

China will pass the US next year in total emissions.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/110

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/harrelson2131/chart_chinachart2_small.gif

[Tron5000]

There's no such thing as a, "perfect," temperature. The idea that you're asking me this after going on and on about your logical arguments is sort of astounding, really.

I find it "astounding" that there is a "consensus" that the world is becoming too warm, yet there is somehow no "consensus" as to how warm we should actually be. If we can not identify the target, how can we know we have passed it?

[Tron5000]

Also, I didn't go "on and on about [my] logical arguments." I mentioned the word "logic" once, in one post. If this constitutes "going on and on," well, then I apologize. But thanks for the exagerration/embellishment. Par for the course as far as the global warming debate goes.

[Carcharodon]

I prefer to use data that's a bit more recent, say, from the past year.

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/harrelson2131/Global%20Warming/7390_hadcrut.jpg

"Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

"Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

"Let’s hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans — and most of the crops and animals we depend on — prefer a temperature closer to 70.

"Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news."Sooooo you just reposted the very same thing that SupermanBeyond posted, from possibly the BEST source possible: globalwarminghoax.com. Great.

It's anomalous. BTW:

Followed a link from the same site:

"There has been no 'erasure'. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied."

So the part of your post that says, "The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time," needs to be taken very, very, very cautiously, if at all.

As for all of the specific anomalous weather patterns (e.g., extreme cold snaps), it's all predicted by the theory. That's why Slim's argument held no water, dude.

I'm NOT saying that they don't point to cooling. I'm not. What I AM saying is that if you want to bring an argument to the table, bring one that the theory doesn't have an answer for. There is support for the idea that anthropogenic climate change will cause instances of cooling while the average temperature rises. There are actual atmospheric mechanisms to explain it.

[Carcharodon]

I find it "astounding" that there is a "consensus" that the world is becoming too warm, yet there is somehow no "consensus" as to how warm we should actually be. If we can not identify the target, how can we know we have passed it?We'll know when the **** hits the fan. The worry is that there will be a point where the warming causes ecological instability, and when that happens, we're going to see the effects.

I honestly think you're oversimplifying it to a ridiculous degree, so I hope my answer was sufficiently simple.

[Carcharodon]

Also, I didn't go "on and on about [my] logical arguments." I mentioned the word "logic" once, in one post. If this constitutes "going on and on," well, then I apologize. But thanks for the exagerration/embellishment. Par for the course as far as the global warming debate goes.Sorry, reading this only seemed to go on forever:

"I posted with logic, reasoning, respect and, most importantly, sources."

My bad. :woot:

By the way: I actually am enjoying this debate, regardless of the barbs we're trading. Don't get the wrong idea. I mean it all in good fun.

[Ice-man]

just thinking about it this winter has been one of the coldest long island has had, some nights its almost unbearable to go outside, its been in its 20-30's since december.

there have been a few strange hot days that got up to about 68.


id hope the cooling continues, it can re balance things.

[Memphis Slim]

I find it "astounding" that there is a "consensus" that the world is becoming too warm, yet there is somehow no "consensus" as to how warm we should actually be. If we can not identify the target, how can we know we have passed it?


This may give you an idea as to why some scientists jumped on board this good ship lollipop....

Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007

Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions. :shock


Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
advertisement

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.
“I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a “religion”, forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
“Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”


This is nuts!!

[Carcharodon]

just thinking about it this winter has been one of the coldest long island has had, some nights its almost unbearable to go outside, its been in its 20-30's since december.

there have been a few strange hot days that got up to about 68.


id hope the cooling continues, it can re balance things.Well, I'm not really convinced that the trend isn't reversible. There's a lot of doomsday scenario stuff going around, but I'm not sure about all that.

Should we reduce emissions? Yes. And hell, if we ARE scheduled to be on a cooling trend right now, at least that would buy some time for the atmospheric carbon to dissipate a bit and for us to get our act together.

[Tron5000]

You're basically just being combative. It is obvious that to attempt to discuss this with you is pointless, so keep believing what you want. As I said previously, the information is out there, and I won't spoon-feed it to you. You're free to attempt to search for this readily-available data whenever you like. I won't waste any more of my time.

And stop calling me "dude."

[Carcharodon]

This may give you an idea as to why some scientists jumped on board this good ship lollipop....

Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007

Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions. :shock


Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
advertisement

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.
“I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a “religion”, forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
“Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”


This is nuts!!You finally post something that I agree with. :up:

[Carcharodon]

You're basically just being combative. It is obvious that to attempt to discuss this with you is pointless, so keep believing what you want. As I said previously, the information is out there, and I won't spoon-feed it to you. You're free to attempt to search for this readily-available data whenever you like. I won't waste any more of my time.

And stop calling me "dude."Dude? :huh:

I'm being combative by asking you to provide these sources you keep shooting off about? So far all you've given me are conservative websites. I addressed your last post with a completely logical argument, nearly point-by-point.

It's cool if you're tired of the debate and don't want to continue, I certainly can't fault you for that. I really was enjoying this, though. Despite what you believe, I did look at your sources and learned a couple things (or, at least, expanded my view a bit).

I like debating. I'm not going to apologize for that. See you later, I guess. :up:

[Tron5000]

I provided sources. Several of them. However, I've seen none from you.

Like I said, I'm not going to keep providing someone with answers when they have to desire to search for them on their own. The truth is out there.

But here's a couple I'd like to end with:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

'There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

"The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is 'unusual' using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is 'unusual' by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous 'hockey–stick' temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited."


http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

"Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: I think we're going to drown in our own muck.'

"Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: 'Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories.'

"According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

"According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. 'As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age,' remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

"Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, 'When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years.'

"But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"'Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation,' says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, 'with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable.'

"Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

"What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

"Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth."


And one last point...meteorologists can not even accurately predict the weather in a very small area a week in advance. Just how are we supposed to believe someone when they feed us stories of doom-and-gloom a hundred years from now?

[Danalys]

I provided sources. Several of them. However, I've seen none from you.

Like I said, I'm not going to keep providing someone with answers when they have to desire to search for them on their own. The truth is out there.

But here's a couple I'd like to end with:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

'There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.
yes normally CO2 increase comes after temperature rise. but obviously human emisions don't follow that pattern. we don't think oh hey it's warm better burn more carbon. infact the opposite is true. now what matters is if CO2 and water vapour are in a self pepetuating cycle. an increase in one causes and increase in the other and visa versa, up until a tipping point where things cool again. his claims about what climate models are taking into account and what they should be able to predict i'm just gonna call bollocks.
"The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is 'unusual' using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is 'unusual' by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous 'hockey–stick' temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited."
yes global dimming. polution can factor into this aswell. airplanes have a habit of leaving vapor trails that have the same effects as clouds.and no the hockey stick graph has not been discredited as much as some would like and hope to believe.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

"Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: I think we're going to drown in our own muck.'

"Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: 'Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories.'

i don't really care what environmentalists think. many scientists may be against them, but i can't think of a word that really shows the gulf in amount between those many and those that disagree with them. classic spin this by the way, many scientists vs environmetalists, what a joke to even bring it up.

"According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

"According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. 'As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age,' remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

"Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, 'When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years.'

"But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"'Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation,' says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, 'with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable.'

"Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

"What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

"Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth."


And one last point...meteorologists can not even accurately predict the weather in a very small area a week in advance. Just how are we supposed to believe someone when they feed us stories of doom-and-gloom a hundred years from now?

it's much simpler to predict long time scale change. think of it like predicting the amounts of coin tosses over 100 throws. you'll be far more accurate than if you were predicting for 5 throws because the probabilities are stronger factors over larger time periods.

[Carcharodon]

I provided sources. Several of them. However, I've seen none from you.

Like I said, I'm not going to keep providing someone with answers when they have to desire to search for them on their own. The truth is out there.

But here's a couple I'd like to end with:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

'There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

"The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is 'unusual' using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is 'unusual' by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous 'hockey–stick' temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited."


http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

"Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: I think we're going to drown in our own muck.'

"Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: 'Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories.'

"According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

"According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. 'As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age,' remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

"Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, 'When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years.'

"But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"'Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation,' says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, 'with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable.'

"Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

"What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

"Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth."


And one last point...meteorologists can not even accurately predict the weather in a very small area a week in advance. Just how are we supposed to believe someone when they feed us stories of doom-and-gloom a hundred years from now?See, THAT'S what I'm talking about, dude. Thanks.

[Tron5000]

See, THAT'S what I'm talking about, dude. Thanks.

You're very welcome.

[Tron5000]

it's much simpler to predict long time scale change. think of it like predicting the amounts of coin tosses over 100 throws. you'll be far more accurate than if you were predicting for 5 throws because the probabilities are stronger factors over larger time periods.

So you're equating predicting the weather with tossing coins and guessing which side they will land on. Sounds about right.

[Mr Sparkle]

The United States provides more aid, through federal and charitable means, than most other industrialized nations combined. Stop the hate, child.

so, this you will consider as fact, yet global warming is a scam?:o
uh huh.

right.

[Tron5000]

so, this you will consider as fact, yet global warming is a scam?:o
uh huh.

right.

Please, prove me wrong. I love learning new things. Show me that the amount of aid and assistance afforded the rest of the world by the US (federal and charitable) is matched by another CONTINENT.

[Danalys]

So you're equating predicting the weather with tossing coins and guessing which side they will land on. Sounds about right.

they both rely on probabilities so yes coin tosses was a suitable simplification so you could be shown that long term is more accurate that short term, or large scale more accurate then small scale. asimov used this idea as a basis for psychohistory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional)
Asimov used the analogy of a gas: in a gas, the motion of a single molecule is very difficult to predict, but the mass action of the gas can be predicted to a high level of accuracy

[Tron5000]

But is the data that is used to extrapolate these probabilities correct/consistent? Not in many of the instances I have seen.

I'm glad this can be kept to a (somewhat) civil debate. These discussions often venture into other territory.

[Danalys]

hell you can doubt the models all you want just don't doubt them because "they can't even predict tommorows weather."

when it comes to climate change there are varying competing models. good thing about science it that since they are competing they will try to find problems or inaccuracies in other models. altho at the moment the vast majority of debate is not if global warming is the current long term trend or not, since they've been there done that. the debate is about just how bad are things going to be.

[Tron5000]

See, the problem I have is that I believe that there are many scientists who are not attempting to prove or disprove other models. I think there are a great number of scientists who are interested only in securing their funding, or their stature (tenure), or their place as a contributor to a prestigious journal. I believe that many scientists ignore readily-available data (which contradicts their positions) in deference to data that fits their models, thus perpetuating a cycle of falsehoods and deception. I also believe that there is a significant lack of testing and verification (the bases of the scientific theory) where the issue of 'global warming,' or 'climate change,' is concerned.

[Tron5000]

hell you can doubt the models all you want just don't doubt them because "they can't even predict tommorows weather."

when it comes to climate change there are varying competing models. good thing about science it that since they are competing they will try to find problems or inaccuracies in other models. altho at the moment the vast majority of debate is not if global warming is the current long term trend or not, since they've been there done that. the debate is about just how bad are things going to be.



I take exception. There is a large number, a growing community, of experts who say that such is not the case. You may not hear from them in the mainstream media, but they are out there, and their number is rapidly increasing.

[CARNAGE-COMETH]

Negative Nellies

[Danalys]

I take exception. There is a large number, a growing community, of experts who say that such is not the case. You may not hear from them in the mainstream media, but they are out there, and their number is rapidly increasing.

quite frankly i just don't believe that. shame there's not something like project steve but for global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

[Danalys]

See, the problem I have is that I believe that there are many scientists who are not attempting to prove or disprove other models. I think there are a great number of scientists who are interested only in securing their funding, or their stature (tenure), or their place as a contributor to a prestigious journal. I believe that many scientists ignore readily-available data (which contradicts their positions) in deference to data that fits their models, thus perpetuating a cycle of falsehoods and deception. I also believe that there is a significant lack of testing and verification (the bases of the scientific theory) where the issue of 'global warming,' or 'climate change,' is concerned.

oh i see when they agree with you they are doing their job right, when they don't they aren't.

[Tron5000]

quite frankly i just don't believe that. shame there's not something like project steve but for global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

If you don't believe that, you are either choosing not to or you are not familiar with outlets that present you with their stories. The information is out there. It is readily accessible. And if you don't believe it, you either a) think that I'm lying, or b) think that such information is not out there.

I won't attempt to try to prove to you that I'm not lying. If that's what you think, I have neither the time nor inclination to fight the battle. If you believe, however, that this information is not out there because it is untrue, I invite you to look into it.

I got involved in this thread against my better judgment, knowing that the 'climate change' debate can become very heated (pardon the pun).

But I'll tell you this: I was once a very big proponent of the idea that human beings were causing the earth to heat up and causing weather patterns to change. Until, that is, I began to do some research. I realized that the mechanisms of this planet operate far beyond our understanding, and therefore far beyond our control.

[Tron5000]

oh i see when they agree with you they are doing their job right, when they don't they aren't.

That was in no way reflective of the post which you quoted. So since this has been twisted into something that it is not, I will cease this discussion and simply allow you to believe that I am a moron. Easier for both of us.

[CARNAGE-COMETH]

What if a giant Meteor hits the Earth and causes global extinction before global warming even has a chance to kill us all?

[Danalys]

no i think you are simply misinformed.

[Tron5000]

What if a giant Meteor hits the Earth and causes global extinction before global warming even has a chance to kill us all?

Global warming won't be the death of us. Just wait till the super-volcano under Yellowstone erupts. Hope you have a bunker where you can hide out for 3-4 years.

[Memphis Slim]

What if a giant Meteor hits the Earth and causes global extinction before global warming even has a chance to kill us all?


I've found a new world with a red sun. If I build a rocket ship, I can place my son in it and send him there just in time!

[CARNAGE-COMETH]

Sorry Slim but I just found out that world your talking about is going to get hit with super global warming soon.

possibly before earth gets destroyed by polar ice caps melting.

so I think everyone should start praying and get ready to move to heaven. I hear the economy is great there.

[Memphis Slim]

Sorry Slim but I just found out that world your talking about is going to get hit with super global warming soon.

possibly before earth gets destroyed by polar ice caps melting.

so I think everyone should start praying and get ready to move to heaven. I hear the economy is great there.


The world I'm talking about is a paralell dimension. :applaud

[Hotwire]

Does it really matter if global warming is real or not? Would it be so bad if we still followed cleaner ways of living? Reduce greenhouse gases, reduce our additcion to oil, use more energy efficient products? Would any of use treat our own homes the way we, as a population, collectively treat the Earth? This is our home, and we only get one. Now, it may not actually be possible to completely ruin the planet, but can sure as hell make it unlivable for humans. The planet will ultimately, be fine. Humans, on the other hand, may not be.

[Mr Sparkle]

Please, prove me wrong. I love learning new things. Show me that the amount of aid and assistance afforded the rest of the world by the US (federal and charitable) is matched by another CONTINENT.

no, I'm not saying it's not true ( you did notice that) I'm saying that you believe THAT, yet think that global warming is a hoax.:yay::cwink:

[Mr Sparkle]

That was in no way reflective of the post which you quoted. So since this has been twisted into something that it is not, I will cease this discussion and simply allow you to believe that I am a moron. Easier for both of us.

actually it was reflective of your post. simply based upon the fact that your stance is based upon conjecture.

you even used the word " believe":o

[Memphis Slim]

Does it really matter if global warming is real or not? Would it be so bad if we still followed cleaner ways of living? Reduce greenhouse gases, reduce our additcion to oil, use more energy efficient products? Would any of use treat our own homes the way we, as a population, collectively treat the Earth? This is our home, and we only get one. Now, it may not actually be possible to completely ruin the planet, but can sure as hell make it unlivable for humans. The planet will ultimately, be fine. Humans, on the other hand, may not be.


Classic bait and switch.....if we're found to be wrong, we're still right. :whatever:

We've always tried to find cleaner ways to do things. But don't tell us we're destroying the world when we are not. Don't use fear tactics to get us to adhere to policies your own leader (Gore) won't debate openly!

[Mr Sparkle]

Classic bait and switch.....if we're found to be wrong, we're still right. :whatever:

We've always tried to find cleaner ways to do things. But don't tell us we're destroying the world when we are not. Don't use fear tactics to get us to adhere to policies your own leader (Gore) won't debate openly!

so, if you're found to be wrong you will accept it?
because the data so far, the people involved in it have said that it doesn't actually erase a century of global warming, not pundits or opinion journalists.

the people that collected the data.

so you would do well to acknowledge them.
also, hate to break it to you, but we ARE destroying the planet, I know it's best for you if there's no responsibility, but sadly we are:

http://www.chbr.noaa.gov/categories/stressors/images/pollution_sm.jpg

http://www.freefoto.com/images/13/08/13_08_3---Industry-Liquid-Pollution_web.jpg

and lastly, why do you still hold on to the notion that Al Gore the guy you hate so much, is the " leader" it's really weird, I mean, the weirdest thing is that he is not the one putting the science out there, it's the SCIENTISTS that are responsible for the research that SHOULD debate.
simple.
regardless of Gore was dead tomorrow, the idea, the research and the situation would still be there regardless of your particular hate for Gore.

[Mr Sparkle]

oh, and who would Gore debate if he agreed to?
a politician or a scientist?

[jaguarr]

Classic bait and switch.....if we're found to be wrong, we're still right. :whatever:

We've always tried to find cleaner ways to do things. But don't tell us we're destroying the world when we are not. Don't use fear tactics to get us to adhere to policies your own leader (Gore) won't debate openly!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/jaguarr/shh/robocop.gif

jag

[Tron5000]

Does it really matter if global warming is real or not? Would it be so bad if we still followed cleaner ways of living? Reduce greenhouse gases, reduce our additcion to oil, use more energy efficient products? Would any of use treat our own homes the way we, as a population, collectively treat the Earth? This is our home, and we only get one. Now, it may not actually be possible to completely ruin the planet, but can sure as hell make it unlivable for humans. The planet will ultimately, be fine. Humans, on the other hand, may not be.

Yes, it matters. It matters greatly, because there are people getting insanely rich off of the fears of the masses. They preach doom and gloom, tell you "you're killing the planet" (while they fly around in private jets and live in homes that use up more than 20X the average US household energy use), and that you can make it better if you "buy carbon offsets" (invest in stocks in their firms).

Should we treat the earth better? Yes, we should. Should we invest in alternative, renewable sources of energy? Absolutely. Are human beings going to cause the very complex weather patterns of this planet to change so much that it means the death of us all? Not bloody likely.

And the whole "what's so wrong with saving the environment?" is so old and overdone that it's sad. That's like someone stealing from one person to give to another. "Well, it may be wrong and illegal, but what's so wrong with wanting to help someone out?"

Nothing wrong with wanting to help someone out. Nothing wrong with wanting to conserve the planet. But don't rob Peter to pay Paul. And don't take my money in your carbon-trading and carbon-offset schemes to make me feel like I'm saving the planet. It's based on faulty science, it's based on demagoguery, it's based on fear. And it's a lie, and these people know it, yet the masses blindly lap it up like so much milk from the teat.

[Tron5000]

no, I'm not saying it's not true ( you did notice that) I'm saying that you believe THAT, yet think that global warming is a hoax.:yay::cwink:

So, you basically can't show me why I shouldn't believe it. I believe it because it's a fact. You may think I'm incorrect, but I know I'm right. And I know that you can't disprove me, because the data is not there. Fact vs ideology...I'll take fact, thank you very much.

[Mr Sparkle]

So, you basically can't show me why I shouldn't believe it. I believe it because it's a fact. You may think I'm incorrect, but I know I'm right. And I know that you can't disprove me, because the data is not there. Fact vs ideology...I'll take fact, thank you very much.

hahahahaha

See, the problem I have is that I believe that there are many scientists who are not attempting to prove or disprove other models. I think there are a great number of scientists who are interested only in securing their funding, or their stature (tenure), or their place as a contributor to a prestigious journal. I believe that many scientists ignore readily-available data (which contradicts their positions) in deference to data that fits their models, thus perpetuating a cycle of falsehoods and deception. I also believe that there is a significant lack of testing and verification (the bases of the scientific theory) where the issue of 'global warming,' or 'climate change,' is concerned.

fact vs. ideology indeed.:cwink:

[Tron5000]

hahahahaha



fact vs. ideology indeed.:cwink:

At least I'm presenting my side as I see it. You're presenting things as fact whe n they are not. Oh, it's nice that you showed some pictures. That's all fine and good. But show me the actual data that proves that mankind is contributing to global warming...er, I mean, climate change...whoops, I mean, whatever you guys are calling it these days.

The data doesn't exist. The world warms, it cools. It has done so since long before we were here and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

One super-eruption of a volcano would put more pollutants into the atmosphere than we humans could in several years. We're very arrogant to believe that we have altered the weather patterns of this globe, and even more arrogant (or ignorant) if we believe that we can alter them to find the perfect balance. What, pray tell, is the perfect balance? If the world is warming or cooling too much, what's our goal? With all the caps on carbon emissions, what are we trying to accomplish? What is that magic temperature or perfect stabilization of weather patterns for which we are aiming?

[Ol'Canucklehead]

All I know is that its been hotter here in Texas than I have ever felt itbefore, and I've lived here all my life.

[Tron5000]

hahahahaha



fact vs. ideology indeed.:cwink:




You know good and well that I was referencing the previous discussion about whether or not the US provides more aid and assistance to "developing" nations than most other world powers combined. But that was cute, how you tried to use quotes from me on the topic of global warming to attempt to combat my US aid comments. Keep trying, though. Nice try.

[Ol'Canucklehead]

Sarcasim FTW!


Lol, why is it when people argue here it always boils down to sarcasim or anger, I mean for god sake half of you are adults...right?

[Zen]

You know good and well that I was referencing the previous discussion about whether or not the US provides more aid and assistance to "developing" nations than most other world powers combined. But that was cute, how you tried to use quotes from me on the topic of global warming to attempt to combat my US aid comments. Keep trying, though. Nice try.

careful with that stuff man, theres alot of evidence out there for political upheavel, resource and labor theft, polution and general malfeasance which may justify all that economic aid we send out...

some say it isnt enough

i know, i know

they're fricken crazy.

:hoboj:

[Mr Sparkle]

At least I'm presenting my side as I see it. You're presenting things as fact whe n they are not. Oh, it's nice that you showed some pictures. That's all fine and good. But show me the actual data that proves that mankind is contributing to global warming...er, I mean, climate change...whoops, I mean, whatever you guys are calling it these days.

hahahaha " you guys"? who's "we" guys? the pictures by the way, illustrate POLLUTION as I was answering to Celldog's " we're not destroying the planet" post.
but I find it interesting that you say "I'm presenting my side as I see it"
the other said has been presented to you and your answer so far?

BELIEF.

purely belief, nothing else, no cold hard facts, basically you say that there's lack of scientific backing to your side because....and then you enter the realm of make believe.
see, I could " believe " the evil reptilian overlords are manipulating people like you into disregarding the impact of humanity on it's environment
( already a proven fact with cfc's but people have really short memories)
but, see there's no way you can " prove me wrong" as it is a " belief" of mine.
however, just for clarity I don't choose to believe that, I find it really implausible.



The data doesn't exist. The world warms, it cools. It has done so since long before we were here and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

actually the date DOES exist, there's charts and graphs and all sorts of neat things not based on belief, and guess what?
while not THE leading cause in the changes it is nonetheless a factor, not even a small factor, but a factor.
why you don't know about this? who knows, maybe you should stop reading " what really happened" long enough to go read scientific american once in a while.


One super-eruption of a volcano would put more pollutants into the atmosphere than we humans could in several years. We're very arrogant to believe that we have altered the weather patterns of this globe, and even more arrogant (or ignorant) if we believe that we can alter them to find the perfect balance. What, pray tell, is the perfect balance? If the world is warming or cooling too much, what's our goal? With all the caps on carbon emissions, what are we trying to accomplish? What is that magic temperature or perfect stabilization of weather patterns for which we are aiming?

well, I believe the arrogant and stupid course of action would be to try and pretend that there is no adverse effects on the environment from the many alterations industry makes upon the earth.
I notice that you want to change gears all of a sudden into the realm of the "perfect balance" but hey, we're not talking about that right?
we're talking about whether or not man has nay impact on the environment.
and let me tell you, man can change the temperature and weather systems in cities right? it's a proven fact that weather systems change when an area is not populated to when it supports a city, much less a big city.
how many cities across the globe? how many big cities? how many mega-cities?
I'm sure NO impact on a global scale is possible.
quite sure.:whatever:

You know good and well that I was referencing the previous discussion about whether or not the US provides more aid and assistance to "developing" nations than most other world powers combined. But that was cute, how you tried to use quotes from me on the topic of global warming to attempt to combat my US aid comments. Keep trying, though. Nice try.

I find it cute that you completely missed the point I was trying to make.
you referenced a global hoax when referring to global warming, ie, people in power trying to mislead us.
yet, when it comes to information on aid and charitable actions, all of a sudden people in power can't lie.
I can see how you would think this was a "nice try", seeing as how you're not big on the whole " perception" part of this deal.
but let me assure you, it wasn't a try, from your response it was a resounding success.:cwink:

[Tron5000]

well, I believe the arrogant and stupid course of action would be to try and pretend that there is no adverse effects on the environment from the many alterations industry makes upon the earth.

It's quite humorous that I have posted, several times, that mankind is hurting the environment and that we should acknowledge that and make changes in our behavior. Your above statement is obviously in reference to someone else, so I don't see how such a statement is relevant in this discussion. So if you're trying to debate someone that isn't actually here, well, can't help you on that.

I love that you use words like "stupid." Good way to portray your argument in an otherwise mature and civil debate.

[Tron5000]

If you're such a proponent of combating "climate change," what have you, yourself, done about it? Do you walk to work? Have you converted your home to use only renewable sources of energy? Have you purchased your "carbon offsets"?

Actually, don't even answer that. I'm just done with you. You talk in circles, you make things up (about what I've said), and you're trying to debate against a position that has not been presented here. Lost cause, and I won't waste my time.

[Mr Sparkle]

It's quite humorous that I have posted, several times, that mankind is hurting the environment and that we should acknowledge that and make changes in our behavior. Your above statement is obviously in reference to someone else, so I don't see how such a statement is relevant in this discussion. So if you're trying to debate someone that isn't actually here, well, can't help you on that.

I love that you use words like "stupid." Good way to portray your argument in an otherwise mature and civil debate.

well, maybe you'd see the relevance if you had reposted the thing in it's entirety

well, I believe the arrogant and stupid course of action would be to try and pretend that there is no adverse effects on the environment from the many alterations industry makes upon the earth.
I notice that you want to change gears all of a sudden into the realm of the "perfect balance" but hey, we're not talking about that right?
we're talking about whether or not man has nay impact on the environment.
and let me tell you, man can change the temperature and weather systems in cities right? it's a proven fact that weather systems change when an area is not populated to when it supports a city, much less a big city.
how many cities across the globe? how many big cities? how many mega-cities?
I'm sure NO impact on a global scale is possible.
quite sure.:whatever:

I'll let the "mature" comment slide as IT has no bearing on the discussion.

[Mr Sparkle]

If you're such a proponent of combating "climate change," what have you, yourself, done about it? Do you walk to work? Have you converted your home to use only renewable sources of energy? Have you purchased your "carbon offsets"?

oh, I didn't know this was about me.
I thought this was mainly about the impact of man on the environment global warming.
I didn't even see my name in the title.
but hey, don't let the fact that it's immaterial stop you from trying to desperately come up with an argument.

Actually, don't even answer that. I'm just done with you. You talk in circles, you make things up (about what I've said), and you're trying to debate against a position that has not been presented here. Lost cause, and I won't waste my time.

or don't, I see this is kind of a running theme with you, you talk of mature debate, but the minute you're forced to step outside the gospel of your own beliefs and actually defend what you said you're always "done" with people.
your intellectual dishonesty is precious.

[Tron5000]

No. I simply will not debate with someone who intentionally misrepresents my statements in order to attempt to further their own agenda. You have done so several times, and while I attempt to engage in meaningful discussion, you act in a very condescending and disrespectful manner. Not worth my time. Good day to you.

Edit: Not to mention, you present your side of the argument, but have yet to post any actual data or evidence to back it up. It's very easy to speak on a subject, but not so easy to produce data that does not exist. And with that, I bid you adieu.

[Ol'Canucklehead]

No. I simply will not debate with someone who intentionally misrepresents my statements in order to attempt to further their own agenda. You have done so several times, and while I attempt to engage in meaningful discussion, you act in a very condescending and disrespectful manner. Not worth my time. Good day to you.



Have you ever been in a debate before? I took the class for years......THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT!

Not saying you are doing that Sparkle, just that all in all that statement made little sense to me.

[Tron5000]

Have you ever been in a debate before? I took the class for years......THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT!

Not saying you are doing that Sparkle, just that all in all that statement made little sense to me.

So you want me to debate with a liar? This is not a courtroom. There is no judge, no jury. Forget all that noise.

[Mr Sparkle]

No. I simply will not debate with someone who intentionally misrepresents my statements in order to attempt to further their own agenda. You have done so several times, and while I attempt to engage in meaningful discussion, you act in a very condescending and disrespectful manner. Not worth my time. Good day to you.

Edit: Not to mention, you present your side of the argument, but have yet to post any actual data or evidence to back it up. It's very easy to speak on a subject, but not so easy to produce data that does not exist. And with that, I bid you adieu.

well, I can produce the same sort of data you did " hey...I BELIEVE that global warming is affected by man, because I THINK that changes in the natural environment have effects on that environment's weather patterns"

wow. that was easy.

also, what's my " agenda"?...haha, don't be a freak.

[Mr Sparkle]

So you want me to debate with a liar? This is not a courtroom. There is no judge, no jury. Forget all that noise.

can you produce evidence that I have lied?

[Tron5000]

well, I can produce the same sort of data you did " hey...I BELIEVE that global warming is affected by man, because I THINK that changes in the natural environment have effects on that environment's weather patterns"

wow. that was easy.

also, what's my " agenda"?...haha, don't be a freak.

So you resort to name-calling. You know, I really wish I could keep up this meaningful dialogue. And I have posted references to back up MY POSITION several times in this thread. But I won't let you keep baiting me here. Once people start using words like "stupid" and "freak," the respect and civility has definitely evaporated. Have a good one.

[Mr Sparkle]

So you resort to name-calling. You know, I really wish I could keep up this meaningful dialogue. And I have posted references to back up MY POSITION several times in this thread. But I won't let you keep baiting me here. Once people start using words like "stupid" and "freak," the respect and civility has definitely evaporated. Have a good one.

hmmm, so you call me a liar, I ask you to say how I lied and you remain silent.
you say I have an agenda to further at your expense, I ask you what this agenda is and you get indignant and say you're "done" like you're the queen of england.

please.:whatever:
you're " done " because you're out of your depth, that's all, don't manufacture some reason to part, you simply know you have no leg to stand on.

on your way then.

[Memphis Slim]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/jaguarr/shh/robocop.gif

jag

That's Al Gore after he lost to George Bush........ :applaud Nice!

[Carcharodon]

That's Al Gore after he lost to George Bush........ :applaud Nice!That's how I'd react after winning the popular vote only to lose the election. :o

Losing to George Bush at anything is truly embarassing, though. It's like losing a game of rock-paper-scissors to a carrot.

[Superhobo]

That's how I'd react after winning the popular vote only to lose the election. :o

Losing to George Bush at anything is truly embarassing, though. It's like losing a game of rock-paper-scissors to a carrot.

:lmao: :applaud

[jaguarr]

That's Al Gore after he lost to George Bush........ :applaud Nice!

That's how I'd react after winning the popular vote only to lose the election. :o

Losing to George Bush at anything is truly embarassing, though. It's like losing a game of rock-paper-scissors to a carrot.


:lmao: :up:

jag

[SuperMonkey]

So it's natural for within the matter of only TWENTY minutes for the weather to go:

Rain, Snow Storm, Beautiful, Rain, Fog, Snow Storm, Beautiful, Snow Storm, Rain, Nothing.

?care to explain how that would be caused by warming? :yay:

[Carcharodon]

care to explain how that would be caused by warming? :yay:I don't think that particular pattern could be explained via warning. The point, however indirect it may have been, is that rapid warming (rapid on a geologic scale) would likely lead to highly irregular and potentially severe weather patterns.

The primary source of power for weather systems (hurricanes, for example) actually comes from heat energy from evaporated water...notably, from our oceans. The reason for regularity in global weather systems comes from the relative stability of the energy absorbed/released via those water systems. This, in turn, stems from certain molecular properties of water (i.e., hydrogen bonding and the resultant high heat capacity).

Even with water's high heat capacity, enough added heat energy will cause a massive influx of energy to said weather systems, and then we could see some strange patterns pretty easily.

Hell, the El Nino phenomenon is the result of anomalous pockets of warm water. It's the engine that drives these things, as we understand them. In addition to these strange patters, we could even see a pretty large shift in the distribution of common weather types. Areas that commonly suffer from drought could see nearly unprecedented rainfall (flooding), and areas that are commonly temperate with high precipitation could see droughts.

I'm no meteorologist or climatologist, but with a basic grasp of these mechanisms people could see pretty easily the potential problems (not to mention instability) this can cause for us.

[Lighthouse]

I'm starting to understand why environmentalists are trying to call it climate change now. I can't tell you how many times I've heard from people who think global warming is BS because we recently had a really cold winter. It always makes me sad for their stupidity.

[chaseter]

^Indeed

[chaseter]

I personally cannot wait for the polar ice caps to melt, flood the low lying islands like the Maldeves, cause an increase in tropical storms, allow for tropical diseases to move further North, and for the severity of storms to increase like tornados and flash floods. Global Warming is such a stupid thing to call it...like us common folk can understand that crap.:whatever: :o

[Carcharodon]

I personally cannot wait for the polar ice caps to melt, flood the low lying islands like the Maldeves, cause an increase in tropical storms, allow for tropical diseases to move further North, and for the severity of storms to increase like tornados and flash floods. Global Warming is such a stupid thing to call it...like us common folk can understand that crap.:whatever: :oI'm guilty of that myself from time to time. It's just a buzz-word that both sides have latched on to. They can argue semantics all they want, it's pretty futile.

[chaseter]

I'm guilty of that myself from time to time. It's just a buzz-word that both sides have latched on to. They can argue semantics all they want, it's pretty futile.
I was being sarcastic...the Earth is warming on a global scale. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps the sun's heat radiation instead of allowing it to diffuse back out into space. Therfore, the globe is literally warming. People are idiots IMO that think global warming is a myth:o

[Carcharodon]

I was being sarcastic...the Earth is warming on a global scale. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps the sun's heat radiation instead of allowing it to diffuse back out into space. Therfore, the globe is literally warming. People are idiots IMO that think global warming is a myth:oWell, there's certainly nothing wrong with skepticism. It's encouraged among the scientific community. There's an extreme difference between skepticism and denial, however.

People are scared of the economic change this would entail for us, for us to adjust to clean energy. I honestly believe that's the basis for the current atmosphere of denial. There are people who have an invested interest in it being false, and their agenda is fairly transparent.

That's not to say that the climate change theory advocates (Gore, for example) don't have agendas at all, though.

[Lighthouse]

That's not to say that the climate change theory advocates (Gore, for example) don't have agendas at all, though.

Thats the big problem though. The agenda doesn't make the statement any less true. I remember when right-wingers pointed to Gore's use of electricity and flying airplanes with tons of gas. All I could think was "How does that change anything about the perception of global warming?" It doesn't. Its classic ad hominem.

[Tron5000]

Great article on several prominent scientists who were once believers in man-made global warming, but have reversed their positions based on their own research and experiences.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9469

"Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure, there is a shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose the perceived alarmism of man-made global warming.

"The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics."


Follow the link above to check out the entire article and list.

[Carcharodon]

Thats the big problem though. The agenda doesn't make the statement any less true. I remember when right-wingers pointed to Gore's use of electricity and flying airplanes with tons of gas. All I could think was "How does that change anything about the perception of global warming?" It doesn't. Its classic ad hominem.Agreed, I was just trying to be balanced in my observation. The thing is, though, there is a lot of hype surrounding climate change. I wouldn't put it past somebody invested in the idea to hype it up a bit.

Gore's film was found to have more than a few inaccuracies, not to mention a few exaggerations. That's my entire point, really. Listening to these people on either side is a bad idea, especially if they're your sole source of information on the subject.

There's his message, there's their message, and somewhere in-between is the truth.

[Danalys]

There's his message, there's their message, and somewhere in-between is the truth.

that's a fairly commen logical falacy. you were doing so brilliantly aswell.

[Carcharodon]

that's a fairly commen logical falacy. you were doing so brilliantly aswell.Oh, so there weren't exaggerations and inaccuracies in Gore's flim? There weren't overstatements?

I just happen to think that there are people heavily invested in both sides of what should be a debate among scientists. I'm of the opinion that the truth can always be skewed in that situation.

I think global warming is very real. Don't get me wrong. I'm simply a (universal) skepticist.

[Mr Sparkle]

I think global warming is very real. Don't get me wrong. I'm simply a (universal) skepticist.

but, why is it important what Gore says anyway?
wasn't global warming an issue before him?
and the people that are convinced it's a " hoax" they will be convinced reagrdless of scientific evidence, because it's not about evidence, it's about
"belief" for them, like religion.

what's the point either way.

I remember when I watched " The Queen" and all the people were insisting that they " lower the flag" for the death of princess Diana,
when it was not a flag, and it had never been at half mast.
it's kind of the same deal here.

[Carcharodon]

but, why is it important what Gore says anyway?
wasn't global warming an issue before him?
My point exactly.

[Metamorpho1977]

I'm telling you, the arctic isn't melting. It's all the polar bears licking the salt off the glaciers.

[Carcharodon]

I'm telling you, the arctic isn't melting. It's all the polar bears licking the salt off the glaciers.****ing bears, always making it harder on themselves. :cmad:

[Metamorpho1977]

Carcharodon, that avatar is the number one reason why I'll never go into the ocean. I'm terrified of sharks.

[Carcharodon]

Carcharodon, that avatar is the number one reason why I'll never go into the ocean. I'm terrified of sharks.Yeah, getting hit by a two ton, 20-foot fish at 25 mph teeth-first probably wouldn't be too fun.

Then again...

[Memphis Slim]

Mr. Sparkie:
but, why is it important what Gore says anyway?
wasn't global warming an issue before him?
and the people that are convinced it's a " hoax" they will be convinced reagrdless of scientific evidence, because it's not about evidence, it's about
"belief" for them, like religion.



Are you serious?? :funny: Where do you think this hysteria started?? Who just got a Nobel Prize for being an "authority" on this issue?? Who said "the debate is over", when he's never debated anyone? Al B Gore, that's who. Don't try to deminish this guy's role in this craziness. :nono: Warming may have been a small issue among some before Gore. But he's made himself the Kingpin now and made this a major issue. Now our kids are scared that the planet is gonna blow up! :waa:

[Superhobo]

Are you serious?? :funny: Where do you think this hysteria started?? Who just got a Nobel Prize for being an "authority" on this issue?? Who said "the debate is over", when he's never debated anyone? Al B Gore, that's who. Don't try to deminish this guy's role in this craziness. :nono: Warming may have been a small issue among some before Gore. But he's made himself the Kingpin now and made this a major issue. Now our kids are scared that the planet is gonna blow up! :waa:


Holy geez. It was a 'small issue?'

He's a 'kingpin?'

And, wait. Who's telling their kid's that the planet's 'gonna blow up?'

Are YOU serious?

[Danalys]

Oh, so there weren't exaggerations and inaccuracies in Gore's flim? There weren't overstatements?

I just happen to think that there are people heavily invested in both sides of what should be a debate among scientists. I'm of the opinion that the truth can always be skewed in that situation.

I think global warming is very real. Don't get me wrong. I'm simply a (universal) skepticist.

i've never seen it. my point wasn't about it's accuracy or not.

[Carcharodon]

i've never seen it. my point wasn't about it's accuracy or not.Then how can you say my statement was a logical fallacy? That was practically the basis of the statement to begin with. :huh:

[Danalys]

Are you serious?? :funny: Where do you think this hysteria started?? Who just got a Nobel Prize for being an "authority" on this issue?? Who said "the debate is over", when he's never debated anyone? Al B Gore, that's who. Don't try to deminish this guy's role in this craziness. :nono: Warming may have been a small issue among some before Gore. But he's made himself the Kingpin now and made this a major issue. Now our kids are scared that the planet is gonna blow up! :waa:

he got the peace prize for spreading the message not for being an authority. the debate that was over was a debate he was never part of. the only difference gore's made for me is that now i read you bringing up his name every gloabal warming/climate change thread, were as previously i didn't.

[Danalys]

Then how can you say my statement was a logical fallacy? That was practically the basis of the statement to begin with. :huh:

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

[Carcharodon]

Are you serious?? :funny: Where do you think this hysteria started?? Who just got a Nobel Prize for being an "authority" on this issue?? Who said "the debate is over", when he's never debated anyone? Al B Gore, that's who. Don't try to deminish this guy's role in this craziness. :nono: Warming may have been a small issue among some before Gore. But he's made himself the Kingpin now and made this a major issue. Now our kids are scared that the planet is gonna blow up! :waa:Excuse me? You know, if you want to wallow in ignorance, that's fine. Just don't go pointing fingers at the same time.

The fact of the matter is that this was a big deal before Gore came along among the scientific community. The only difference was the politicization and the popularization.

"Small issue among some?" This had been one of the most widely studied phenomenon among environmental scientists long before Gore came around.

[Carcharodon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_groundI'm not saying it applies to every situation, though, like that link implies. I'm speaking of the situation regarding climate change.

You know, the topic this thread is about.

[Carcharodon]

he got the peace prize for spreading the message not for being an authority. the debate that was over was a debate he was never part of. the only difference gore's made for me is that now i read you bringing up his name every gloabal warming/climate change thread, were as previously i didn't.:applaud

[Memphis Slim]

Holy geez. It was a 'small issue?'

He's a 'kingpin?'

And, wait. Who's telling their kid's that the planet's 'gonna blow up?'

Are YOU serious?

Dude...it's tongue-in-cheek....:whatever: geez......
But read this....


Kids Fear Global Warming More Than Terrorism, Car Crashes, and Cancer, According to National Earth Day Survey



National Survey of Middle School Students Shows Kids Believe More Needs to be Done to Save the Planet NEW YORK, April 20 /PRNewswire/ -- While recent polls show thatAmerican adults are most concerned about the war in Iraq, terrorism, andhealthcare, a survey of more than 1,000 middle school students across thecountry found that kids fear global warming more than any of these issues.The survey was conducted by BrainPOP, a New York based educationalprovider. Some of the most intriguing findings from the BrainPOP global warmingsurvey include: --

Nearly 60 percent of children said they feared global warming and environmental disasters-such as hurricanes, tornados and flooding-more than terrorism, car crashes, and even cancer (22.3 percent feared terrorism most; 14.6 percent cancer; 5.9 percent car crashes).


-- Nearly one-third of children reported thinking about global warming a
lot and worrying about how the effects of global warming will change
the planet and directly impact their lives. Another 41.2 percent think
about it sometimes and say that they are somewhat worried.


Good Gravy! :cmad: This guy's got our kids stressed out over this crap! And it's still debatable.

More than terrorism??? Are you kidding me?

Terrorism: Can die from this today.
Global Warming: Might die from this 100 years from today.

[Memphis Slim]

Excuse me? You know, if you want to wallow in ignorance, that's fine. Just don't go pointing fingers at the same time.

The fact of the matter is that this was a big deal before Gore came along among the scientific community. The only difference was the politicization and the popularization.

"Small issue among some?" This had been one of the most widely studied phenomenon among environmental scientists long before Gore came around.


The only people worried about this or even had it on their radar were the environmental nut jobs and Al Gore. This was not front page stuff and you know it. Gore made it vogue. It's cool to be "green". Celebs weren't even on this train until Gore sent it into orbit. Now it's the thing to be.

I expect scientists to be studying this issue anyway. but us regular shmoes didn't know and didn't care.

Now he's got our kids indoctrinated and scared. :cmad:

[Gamma Ray]

My hybrid car has saved us all.

[Memphis Slim]

My hybrid car has saved us all.


We are forever in your debt.:applaud

[dolfan55aj]

I say we just let the world run it's course, I highly doubt we're going to be able to change global weather by buying a hybrid. The whole issue has been blown out of proportion in my opinion.

[Carcharodon]

The only people worried about this or even had it on their radar were the environmental nut jobs and Al Gore. This was not front page stuff and you know it. Gore made it vogue. It's cool to be "green". Celebs weren't even on this train until Gore sent it into orbit. Now it's the thing to be.

I expect scientists to be studying this issue anyway. but us regular shmoes didn't know and didn't care.

Now he's got our kids indoctrinated and scared. :cmad:I agree that it's been hyped, but it should still be a concern. Besides, what's wrong with being, "green?" Seriously?

Is it bad that it's in vogue? What the hell is the harm? I can only think of positive effects of a, "green," shift.

[Memphis Slim]

I agree that it's been hyped, but it should still be a concern. Besides, what's wrong with being, "green?" Seriously?

Is it bad that it's in vogue? What the hell is the harm? I can only think of positive effects of a, "green," shift.

Nothing. Be green if you want. But don't try to make everybody do it if they don't want to. This is where all of this is headed.

And don't scare the kids. I'm all for taking care of the planet. Hey it's my air too. But "Good Gravy"...... stop with the chicken little doomsday scenarios! :shock This planet is doing fine.

[Superhobo]

Nothing. Be green if you want. But don't try to make everybody do it if they don't want to. This is where all of this is headed.

And don't scare the kids. I'm all for taking care of the planet. Hey it's my air too. But "Good Gravy"...... stop with the chicken little doomsday scenarios! :shock This planet is doing fine.

http://www.wcu.edu/WebGraphics/South_Africa_reservoir.jpg

http://www.pollutionissues.com/images/paz_02_img0249.jpg

http://troposat.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/TROPOSAT-1/images/ozone_hole_eskes_2000.gif

http://www.terranature.org/orangeRoughy_Grace.jpg


:dry:

[Hotwire]

It would be very egotistical of anyone to think that humans and their habits are not having an adverse effect on this planet. Even if global warming is not an immediate threat, it is something that our children, and their children (And I know how concerned you are about your liniage, Slim.) will have to deal with. And Slim, you are mostly right, the planet will be fine, it's the human race and a lot of other species that would be in trouble. Once we're gone, the planet would recover.

[Shoemeister]

I've always thought it was a big sham and I still do.

[jaguarr]

It would be very egotistical of anyone to think that humans and their habits are not having an adverse effect on this planet. Even if global warming is not an immediate threat, it is something that our children, and their children (And I know how concerned you are about your liniage, Slim.) will have to deal with. And Slim, you are mostly right, the planet will be fine, it's the human race and a lot of other species that would be in trouble. Once we're gone, the planet would recover.

:up:

jag

[Superhobo]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/458148832_6ef023cdc3.jpg

The following three are actually from the major pollutive cleanup going on in An-effing-arctica -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1605000/images/_1605218_antarctic300.jpg

http://www.diveantarctica.com/photos/pollution/rubbish10.jpg

http://www.aad.gov.au/MediaLibrary/asset/mediaitems/ml_375235938888889_emau%20tip%20papps%20easther.jp g

McMurdo Station, the main research and logistics base for U.S. Antarctic operations, has a summertime population of 2,000. Officials are working to clean up the base, which generates more than a ton of garbage per person every year, and discharges 66,000 gallons of raw sewage into the pristine Ross Sea every day.

Huh.

[Hotwire]

I've always thought it was a big sham and I still do.
When trying to figure out wether someone is lying to you or not, one of the first things to do is ask yourself, "What does this person have to gain from lying?" Now, who would stand to gain more, the envrionmentalists by getting us to go green, or big instustry by loosening regulations?

Oh, and thanks Jag.

[Danalys]

I say we just let the world run it's course, I highly doubt we're going to be able to change global weather by buying a hybrid. The whole issue has been blown out of proportion in my opinion.

hybrids are a bunch of rubbish. they do nothing but change where the polution is produced. they get worse milage over all because they have to lug around 2 engines.

[Memphis Slim]

For every photo of a garbage dump, I can show you a pristine forrest or lake. So stop with the silly photos. Everyone knows that pollution exists.

http://www.tigerwilderness.com.au/cradleimages/Plant%20Wet%20Forrest.JPG
http://www.robinsoncrusoeislandfiji.com/IMAGES/Island.jpg

http://www.segetaway.com/images/TN/PigeonForge/SmokeyMountains.jpg

Yep...we're doing fine..........

[Danalys]

you just know there's a garbage dump just out of frame :p

[Superhobo]

For every photo of a garbage dump, I can show you a pristine forrest or lake. So stop with the silly photos. Everyone knows that pollution exists.

http://www.tigerwilderness.com.au/cradleimages/Plant%20Wet%20Forrest.JPG
http://www.robinsoncrusoeislandfiji.com/IMAGES/Island.jpg

http://www.segetaway.com/images/TN/PigeonForge/SmokeyMountains.jpg

Yep...we're doing fine..........

You can bold in words all you want, friend. Doesn't change the truth, any. Here's some links, for anyone who'd like to verify my claims.

"Helping Hand for Antarctic Clean-Up," December 2007 (http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ChemScience/Volume/2008/01/Antarctic_clean-up.asp)

Dive Antarctica's section on their efforts from 2006 (http://www.diveantarctica.com/Pollution.html)

The Australian government's own section on it. (http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=3419)

(and here's the site where I got one of the other pics - I got it through Google, so I didn't know what it was before hand, but for verification's sake,)

The Children's News section of BBC World News, doing a story on it dating back to 2001. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_1605000/1605218.stm)

[Warhammer]

I never saw "climate change" as a big deal. I just continue to do what I usually do. Use lights when I need them, drive when I need to, etc. I just do me, and I will continue to do me. Call it apathy. Call it ignorant. Call it what you want, but I'm also not going to be a hypocrite by saying how I worry so much about the situation, but still continue do what is causing the situation in the first place. Everything happens for a reason, and "climate change" is not going to affect my immediate future. I can't change everyone, so why must I bother to seek to do so?

[Obi-Ron]

If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and and make that change. Jam-O.

[Speedball]

http://www.terranature.org/orangeRoughy_Grace.jpg


:dry:
What is that?!

[Superhobo]

What is that?!

The haul-in from a bottom trawling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_trawling) excursion.

:o

[chaseter]

Wow Slim...denial will get you no where.

[Memphis Slim]

Wow Slim...denial will get you no where.

Denial over an issue that is still up for debate? See...this is the kind of mentality that seems so fanatical. There were all kinds of exagerations in Gore's movie. You'd think that would say to the logical mind...."Hey, don't swallow the rest of his information as gospel."

But because it's Al Gore (the wounded hero from the 2000 Election) you guys don't question anything.

I swear...if it was Bush's movie, none of you would be on board.

[Memphis Slim]

http://www.aad.gov.au/MediaLibrary/asset/mediaitems/ml_375235938888889_emau%20tip%20papps%20easther.jp g
http://www.cruiseatlantic.com/visuals/greenland.jpg

:yay:

http://alumnicollege.wlu.edu/alumni_abroad/Alps/AlpsTyrolCover.jpg

[PemLam]

hybrids are a bunch of rubbish. they do nothing but change where the polution is produced. they get worse milage over all because they have to lug around 2 engines.

Almost zero CO2 emissions and nearly double, sometimes triple the mileage of their non-hybrid same size counterparts...and you think they're rubbish? :huh:

It would seem that the exact opposite if they're able to get that kind of mileage and still "lug around 2 engines". :whatever:

[Hotwire]

Denial over an issue that is still up for debate? See...this is the kind of mentality that seems so fanatical. There were all kinds of exagerations in Gore's movie. You'd think that would say to the logical mind...."Hey, don't swallow the rest of his information as gospel."

But because it's Al Gore (the wounded hero from the 2000 Election) you guys don't question anything.

I swear...if it was Bush's movie, none of you would be on board.
The point chaseter was making is that your whole arguement is denial. Global warming isn't real, the planet is fine, etc... I noticed you sidestepped my post, so I'll put it up again. Care to retort?
It would be very egotistical of anyone to think that humans and their habits are not having an adverse effect on this planet. Even if global warming is not an immediate threat, it is something that our children, and their children (And I know how concerned you are about your liniage, Slim.) will have to deal with. And Slim, you are mostly right, the planet will be fine, it's the human race and a lot of other species that would be in trouble. Once we're gone, the planet would recover.

[Knightsaber Priss]

I've been telling people this Global Warming thing is a crock. We get bombarded with snow up until April where I live. All this talk about the Great Lakes receding? It's nature's way of making room for all this snow. If not all the melt off would be flooding alot of areas at sea level.

[Darthphere]

I swear...if it was Bush's movie, none of you would be on board.

Completely false. For all his faults, most of the free world can see through them and see some of the good things he's done. For example, his work for Africa.

[Tron5000]

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/harrelson2131/Global%20Warming/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif

[Tron5000]

When trying to figure out wether someone is lying to you or not, one of the first things to do is ask yourself, "What does this person have to gain from lying?" Now, who would stand to gain more, the envrionmentalists by getting us to go green, or big instustry by loosening regulations?

Oh, and thanks Jag.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2999.html

"Global Warming shills are now anchoring the biggest finance and control bubble since the dotcom boom in the late 1990's. It's a multi-billion dollar industry based on the absence of a discernible product, a new religion where missionaries in grey suits have laid siege on Wall Street and London's Square Mile.

"To question the faith is forbidden, as the financiers tap government and UN funds in their crusade to profit from producing nothing, a monumental achievement even by capitalist standards.

"When asked about the CO2 gravy train', many followers, NGO workers and emerging bio-fuel tycoons will admit to you, 'don't ask where it's going, just jump on.'

"This new economy, proposed by Carbon God Al Gore and Carbon Money Changer George Soros, is to be administrated and run by hundreds of so called 'Private-Public Partnerships', a reinvented form of government now commonly known by its initials, 'PPP'. Here large multinational corporations, NGO's and subservient governments collude to impose their own agenda on regional populations under the cleverly fabricated banner of 'sustainable development'. As power begins to shift over to these PPP's, important decision making then takes place behind closed doors, with the ultimate goal of generating limitless private profits from public taxation programs- in the case, carbon taxes & premiums on all goods, services and labour. PPP's and NGO's now play hardball to get Congress to spend more and more money on global warming and carbon calculation research, and even pass economically damaging legislation to support this false thesis. These companies same organisations who lobby Congress stand to gain immediate millions, and in some cases, billions from the new legislation.

"The leading mechanism is the amazing 'Cap and Trade' scheme, whereby large corporations can slowly monopolise industrial sectors, gradually pushing out smaller businesses and competitors who cannot afford to meet the draconian anti-competitive measures.At present, the controlling organisation has taken the form of the United Nations, under the direction of the world's Central Banks, now working with elites from the G8 nations to form a global bureaucracy known as the 'World Environmental Organisation'."


...more can be found at the link above

[redmarvel]

Whether or not you believe in Global warming, you need to take a look at the health issues involved if we don't start changing some of our bad habits. Cancer rates are on the rise... why? Do you really want your kids to get cancer because you couldn't be bothered to even try to clean up your act? We need to stop polluting our air so we can breath, we need to stop polluting our water so we can drink it and we need to stop polluting our land so that the pollutants won't get washed into the water and so we can continue to grow things on it.

[Tron5000]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/st308.pdf

"In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its Fourth Assessment Report. The report included predictions of big increases in average world temperatures by 2100, resulting in an increasingly rapid loss of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, a dramatic global sea level rise that would threaten low-lying coastal areas, the spread of tropical diseases, and severe drought and floods.

"These dire predictions are not, however, the result of scientific forecasting; rather, they are the opinions of experts. Expert opinion on climate change has often been wrong.

"Skepticism Among the Scientists. Thus it is not surprising that international surveys of climate scientists from 27 countries in 1996 and 2003 found growing skepticism over the accuracy of climate models. Of more than 1,060 respondents, only 35 percent agreed with the statement, 'Climate models can accurately predict future climates,' whereas 47 percent disagreed.

"Violations of Forecasting Principles. Forty internationally-known experts on forecasting methods and 123 expert reviewers codified evidence from research on forecasting into 140 principles. The empirically-validated principles are available in the Principles of Forecasting handbook and at forecastingprinciples.com. These principles were designed to be applicable to making forecasts about diverse physical, social and economic phenomena, from weather to consumer sales, from the spread of nonnative species to investment strategy, and from decisions in war to egg-hatching rates. They were applied to predicting the 2004 U.S. presidential election outcome and provided the most accurate forecast of the two-party vote split of any published forecast, and did so well ahead of election day (see polyvote.-com).

"The authors of this study used these forecasting principles to audit the IPCC report. They found that:
Out of the 140 forecasting principles, 127 principles are relevant to the procedures used to arrive at the climate projections in the IPCC report.
Of these 127, the methods described in the report violated 60 principles.
An additional 12 forecasting principles appear to be violated, and there is insufficient information in the report to assess the use of 38."

...much more at the link above

[chaseter]

Denial over an issue that is still up for debate? See...this is the kind of mentality that seems so fanatical. There were all kinds of exagerations in Gore's movie. You'd think that would say to the logical mind...."Hey, don't swallow the rest of his information as gospel."

But because it's Al Gore (the wounded hero from the 2000 Election) you guys don't question anything.

I swear...if it was Bush's movie, none of you would be on board.
Carbon dioxide has increased from .32% to .38% in the last 50 years. That is a fact. The globe is warming because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. What happens when the Earth warms? There is nothing up for debate...it is happening. I also love how you pin things on Al Gore and refute actual science.

[chaseter]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/st308.pdf

"In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its Fourth Assessment Report. The report included predictions of big increases in average world temperatures by 2100, resulting in an increasingly rapid loss of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, a dramatic global sea level rise that would threaten low-lying coastal areas, the spread of tropical diseases, and severe drought and floods.

"These dire predictions are not, however, the result of scientific forecasting; rather, they are the opinions of experts. Expert opinion on climate change has often been wrong.

"Skepticism Among the Scientists. Thus it is not surprising that international surveys of climate scientists from 27 countries in 1996 and 2003 found growing skepticism over the accuracy of climate models. Of more than 1,060 respondents, only 35 percent agreed with the statement, 'Climate models can accurately predict future climates,' whereas 47 percent disagreed.

"Violations of Forecasting Principles. Forty internationally-known experts on forecasting methods and 123 expert reviewers codified evidence from research on forecasting into 140 principles. The empirically-validated principles are available in the Principles of Forecasting handbook and at forecastingprinciples.com. These principles were designed to be applicable to making forecasts about diverse physical, social and economic phenomena, from weather to consumer sales, from the spread of nonnative species to investment strategy, and from decisions in war to egg-hatching rates. They were applied to predicting the 2004 U.S. presidential election outcome and provided the most accurate forecast of the two-party vote split of any published forecast, and did so well ahead of election day (see polyvote.-com).

"The authors of this study used these forecasting principles to audit the IPCC report. They found that:
Out of the 140 forecasting principles, 127 principles are relevant to the procedures used to arrive at the climate projections in the IPCC report.
Of these 127, the methods described in the report violated 60 principles.
An additional 12 forecasting principles appear to be violated, and there is insufficient information in the report to assess the use of 38."

...much more at the link above
That is what we just went over last week in Biology:word:

Of the hundreds of scientists that were working on it, like 2 or 3 didn't agree with the rest so it cannot be called a 'fact'. But I think they know a lot more than CellSlim about our environment.

[Tron5000]

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_17772.shtml

"In 2007, meteorologist Anthony Watts who led a team of researchers revealed that, 'The U.S. National Climate Data Center is in the middle of a scandal. Their global observing network, the heart and soul of surface weather measurement, is a disaster.' It had been discovered that many of the measuring stations were placed in locations such as on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, and even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills!

"In May 2007, Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin dismissed fears of increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere. He called the 'global warming' argument 'absurd.' As to any increase in the Earth’s temperature, he said, 'Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting carbon dioxide in the air.'

"On August 15, 2007, meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, said, 'If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.'"

...more at the link above


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/harrelson2131/image270f.gif

"Just how much of the 'Greenhouse Effect' is caused by human activity?

"It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

"This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

"Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

"Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

"Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

[Tron5000]

That is what we just went over last week in Biology:word:

Of the hundreds of scientists that were working on it, like 2 or 3 didn't agree with the rest so it cannot be called a 'fact'. But I think they know a lot more than CellSlim about our environment.

That is patently false. There are several scientists who not only disagree with it, but blatantly refute it.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."

"This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were 'futile.' (LINK)

"Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a 'consensus' of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. 'I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.'”


...more at the link above

[chaseter]

That is patently false. There are several scientists who not only disagree with it, but blatantly refute it.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."
I was talking about it happening, not it being mad made. It being man made is still a huge debate. But the majority of science accepts that it is happening.

[Superhobo]

http://www.aad.gov.au/MediaLibrary/asset/mediaitems/ml_375235938888889_emau%20tip%20papps%20easther.jp g
http://www.cruiseatlantic.com/visuals/greenland.jpg

:yay:

http://alumnicollege.wlu.edu/alumni_abroad/Alps/AlpsTyrolCover.jpg

Neither of those are even the same continent as the original pic. Good job. :up:

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

Let the good times roll on! :tossesaerosolcaninthefire:

[Memphis Slim]

Originally Posted by Mal'Akai
It would be very egotistical of anyone to think that humans and their habits are not having an adverse effect on this planet. Even if global warming is not an immediate threat, it is something that our children, and their children (And I know how concerned you are about your liniage, Slim.) will have to deal with. And Slim, you are mostly right, the planet will be fine, it's the human race and a lot of other species that would be in trouble. Once we're gone, the planet would recover.




I side step any comments I deem not worth addressing. Like that one. :whatever: This earth will always have good spots and bad spots. Those photos just prove how big this planet is. Man is not destroying the planet. You give man too much credit. You under estimate the power and resiliency of this earth.

My children will be fine....as long as they don't listen you Gore-danians. :cwink:

[Arc-Light]

I side step any comments I deem not worth addressing. Like that one. :whatever: This earth will alwyas have good spots and bad spots. Those photos just prove how big this planet is. Man is not destroying the planet. You give man too much credit. You under estimate the power and resiliency of this earth.

My children will be fine....as long as they don't listen you Gore-danians. :cwink:

Oh please dont breed.....plz.

[Memphis Slim]

Neither of those are even the same continent as the original pic. Good job. :up:



Not suppose to be. That was was my whole point. This planet is much more powerful than we are and much bigger than we think. There are polluted places and pristine places.

[Carcharodon]

Not suppose to be. That was was my whole point. This planet is powerful than we are and much bigger than we think.100% agreed! Once we trash one spot, we can just move to another! It's just like Ron White's "Tater Salad," standup routine, right? Party at the Sears Tower. Oh, this floor's trashed! Move up, people, next floor!

Jesus, these crazy commie environmentalists. It's like they think that there are actually global systems in place that mean the products of our activities are communicable to other areas of the planet. What idiots!

Atmospheric and oceanic circulation are poppycock! Liberal propoganda!

It's a known fact that everything that gets dumped in the ocean stays right the **** where it is. The pollution we put into the air stays precisely above the spot it was emitted! We planned it that way for a reason. :up:

[Memphis Slim]

100% agreed! Once we trash one spot, we can just move to another! It's just like Ron White's "Tater Salad," standup routine, right? Party at the Sears Tower. Oh, this floor's trashed! Move up, people, next floor!

Jesus, these crazy commie environmentalists. It's like they think that there are actually global systems in place that mean the products of our activities are communicable to other areas of the planet. What idiots!

Atmospheric and oceanic circulation are poppycock! Liberal propoganda!

It's a known fact that everything that gets dumped in the ocean stays right the **** where it is. The pollution we put into the air stays precisely above the spot it was emitted! We planned it that way for a reason. :up:


I knew you could say it!!! :applaud

[Carcharodon]

I knew you could say it!!! :applaudIt's really depressing that the only time you can agree with me is when I say something that flies completely in the face of all knowledge and logic. :csad:

[kedrell]

I love how the enviro-wacko's(anti-capitalist socialist types) have rigged the game so that no matter whether it seems colder than usual or warmer than usual, it's climate change/global warming. Pretty sneaky. If it's hotter then global warming is in effect(as traditionaly understood) is the cause. If it's colder then it's the whole Day After Tomorrow thing coming to get us. Gee, I wonder if the fact that the sun has entered a period of increased activity might have something to do with it? Hmmm....:whatever:

[Carcharodon]

I love how the enviro-wacko's(anti-capitalist socialist types) have rigged the game so that no matter whether it seems colder than usual or warmer than usual, it's climate change/global warming. Pretty sneaky. If it's hotter then global warming is in effect(as traditionaly understood) is the cause. If it's colder then it's the whole Day After Tomorrow thing coming to get us. Gee, I wonder if the fact that the sun has entered a period of increased activity might have something to do with it? Hmmm....:whatever:It certainly might have something to do with it. It's more than likely that we're facing a combination of factors that are causing a warming trend.

By the way: they started calling it, "climate change," because people who are quite vocal about the subject (yet have not one clue as to the actual science behind the phenomenon) began using anomalous cold weather as some sort of primitive counter-argument.

Basically, they got annoyed by people that don't realize that, despite cold-snaps as of late, the average global temperature has been on the rise.

Actually, that's why I find the recent rapid cooling interesting. We've had a huge drop in temperature (global average) as of late, but I'd bet top dollar that it isn't permanent. Yet again, those people began calling it an, "erasure," of prior warming (something we don't at all know to be the case).

I'm going to keep my eye on that as new data presents itself.

[Memphis Slim]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w

This is great! :applaud

[Hotwire]

I side step any comments I deem not worth addressing. Like that one. :whatever: This earth will always have good spots and bad spots. Those photos just prove how big this planet is. Man is not destroying the planet. You give man too much credit. You under estimate the power and resiliency of this earth.

My children will be fine....as long as they don't listen you Gore-danians. :cwink:
There is one problem with your logic. Humans are breeding faster than they are dying. That means, it's only a matter of time before we move on to other areas. The guy who made the comment about the Sear's Tower. Just move up a floor? There are only so many floors. And it's probably not a good idea to destroy the rungs of a ladder on your way up.

[DeaDheaD]

There is one problem with your logic. Humans are breeding faster than they are dying. That means, it's only a matter of time before we move on to other areas. The guy who made the comment about the Sear's Tower. Just move up a floor? There are only so many floors. And it's probably not a good idea to destroy the rungs of a ladder on your way up.
Thats whay you go in the the elevator...........except for when someone pulls the fire alarm........:(

[Monster]

We're all going to die. :(

[Carcharodon]

The guy who made the comment about the Sear's Tower. Just move up a floor? There are only so many floors. And it's probably not a good idea to destroy the rungs of a ladder on your way up.Whatever, commie. For every picture of pollution you can show me, I can show you a beautiful, serene landscape as though that makes some sort of clever point. :cmad:

By the way: look up the word, "facetious." :up:

[Hotwire]

Whatever, commie. For every picture of pollution you can show me, I can show you a beautiful, serene landscape as though that makes some sort of clever point. :cmad:

By the way: look up the word, "facetious." :up:
Oh, you were joking. Here I thought you agreed with Slim, who seems to be OK with that policy.

[Captain Planet!]

Carcharodon makes the most sense in this thread.

[Carcharodon]

Oh, you were joking. Here I thought you agreed with Slim, who seems to be OK with that policy.I've told Slim about the negative side-effects of our pollution before, excluding climate change. All he could say basically amounted to, "I don't care, so long as I don't have to change or alter my life for the benefit of others."

So whatev.

[Hotwire]

I side step any comments I deem not worth addressing. Like that one. :whatever: This earth will always have good spots and bad spots. Those photos just prove how big this planet is. Man is not destroying the planet. You give man too much credit. You under estimate the power and resiliency of this earth.

My children will be fine....as long as they don't listen you Gore-danians. :cwink:
What about your grandchildren? Remember how you looked at your baby and thought about holding your grandchild? And what about their grandkids? See, if nothing is done, where will they live? Every day those pristine place you post pictures of get fewer and fewer in number. If you can't get your head around that, try a little home experiment. Just trash a room of your house, then another, and so on until they are all destroyed. Then what?

[Tron5000]

http://townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2008/03/04/cool_news_about_global_warming?page=full&comments=true

"NASA says recent satellite images show that the allegedly endangered polar ice cap -- which will melt completely one of these summers and kill off all the polar bears if we don't slash our greedy carbon footprints and revert to the lifestyles of medieval peasants -- has recovered to near normal coverage levels...

..."[N]early 70 percent of the sites [used by NASA to measure US surface temps] fail to meet the government's own standards because they are not 100 feet from a building, are on blazing rooftops, sit next to air-conditioner exhaust fans, etc."


Good article. More at the link above.

[Hotwire]

http://townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2008/03/04/cool_news_about_global_warming?page=full&comments=true

"NASA says recent satellite images show that the allegedly endangered polar ice cap -- which will melt completely one of these summers and kill off all the polar bears if we don't slash our greedy carbon footprints and revert to the lifestyles of medieval peasants -- has recovered to near normal coverage levels...

..."[N]early 70 percent of the sites [used by NASA to measure US surface temps] fail to meet the government's own standards because they are not 100 feet from a building, are on blazing rooftops, sit next to air-conditioner exhaust fans, etc."


Good article. More at the link above.
Well then. I guess we should all go about our normal lives then. No sense trying to clean up the planet with the ice returning and those evil reasearchers doing their tests wrong. I'm sure that the ever expanding human population, which of course leads to more polution, will never have any effect on the planet what so ever. :whatever:

I say again, it would be very egotistical of us to think that we are not having, nor ever will have, any ill effect on our planet.

[Tron5000]

Well then. I guess we should all go about our normal lives then. No sense trying to clean up the planet with the ice returning and those evil reasearchers doing their tests wrong. I'm sure that the ever expanding human population, which of course leads to more polution, will never have any effect on the planet what so ever. :whatever:

I say again, it would be very egotistical of us to think that we are not having, nor ever will have, any ill effect on our planet.

I'm glad that, from your response, you infer that I feel that we are not harming the environment and should do nothing to protect or preserve it. I never stated as such, but thanks for reading so much into things.

Jump to conclusions/messiah complex much?

[sinewave]

haven't read every post in this thread, but hopefully nobody has asked or mentioned this yet. how much effect are the beef and pork industries having on the environment? i've heard that cows are doing more damage to the environment than fossil fuels, due to methane gas levels. wouldn't that fall under the category of humans effecting the environment since we're the ones farming and consuming these animals? yes, i could look this info up, but i'm extremely lazy.

[Hotwire]

I'm glad that, from your response, you infer that I feel that we are not harming the environment and should do nothing to protect or preserve it. I never stated as such, but thanks for reading so much into things.

Jump to conclusions/messiah complex much?
Only when they seem to be pretty obvious. What are your opinions on the issue? Do something, the planet needs our help? Or, do nothing, the planet is fine?

[Tron5000]

Only when they seem to be pretty obvious. What are your opinions on the issue? Do something, the planet needs our help? Or, do nothing, the planet is fine?

My opinions are scattered throughout the entirety of this thread.

There are things that we could and should do to prevent harming the environment and to attempt to preserve and restore parts of it. There are also those preaching doom-and-gloom scenarios above and beyond what is actually the case. These scenarios are often arrived at through incorrect science and models, as well as through outright lies and manipulation of facts. And most of these people who preach from on high look down upon us mere subjects and use our fears against us in order to promote a certain agenda. This agenda is making people very, very wealthy. This agenda is also promoting a global wealth-redistribution scheme.

I can't sum up my beliefs in a simple response. They have been very well laid out in several posts. If you would like deeper insight into my beliefs, I urge you to read these posts. My guess is you have no interest in my actual feelings on the subject.

I also urge you to not jump to conclusions so quickly. My original post to which you responded was simply documenting that the polar ice caps are returning, thicker and colder than before, and that many stations used to measure US surface temperatures did not meet minimum standards. You took that to mean that I thought we were not harming the environment (nor ever would). Perhaps you should respond to what is actually said, rather than responding to a statement that was never made but was, for some reason, inferred by you.

[Carcharodon]

http://townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2008/03/04/cool_news_about_global_warming?page=full&comments=true

"NASA says recent satellite images show that the allegedly endangered polar ice cap -- which will melt completely one of these summers and kill off all the polar bears if we don't slash our greedy carbon footprints and revert to the lifestyles of medieval peasants -- has recovered to near normal coverage levels...

..."[N]early 70 percent of the sites [used by NASA to measure US surface temps] fail to meet the government's own standards because they are not 100 feet from a building, are on blazing rooftops, sit next to air-conditioner exhaust fans, etc."


Good article. More at the link above.Well, this is the logical outcome of the recent global temperature drop. Again, however, it signals no, "erasure," of prior warming.

For now, it's still a wait-and-see scenario. If this is, in fact, simply an anomalous cooling event and if we are still in a general warming trend, then the caps could very well still be in danger.

Too soon to call. =/

[Carcharodon]

haven't read every post in this thread, but hopefully nobody has asked or mentioned this yet. how much effect are the beef and pork industries having on the environment? i've heard that cows are doing more damage to the environment than fossil fuels, due to methane gas levels. wouldn't that fall under the category of humans effecting the environment since we're the ones farming and consuming these animals? yes, i could look this info up, but i'm extremely lazy.The basis for that is methane emission. Methane, it turns out, is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.

However, the methane emissions from the livestock industry produce nowhere near the volume that CO2 emissions currently put out, and the effect of methane in general has, up until recently, been considered negligible.

HOWEVER, there is another major source of methane that has created cause for concern: methane hydrates, which are basically pockets of methane encapsulated in ice. These are one of the major sources of atmospheric methane now, and are causing levels of methane to increase pretty quickly.

I wouldn't say the livestock's contribution is negligible, but it certainly pales in comparison to other physical/geologic contributors.


P.S.: Buffalo is much better for the environment than cows for multiple reasons. It's healthier, too. :up:

[sinewave]

The basis for that is methane emission. Methane, it turns out, is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.

However, the methane emissions from the livestock industry produce nowhere near the volume that CO2 emissions currently put out, and the effect of methane in general has, up until recently, been considered negligible.

HOWEVER, there is another major source of methane that has created cause for concern: methane hydrates, which are basically pockets of methane encapsulated in ice. These are one of the major sources of atmospheric methane now, and are causing levels of methane to increase pretty quickly.

I wouldn't say the livestock's contribution is negligible, but it certainly pales in comparison to other physical/geologic contributors.


P.S.: Buffalo is much better for the environment than cows for multiple reasons. It's healthier, too. :up:

thanks.

[Memphis Slim]

An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore


British Court Ruling on Errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth' Resurrects Global Warming Debate

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/apr_gore_071011_ms.jpg


The verdict couldn't have come at a less convenient time for Al Gore.
One day before Friday's announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors.

The ruling came on a challenge from a UK school official who did not want to show the film to students. High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."
Vote
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/nm_gore1_071012_me.jpg (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/popup?id=3722348) Burton found that screening the film in British secondary schools violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom. But he allowed the film to be shown on the condition that it is accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" views, saying that the film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change.

The claim was originally filed by truck driver Stewart Dimmock, whose two children have not yet seen the film.

"I got finished watching the documentary and felt I had watched a science fiction film," he told ABC News' Joseph J. Simonetti. "The court ruled nine inaccuracies. How many more exist?"
Dimmock criticized the British government's use of the film in schools, saying, "It was about time someone got off their backside and say, 'Oh, you're wrong.'" Yet he admitted, "I'm not an expert on global warming, then or now. I'm just a lorry driver."

The ruling resurrected the heated debate over the film's arguments between Gore's supporters and climate change skeptics.
His spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said that Gore was "deeply gratified that the court upheld the fundamental thesis of the film" and "affirmed it as a valid educational tool."
adsonar_placementId=1280488;adsonar_pid=43749;adso nar_ps=-1;adsonar_zw=165;adsonar_zh=220;adsonar_jv='ads.ad sonar.com';

As for the errors, Kreider said, "Of the thousands of facts, the judge seemingly only took issue with a handful. We've got peer review studies that back up those facts. There were a couple of cases where we feel the film wasn't quoted accurately."

Climate change skeptics felt vindicated by the ruling.

"A lot of people have been criticizing the science in 'An Inconvenient Truth' but they've been dismissed as not credible or put forward by fronts for the oil industry," said Joseph Bast, the president of the Heartland Institute, which has spent more than $700,000 in recent months to place ads challenging Gore to a debate on climate change. "Now we have the British High Court identifying 11 specific errors. Some of the media articles squeezed three of those errors into one."
The British claim was not the first time that the film's use in schools has been criticized. Earlier this year, parents in Federal Way, Wash., complained to the local school board about plans to show the film in schools and eventually pressured it to impose a ban on screenings for two weeks.
Frosty E. Hardison, a computer consultant and evangelical Christian, was outraged when he learned that the film would be shown in his daughter's seventh-grade science class. He sent an e-mail to the school board, declaring, "No, you will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation -- the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet -- for global warming."
Story
Other parents in the community were just as outraged -- that the school board would even consider banning the film.


"The general consensus was that most people were upset for even questioning the issue of climate change as a serious scientific issue," said Chris Carrel, whose daughter's seventh-grade class was planning to see the film. "The superintendent did his review and reported back to the school board that most of the film was scientifically well-supported, but in areas of controversy, in terms of the proper policy response, the teachers needed to present different viewpoints."

Climate change skeptics wish that such a debate would take place. In addition to challenging Gore to a debate with Chris Horner, the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" and a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, some critics have offered $125,000 to anyone who can prove global warming.

"We've received lots of inquiries but no serious entries so far," said Steven J. Milloy, who runs the Web site junkscience.com and started a mutual fund that seeks to counterbalance the work of so-called ethical investment funds.

[Mr Sparkle]

wow, since the film about global warming is wrong, I guess if I find inconsistencies in the passion of the Christ, Christianity is a lie?
also, why focus on the movie soooo much, wonder why Celldog hates Gore enough for him to spend his internet time looking at reasons to hate gore.
maybe it's that deep inside he knows the election was stolen, and that Bush has been the single worst president in a long time.
maybe that's it.

[Hotwire]

My opinions are scattered throughout the entirety of this thread.

There are things that we could and should do to prevent harming the environment and to attempt to preserve and restore parts of it. There are also those preaching doom-and-gloom scenarios above and beyond what is actually the case. These scenarios are often arrived at through incorrect science and models, as well as through outright lies and manipulation of facts. And most of these people who preach from on high look down upon us mere subjects and use our fears against us in order to promote a certain agenda. This agenda is making people very, very wealthy. This agenda is also promoting a global wealth-redistribution scheme.

I can't sum up my beliefs in a simple response. They have been very well laid out in several posts. If you would like deeper insight into my beliefs, I urge you to read these posts. My guess is you have no interest in my actual feelings on the subject.

I also urge you to not jump to conclusions so quickly. My original post to which you responded was simply documenting that the polar ice caps are returning, thicker and colder than before, and that many stations used to measure US surface temperatures did not meet minimum standards. You took that to mean that I thought we were not harming the environment (nor ever would). Perhaps you should respond to what is actually said, rather than responding to a statement that was never made but was, for some reason, inferred by you.
Fair enough.

[Memphis Slim]

wow, since the film about global warming is wrong, I guess if I find inconsistencies in the passion of the Christ, Christianity is a lie?
also, why focus on the movie soooo much, wonder why Celldog hates Gore enough for him to spend his internet time looking at reasons to hate gore.
maybe it's that deep inside he knows the election was stolen, and that Bush has been the single worst president in a long time.
maybe that's it.


You just can't stay on topic, can you? :woot:

[Superhobo]

You just can't stay on topic, can you? :woot:

But he's right, and you know it.

[JaD]

i think this is the first good news i read about global warming....ever

[Memphis Slim]

i think this is the first good news i read about global warming....ever

Yes ...this is great news.

[Hotwire]

Slim,

So, you feel Gore and his crew lied in their movie to get the rest of America behind their cause, correct? They used fear mongering and the doom and gloom tactic to garner support? Is this about right?

[sinewave]

Slim,

So, you feel Gore and his crew lied in their movie to get the rest of America behind their cause, correct? They used fear mongering and the doom and gloom tactic to garner support? Is this about right?

i wonder where this is going? :cwink:

[Darthphere]

Anyone else read this thread title and wish Global Warming would actually kill Memphis Slim?

[Tron5000]

Anyone else read this thread title and wish Global Warming would actually kill Memphis Slim?

That's a bit overboard, don't you think?

And according to many people, it will, eventually. The waters will rise! The land will disappear! We'll have to create a new colony underwater! Oh, the horrors!

[Mr Sparkle]

You just can't stay on topic, can you? :woot:

global warming is the topic.
if global warming was solely supported by Al Gore's film, well then, yes, this would be devastating.
but it's not, and it's not new science.
so, I just can't see the wisdom in destroying a planet and claiming "no big deal, she'll heal!" but, then, I seldom see wisdom in your posts.

[Tron5000]

I'm just hoping some crazy folks don't blow us all up with nuclear weapons. I'm willing to ride this Global Warming thing out.

[Mr Sparkle]

the thing is, we shouldn't ignore the damage we're doing, and the fact that in the long run, we'll probably be unable to "ride things out".

[Hotwire]

the thing is, we shouldn't ignore the damage we're doing, and the fact that in the long run, we'll probably be unable to "ride things out".
QFT

[Tron5000]

the thing is, we shouldn't ignore the damage we're doing, and the fact that in the long run, we'll probably be unable to "ride things out".

I disagree. Human life will cease to exist when we blow ourselves up, or a meteor hits the planet and blocks out the sun (killing plant- and animal-life alike), or the plates will shift and several supervolcanoes will erupt, covering the earth (including the sky) in ash, fire and soot. I see one of these disasters occurring far sooner than humans physically changing the environment to the point where Earth can no longer sustain human life. Just my personal beliefs, but I feel pretty good about that prediction.

[Memphis Slim]

Anyone else read this thread title and wish Global Warming would actually kill Memphis Slim?
:applaud

[Ol'Canucklehead]

I'm sorry Slim but I can't take what you say seriously as it seems that you are trying to take peices of a argument and tie them together to look like proof.

Global warming in and of itself is about the kind of detriment we have had and will have to our planet. The temperature will flux acordingly to the earth trying to stabalize itself. The reason why people like Al Gore are speaking out so loudly is because they understand that one way or another the polutions levels we have created will destroy us in one of several ways,

1. Many contents could be flooded an millions could die because of dramatic changes in the temperature.

2. The weather could become so unpredictable that lack of preperation could cause millions of deaths.

3. We could face another global Ice Age due to the planet attempting to balance itself out.

Just because some of the Ice caps have become cold and thick doesn't disprove years of science, in fact it only helps to show that these kind of dramatic changes are already occuring.

[Hush]

Its cold outside therefore with my deductive reasoning i will make a statement that it is not Globally Warm.

[daniPHANTOM]

The other day I was at school and I was told I was a moron because even though I didn't have an opinion on global warming, I never had a reason not to believe it was "real". But I'm not sure its "normal" for the weather going from 10 degrees to 62 degrees to 22 degrees.

[Ol'Canucklehead]

Its cold outside therefore with my deductive reasoning i will make a statement that it is not Globally Warm.

Lol. :grin:

The other day I was at school and I was told I was a moron because even though I didn't have an opinion on global warming, I never had a reason not to believe it was "real". But I'm not sure its "normal" for the weather going from 10 degrees to 62 degrees to 22 degrees.

That has never been considered normal for any place other than those that go days or months without ever seeing sunlight such as certain places in Alaska and the North and South Poles. Dramatic temperature changes on a regular basis are NOT normal, they are the effect of something else.

[Carcharodon]

Dramatic temperature changes on a regular basis are NOT normal, they are the effect of something else.Actually, deserts are known for this.

...to an extent, however, I'd agree with you.

[Ol'Canucklehead]

Actually, deserts are known for this.

...to an extent, however, I'd agree with you.


Well thats what I'm saying, aside from places that have an obvious Logical and scientific reason for a constant flux, places that have been stable for many years are obviously feeling part of a much larger change.

[daniPHANTOM]

Well. Um. I live in Ohio? lol Not in a desert or in Alaska.

[Carcharodon]

Well. Um. I live in Ohio? lol Not in a desert or in Alaska.I wasn't really trying to make a point, it was just a nitpick.

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

It really doesn't matter. Human kind will never bond together for one cause unless something extremely dramatic happens. Like 10-50% of the population dying off or being threatened of dying off quickly and abruptly.

Major corporations control this world and will as long as money is the ultimate resource and priority to the major modern societies of this planet. It is sad but true, Gas, clothing, food, learning and other major institutions make far too much money for them to really try and make a major push to change things while we are alive.

Not only that but all of these major corporations are in far too many politicians pockets with money donated and favors done for them for any one politician with any real passion about making change to achieve it.

[Tron5000]

The people (and corporations) pushing for "change" stand to make obscene amounts of money by peddling the doom-and-gloom scenarios associated with global warming. Grants, tax breaks, carbon-trading...all making people very, very wealthy.

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

The people (and corporations) pushing for "change" stand to make obscene amounts of money by peddling the doom-and-gloom scenarios associated with global warming. Grants, tax breaks, carbon-trading...all making people very, very wealthy.

I am sure they do, which would be the only reason they would change anything.

[Carcharodon]

The people (and corporations) pushing for "change" stand to make obscene amounts of money by peddling the doom-and-gloom scenarios associated with global warming. Grants, tax breaks, carbon-trading...all making people very, very wealthy.I'm sorry, but so what?

If it turns out that climate change is a legitimate problem that is anthropogenic (even in part), and these people cause a change for the better, who the hell cares that they got rich off of it? Why is that even an issue? Hell, more power to them. :up:

[Tron5000]

I'm sorry, but so what?

If it turns out that climate change is a legitimate problem that is anthropogenic (even in part), and these people cause a change for the better, who the hell cares that they got rich off of it? Why is that even an issue? Hell, more power to them. :up:

I don't care if someone gets rich off of this. People get rich off everything: developing new medicines, selling homes, providing energy...A free market economy thrives only when people are prospering financially.

My issue is (and we don't need to go into my thoughts on AGW...well-documented here) that I believe that this is actually fueling much of the hysteria. I believe this agenda is being set forth because people stand to get very rich off of it, not because of some desire to combat AGW in order to save the planet. I believe that people use incorrect science, faulty models, and end-of-the-world rhetoric to get rich. I think we're all being scammed. That's it.

[Carcharodon]

I don't care if someone gets rich off of this. People get rich off everything: developing new medicines, selling homes, providing energy...A free market economy thrives only when people are prospering financially.

My issue is (and we don't need to go into my thoughts on AGW...well-documented here) that I believe that this is actually fueling much of the hysteria. I believe this agenda is being set forth because people stand to get very rich off of it, not because of some desire to combat AGW in order to save the planet. I believe that people use incorrect science, faulty models, and end-of-the-world rhetoric to get rich. I think we're all being scammed. That's it.While I agree with the idea that there may be some extra hype being thrown in there by people who probably will see financial gains from the whole scenario, I disagree with the notion that somehow that makes the whole thing a scam.

I do see what you're saying, though.

[Tron5000]

While I agree with the idea that there may be some extra hype being thrown in there by people who probably will see financial gains from the whole scenario, I disagree with the notion that somehow that makes the whole thing a scam.

I do see what you're saying, though.

No, that doesn't MEAN it's a scam. That is just my personal belief.

[Carcharodon]

No, that doesn't MEAN it's a scam. That is just my personal belief.Lies. :o