Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Carcharodon]

http://tinyurl.com/y8598lu


It's a theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_pole_shift_hypothesis
http://tinyurl.com/y8598lu

Right, but there's no evidence to suggest an imminent shift. You said:

From my understanding the last ice-age happened at our current poles, so the next one should happen around the equator due to a shift in the axis (which is just one theory of course).

"...so the next one should happen around the equator..."

There's NO reason to believe that. You pulled that straight from your ass. Is that why you were Ass-Man for a while?

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I followed the quote by writing that it was just a theory. Are you so desperate to find a flaw in my arguments that you take part in selective reading/quoting and bring back insults that are two years old? Weak... I'm off to bed, PM me if you want me to continue teaching you some more.

 

[Carcharodon]

I dont know what Mike's Nature Trick is???

Honestly...if you dont know, then you are a fool.

It is a trick...that Mike...used in Nature.

Please tell me you aren't that stupid.

In 2006 Michael Mann (one of the top scientists implicated in this fraud) used a fraudulent "hockey stick" chart to show warming temperatures when the data didn't actually show anything special at all. This happened in Nature Magazine.

The fact that the pro-fraud crowd CANT admit a link between the "trick" and "Mike" is because it is a clear link to fraud.

See, I did not know that (and I REALLY should have....makes perfect sense now). Thanks. Still doesn't disprove ACC.

Oh, and why do I have to prove that people are starving to death in underdeveloped countries? You need proof of this?

No, I need proof that it's the direct result of ACC policies. Christ, use your brain. You're the one that made the claim.

Those same countries are going ballistic over the treaty that is about to be signed in Copenhagen because more of their citizens will die...

Okay, but that does nothing to support your claim that millions have already died as a direct result of ACC policies. Sooooo...make with the sources already.

 

[Carcharodon]

I followed the quote by writing that it was just a theory. Are you so desperate to find a flaw in my arguments that you take part in selective reading/quoting and bring back insults that are two years old? Weak... I'm off to bed, PM me if you want me to continue teaching you some more.

Is the theory that the next ice age will occur around the current equator? Or is the theory that a sudden pole shift will occur sometime in the future?

Show me some type of support that the shift will occur before/during the next ice age. That was your claim, genius.

EDIT: I think I'm being overly-argumentative here, and I'm not sure why. I'm sorry for being kind of a *****e.

 

[Carcharodon]

Still, a lot of people would wind up starving to death. Not a nice way to go, but it would make the population more managable, and hey, no more Canada, so it's win-win.

This is why I love you.

 

[The Battousai]

I dont know what Mike's Nature Trick is???

Honestly...if you dont know, then you are a fool.

It is a trick...that Mike...used in Nature.

Please tell me you aren't that stupid.

In 2006 Michael Mann (one of the top scientists implicated in this fraud) used a fraudulent "hockey stick" chart to show warming temperatures when the data didn't actually show anything special at all. This happened in Nature Magazine.

Nice job misrespresenting the facts - it's a great way to be taken seriously.

All of the data except for that coming from tree-rings were showing an increase. The data that was removed from the graph were the stats from tree-rings that differed from the other data starting around 1960. That data still exists - and should still be investigated to find the source of the inconsistencies - but was simply left out of the graph for reasons of simplicity.

The information:

[YT]P70SlEqX7oY[/YT]

Trenberth's 2009 paper: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf

Mann's 1998 paper: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

The fact that the pro-fraud crowd CANT admit a link between the "trick" and "Mike" is because it is a clear link to fraud.

Nobody's denying a link between Michaek Mann and Mike's Nature Trick unless they have no knowledge of the subject.

Your assessment is based entirely on an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Carcharodon]

Nice.

I'm really out of the loop on this apparently.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Battousi and Carchardon are very intelligent, and they would like everyone to know. And anyone who isn't intelligent as them usually gets beasted.

Well not all the time.

I think we should put emphasis on trying to find new fuels and what not. But really, I don't see why, in the middle of the biggest recession in years, we should still be pumping bare cash into this "global warming/ice age" THEORY.

I haven't looked at all the facts admittedly. But still, I really don't believe mankind, humans, can reverse global warming or even put a sufficient dent in it. Either the damage is already done and/or it is just a natural cycle of the planet.

The ice age/climate shift has happened before when WE WASN'T AROUND. It will happen again. And there is NOTHING we can do about it. You cannot stop mother nature.

 

[katie_girl09]

You realize that we don't only eat crops right? And you also realize that not all of our meat and crops are concentrated in one geographic area, right? As if you're actually challenging me on this subject. You have no chance. Quit now before you get humiliated some more.

You're cute. Outclassed and slightly ******ed, but cute.

Let's take this nice and slow, 'kay?

We currently have a world population that is barely supported by the crop yield we have right now.

A sharp decline in global temperature means less viable land for growing crops. Nobody said that ALL viable land will be rendered useless.

Now, let's do some math. If we are barely able to put out enough food for everybody NOW, and if our global population is GROWING, and there will be even LESS capacity for providing food in the face of an ice age...what is the outcome?

Now here's something a bit more complicated. Put on your thinking cap for this one.

"You realize that we don't only eat crops right?" Yes, I do. I'll assume you're referring to the fact that we also eat meat. Here's a fun fact: if all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million.

It takes FAR MORE food to raise livestock than it takes to feed people.

So good job on that one, sparky.

Anything else?

Whoa! Condescending much? Who knew that a thread with this title would get some people so worked up? To be honest, I saw the title and didn't take it seriously.

 

[BlackLantern]

Carch does make a good point about livestock.. It takes a lot of resources (water, grain, etc) to breed one cow for meat

 

[Heretic]

Nice job misrespresenting the facts - it's a great way to be taken seriously.

All of the data except for that coming from tree-rings were showing an increase. The data that was removed from the graph were the stats from tree-rings that differed from the other data starting around 1960. That data still exists - and should still be investigated to find the source of the inconsistencies - but was simply left out of the graph for reasons of simplicity.

The information:

[YT]P70SlEqX7oY[/YT]

Trenberth's 2009 paper: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf

Mann's 1998 paper: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf





Nobody's denying a link between Michaek Mann and Mike's Nature Trick unless they have no knowledge of the subject.

Your assessment is based entirely on an unsubstantiated claim.

Ah...and that explanation is complete BS.

Mike's nature Trick was actually eliminating a warming period in the Middle Ages, as well as a mini Ice Age that followed. Then all of this fudgery to make the temperatures appear to have never changed was stopped, the proxy data was tossed aside and they forced the numbers to go way up, when in fact they were going down.

The pro-fraud crowd spent weeks trying to convince people that the 'trick" and "Mike" were unrelated...and now they have a BS excuse as to why they arent.

Mike's Nature trick was an outright and proven fraud. Of course, it must be defended because this is about being true to a political party, not any real search for scientific truth. Again, the pro-fraud crowd are supporting and defending the people who threw away data and made up new ones...

Oh, and the latest word is that arrests will soon be made in the UK over the emails saying that "peers are asking to review my work, please delete all files that relate to me" type stuff. I know, i know...the pro fraud crowd believes that there shouldnt be open peer review and that we should give the scientists the freedom to delete any info they want, because their science is so perfect.

 

[Carcharodon]

You sound like a right *****e

I beat you to it:

EDIT: I think I'm being overly-argumentative here, and I'm not sure why. I'm sorry for being kind of a *****e.

 

[Carcharodon]

I know, i know...the pro fraud crowd believes that there shouldnt be open peer review and that we should give the scientists the freedom to delete any info they want, because their science is so perfect.

Okay, Glenn. By the way, neither I nor Batt believe that.

 

[Heretic]

I love that Carcharodon agrees that our food supply is insufficient, yet needs proof that our ethanol policies have taken food away from hungry mouths.

 

[BlackLantern]

ethanol is made from corn, corn that would otherwise be used for foodstuffs.....but hasn't ethanol been put on the back burner since cost is an issue with it??

 

[Carcharodon]

Battousi and Carchardon are very intelligent, and they would like everyone to know. And anyone who isn't intelligent as them usually gets beasted.

Well not all the time.

I think we should put emphasis on trying to find new fuels and what not. But really, I don't see why, in the middle of the biggest recession in years, we should still be pumping bare cash into this "global warming/ice age" THEORY.

I haven't looked at all the facts admittedly. But still, I really don't believe mankind, humans, can reverse global warming or even put a sufficient dent in it. Either the damage is already done and/or it is just a natural cycle of the planet.

The ice age/climate shift has happened before when WE WASN'T AROUND. It will happen again. And there is NOTHING we can do about it. You cannot stop mother nature.

There's a lot of truth here. The problem I have is that we ARE having an impact, even if it isn't one that is affecting climate, that will come back to bite us in the ass. I really hate to get preachy about it, but it's killing me that it's being completely ignored by the media and the public at large: ocean acidification.

Asteroid-Man actually made a good point: LOTS of people rely on the ocean as a source of food. **** with that productivity, and there will be problems. Lots and lots of problems.

 

[Carcharodon]

I love that Carcharodon agrees that our food supply is insufficient, yet needs proof that our ethanol policies have taken food away from hungry mouths.

First, there are technologies well underway that will make corn ethanol obsolete (if it isn't already). You can make ethanol (and pretty much any hydrocarbon fuel) from cellulose, which I've mentioned before and which you probably chose to ignore.

Secondly:

ethanol is made from corn, corn that would otherwise be used for foodstuffs.....but hasn't ethanol been put on the back burner since cost is an issue with it??

This.


Heretic, show me some direct evidence of ethanol production causing millions of deaths. Show me at least some type of numerical correlation that isn't just rampant speculation. It should be easy given the persistence of your claim, yet you haven't shown me a thing to support it.

 

[Metamorpho1977]

Battousi and Carchardon are very intelligent, and they would like everyone to know. And anyone who isn't intelligent as them usually gets beasted.

Well not all the time.

I think we should put emphasis on trying to find new fuels and what not. But really, I don't see why, in the middle of the biggest recession in years, we should still be pumping bare cash into this "global warming/ice age" THEORY.

I haven't looked at all the facts admittedly. But still, I really don't believe mankind, humans, can reverse global warming or even put a sufficient dent in it. Either the damage is already done and/or it is just a natural cycle of the planet.

The ice age/climate shift has happened before when WE WASN'T AROUND. It will happen again. And there is NOTHING we can do about it. You cannot stop mother nature.

I'm just going to move to the new planet when we develop the propulsion and technology to get there.

 

[Carcharodon]

I'm just going to move to the new planet when we develop the propulsion and technology to get there.

There was this really cool idea for a low-energy propulsion system that would last almost indefinitely and generate massive speeds over time. Basically it generates a thrust about equal to the weight of a sheet of paper on earth, but this would still provide constant acceleration and would last for a LOOOOONG time. Since there would really be no opposing forces in space (friction, drag, etc.) you could achieve insane velocities.

 

[Carcharodon]

Whoa! Condescending much? Who knew that a thread with this title would get some people so worked up? To be honest, I saw the title and didn't take it seriously.

Had a lot less to do with the topic than it did with how he worded his post. I still overreacted though. I've admitted that much.

 

[Heretic]

We all admit that corn that could be used for food is being used for an ineffective fuel...

Third world countries are screaming at the tp of their lungs that the plicies are killing their people because there isnt the extra food they need.

Yet you need proof...

But proof isnt even good enough.

Mike Nature Trick was used to hide the decline in temperatures. yet you refuse to believe there was a trick, refuse to believe Mike had any connection to it, refuse to believe there was a decline and refuse to believe that they wanted to hide it. There own words isnt enough proof for you because you, like the scientists who are about to be arrested and have their careers ruined, can ignore what in front of your face in order to keep believing what you politically want to believe.

 

[SuperFerret]

Corn sucks anyway. The world's hungry probably need nutrition more than just a full belly and yellow spotted stool. Just feed half of the world's hungry to the other half, and if there's any leftovers, feed what's left to endangered species like elephants and manatees.

 

[terry78]

If someone from out of the circle came on this board and saw us arguing so fervently about a possible ice age, would they be wrong to call us dorks?

 

[SuperFerret]

If someone from out of the circle came on this board and saw us arguing so fervently about a possible ice age, would they be wrong to call us dorks?

We are dorks. Just the fact that we frequent and hold heated debates on a superhero movie internet forum makes us dorks, nevermind the ice age.

 

[The Battousai]

Ah...and that explanation is complete BS.

Mike's nature Trick was actually eliminating a warming period in the Middle Ages, as well as a mini Ice Age that followed. Then all of this fudgery to make the temperatures appear to have never changed was stopped, the proxy data was tossed aside and they forced the numbers to go way up, when in fact they were going down.

The pro-fraud crowd spent weeks trying to convince people that the 'trick" and "Mike" were unrelated...and now they have a BS excuse as to why they arent.

Mike's Nature trick was an outright and proven fraud. Of course, it must be defended because this is about being true to a political party, not any real search for scientific truth. Again, the pro-fraud crowd are supporting and defending the people who threw away data and made up new ones...

Oh, and the latest word is that arrests will soon be made in the UK over the emails saying that "peers are asking to review my work, please delete all files that relate to me" type stuff. I know, i know...the pro fraud crowd believes that there shouldnt be open peer review and that we should give the scientists the freedom to delete any info they want, because their science is so perfect.

Are you able to provide evidence for this connection you've made? Same goes for how a small warming period and ice age in the Dark Ages that was isolated in Europe has anything to do with ACC whatsoever.

Mike Nature Trick was used to hide the decline in temperatures. yet you refuse to believe there was a trick, refuse to believe Mike had any connection to it, refuse to believe there was a decline and refuse to believe that they wanted to hide it. There own words isnt enough proof for you because you, like the scientists who are about to be arrested and have their careers ruined, can ignore what in front of your face in order to keep believing what you politically want to believe.

I disbelieve erroneous clams that lack evidence to back them up.

You, on the other hand, deny evidence that refutes your stance and fail to provide evidence for your reasoning.