NationStates Jolt Archive

OK to start this off you must remember that the same hippocrite who is bringing you global warming (Al Gore) is also the same guy who brought us the Y2K bug. Carbon offsets and Y2K computer fixes are how these thiefs make a living. see the article link attached.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

OK to start this off you must remember that the same hippocrite who is bringing you global warming (Al Gore) is also the same guy who brought us the Y2K bug. Carbon offsets and Y2K computer fixes are how these thiefs make a living. see the article link attached.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

Mein gott, never post again.

Not So Hot

The latest twist in the global warming saga is the revision in data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, indicating that the warmest year on record for the U.S. was not 1998, but rather1934 (BY 0.02 Of a degree Celsius).

Canadian and amateur climate researcher Stephen McIntyre discovered that NASA made a technical error in standardizing the weather air temperature data post-2000. These temperature mistakes were only for the U.S.; their net effect was to lower the average temperature reading from 2000-20006 by 0.15C.

The new data undermine another frightful talking point from environmentalists, which is that six of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1990. Wrong. NASA now says six of the 10 warmest years were in the 1930s and 1940s, and that was before the bulk of industrial CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere.

Those are the new facts. What's hard to know is how much, if any, significance to read into them. NASA officials say the revisions are insignificant and should not be "used by [global warming] critics to muddy the debate." NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt notes that, despite the revisions, the period 2002-2006 is still warmer for the U.S. than 1930-1934 and both periods are slightly cooler than 1998-2002.

Still, environmentalists have been making great hay by claiming that recent years, such as 1998, then 2006, were the "warmest" on record. It's also not clear that the 0.15-degree temperature revision is as trivial as NASA insists. Total U.S warming since 1920 has been about .21 degrees Celsius. This means that a .15 error for recent years is more then two-thirds the observed temperature increase for the period of warming. NASA counters that most of the measure planetary warming in recent decade has occurred outside the U.S and that the agency's recent error would have a tiny impact (1/1000th of a degree) on global warming.

If nothing else, the snafu calls into question how much faith to put in climate change models. In the 1990s, virtually all climate models predicted warming from 2000-2010, but the new data confirm that so far there has been no warming trend in this decade for the U.S. Whoops. These simulation models are the basis for many of the forecasts of catastrophic warming by the end of the century that Al Gore and the media repeat time and again. We may soon be basing multi-trillion dollar policy decisions on computer models who accuracy we already know to be less than stellar.

What's more disturbing is what this incident tells us about the scientific double standard in the global warming debate. If this kind of error were made by climatologists who dare to challenge climate-change orthodoxy, the media and environmentalists would accuse them of manipulating data to distort scientific truth. NASA's blunder only became a news story after internet bloggers plated whistleblower by circulating the new data across the web.

So far this year NASA has issued at least five press releases that could be described as alarming on the pace of climate change. But the correction of its overestimate of global warming was merely posted on the agency's Web site. James Hansen, NASA's ubiquitous climate scientist and man who has charged that the Bush Administration is censoring him on global warming, has been unapologetic about NASA's screw up. He claims that global warming skeptics- "court jesters," he calls them- are exploiting this incident to "confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change."

So let’s get this straight: Mr. Hansen's agency makes a mistake in way that exaggerate the extent of warming, and this all of a conspiracy by "skeptics"? It's a wonder there aren't more of them.

Content Provided by The Wall Street Journal-
Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 – Vol. CCL No. 50
Transition to the digital age provided by Maxen von Bismarck.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Do your worst.

OK to start this off you must remember that the same hippocrite who is bringing you global warming (Al Gore) is also the same guy who brought us the Y2K bug. Carbon offsets and Y2K computer fixes are how these thiefs make a living. see the article link attached.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf
:rolleyes:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AwJeeznotthisshitagain.jpg
http://img271.imageshack.us/img271/8505/258trollspray0ur.jpg
Inhale deeply. You've already had too much Kool-Aid, and it's time you detox'd.
http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2006/bush-kool-aid-bof.jpg

*shakes head*

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Do your worst.

Certainly not doing their best, it would appear. :(

LOL.......live your carbon free life. i doubt it will change the fact that the polar ice caps on mars are melting at the same rate as ours. Wake up idiots. it is funny that most of you globalists preach to doubt your government especialy the USA. but fall for the global warming scam hook, line and sinker. Expand your mind and use true science, the hypothosis. Doubt all conclusions until there is fact. the enviromentalist facists say that if you doubt (hypothosis) global warming your a criminal. What happened to debate?

Have any of you read the article or do you just reply with "your feelings"? Please read the article before you make an ass of yourself.

OK to start this off you must remember that the same hippocrite who is bringing you global warming (Al Gore) is also the same guy who brought us the Y2K bug. Carbon offsets and Y2K computer fixes are how these thiefs make a living. see the article link attached.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

Speaking as someone who is skeptical of global warming, please; Get off my side.

While I believe that Global Warming is an overhyped sub-issue of enviromental awareness pushed by those who use fear as a tool for their cause, that doesn't negate the need for more environmental awareness inluding more study, conservation of power, protecting our remaining old growth forests and rain forest, renewable energy sources, recycling and various other environmental issues getting all but drowned out by the global warming hype. It also doesn't change the fact that the people most afraid of plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are those with the financial incentive to ignore the environment as a business inconvenience.

Besides, a warm wet globe sound nice to me. :)

What happened to debate?
Well, I presented you with a link to the best analysis of the topic we have so far. You can find all the information there, as established by a panel of scientists of many different disciplines, covering areas from the science of climate change to the effects the hypothesised changes would have on the economy, the biosphere and our societies.

As far as debate is concerned, it would now be your job to take the various reports apart and refuting the hypothesis presented in them. Hence why I said "Do your worst".

And once you've done that, you can come back and the debate can go on.

Speaking as someone who is skeptical of global warming, please; Get off my side.

While I believe that Global Warming is an overhyped sub-issue of enviromental awareness pushed by those who use fear as a tool for their cause, that doesn't negate the need for more environmental awareness inluding more study, conservation of power, protecting our remaining old growth forests and rain forest, renewable energy sources, recycling and various other environmental issues getting all but drowned out by the global warming hype. It also doesn't change the fact that the people most afraid of plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are those with the financial incentive to ignore the environment as a business inconvenience.

Besides, a warm wet globe sound nice to me. :)

Well i concur with everything you said. I am a avid environmentalist. i spend hundreds of dollars a year as a hunter. Hunters in the United States have to buy liscences to hunt and fund 80% of our enviromental effort as well as population control. As a hunter i want all animals to florish. If the environment is not healthy then there is no hunting. I am for a clean world, yet i think the environmental movement is hijacked by people with other political motives.

Well, I presented you with a link to the best analysis of the topic we have so far. You can find all the information there, as established by a panel of scientists of many different disciplines, covering areas from the science of climate change to the effects the hypothesised changes would have on the economy, the biosphere and our societies.

As far as debate is concerned, it would now be your job to take the various reports apart and refuting the hypothesis presented in them. Hence why I said "Do your worst".

And once you've done that, you can come back and the debate can go on.

all you have done is drank the Kool-Aid(see jones town reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
)
You refuse to read contrary arguments. read the article then come back and spout off your sheeple remark.

Have any of you read the article or do you just reply with "your feelings"? Please read the article before you make an ass of yourself.

Have you learned how to address, or are you one of those say it/spray it folks who doesn't mind addressing everyone simultaneously since you basically just *have* to have the spotlight?
Don't tell people what to do before saying what appears to be stupid shit, lest you follow the same principle, eh?

If you mean me, i wouldn't mind giving you some homework.

Fun with exclaimation marks!!!!!!! Yay hyperbole!!!!!! Everyone look at my fucking thread because of these exclaimation marks!!!!!!


Fucking childish.

Well i concur with everything you said. I am a avid environmentalist. i spend hundreds of dollars a year as a hunter. Hunters in the United States have to buy liscences to hunt and fund 80% of our enviromental effort as well as population control. As a hunter i want all animals to florish. If the environment is not healthy then there is no hunting. I am for a clean world, yet i think the environmental movement is hijacked by people with other political motives.

as long as it isn't the human popultaion right? Ha ha 'caused that would be wrong right? he he.....

all you have done is drank the Kool-Aid(see jones town reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
)

Wow, you're a bit late. You were already schooled in this.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13090774&postcount=5
Pay more attention.

You refuse to read contrary arguments.Black, kettle, pot.

Well i concur with everything you said. I am a avid environmentalist. i spend hundreds of dollars a year as a hunter. Hunters in the United States have to buy liscences to hunt and fund 80% of our enviromental effort as well as population control. As a hunter i want all animals to florish. If the environment is not healthy then there is no hunting. I am for a clean world, yet i think the environmental movement is hijacked by people with other political motives.

The point being that sometimes the message is more important than the messenger. We are ignoring the environment. We are ignoring peak oil. We are ignoring that corporations hide future problems behind a sea of political lobbyists and pocket scientists. We have much to gain by adopting a healthier attitude toward the environment and nothing to lose. Then, when we discover that we aren't important enough to disrupt Earth's climactic cycle beyond it's normal variation, it won't matter. :)

all you have done is drank the Kool-Aid(see jones town reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
)
You refuse to read contrary arguments. read the article then come back and spout off your sheeple remark.

It wasn't kool-aid. Seriously, do you read the articles you quote? Or are you just spouting shit?

Fun with exclaimation marks!!!!!!! Yay hyperbole!!!!!! Everyone look at my fucking thread because of these exclaimation marks!!!!!!


Fucking childish.

great rebuttle. you must be a grad student.

What happened to debate?
See, that's the point.
Why don't you punch up the Forum Archives?
You'll find that the debate has already happened.
People don't need to keep debating this from your one pathetic post, since
it's
already
been
done
by better arguers than yourself.

great rebuttle. you must be a grad student.

*shrug* every aspect of an argument must be called into question in debate, including the manner in which it is presented.

You must be in grade school.

The point being that sometimes the message is more important than the messenger. We are ignoring the environment. We are ignoring peak oil. We are ignoring that corporations hide future problems behind a sea of political lobbyists and pocket scientists. We have much to gain by adopting a healthier attitude toward the environment and nothing to lose. Then, when we discover that we aren't important enough to disrupt Earth's climactic cycle beyond it's normal variation, it won't matter. :)

I want a healthier earth, just not to be exploited by assholes that monger in fear and want to fine us for the things their hipprocritical asses do every day.

this thread is epic fail. Far smarter and more articulate folks than you have tried to debate this.

You are a rank amateur.

It wasn't kool-aid. Seriously, do you read the articles you quote? Or are you just spouting shit?

Hey moron "Flavor aid" is the generic version of "Kool aid". where do you think the phrase " drinking the kool aid " comes from? From mindless Sheeple who follow what they hear even to the death. Wake up and question what you are told.

I have never heard the term "monger in fear" before. Fearmonger, yes. "Monger in fear" is completley new to me.

Nothing particularly wrong with saying that.

Y2k was a scam. That much is true.

You refuse to read contrary arguments. read the article then come back and spout off your sheeple remark.
Mate, I did read the article. It presents precisely zero facts, all it talks about is media coverage.

I'm not asking you to talk about the people who say that man-made climate change is occuring. That would be an ad hominem argument and therefore invalid.

I'm asking you to refute the hypothesis you were talking about.

I want a healthier earth, just not to be exploited by assholes that monger in fear and want to fine us for the things their hipprocritical asses do every day.

I have never heard the term "monger in fear" before. Fearmonger, yes. "Monger in fear" is completley new to me.

I have never heard the term "monger in fear" before. Fearmonger, yes. "Monger in fear" is completley new to me.

That is because you live for catch phrases. reread please.

great rebuttle. you must be a grad student.

Evidenced, grandly, by your proper spelling of the word "rebuttal".

Climb back in the oven, you popped out a little too early.
:rolleyes:

Mate, I did read the article. It presents precisely zero facts, all it talks about is media coverage.

I'm not asking you to talk about the people who say that man-made climate change is occuring. That would be an ad hominem argument and therefore invalid.

I'm asking you to refute the hypothesis you were talking about.
Oh, how very brave of you teasing the retard.

OK to start this off you must remember that the same hippocrite who is bringing you global warming (Al Gore) is also the same guy who brought us the Y2K bug. Carbon offsets and Y2K computer fixes are how these thiefs make a living. see the article link attached.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

Al Gore invented the idea of global warming? That's a ... strange belief. Cause, I thought it is being brought to us by, you know, practically the entire scientific community? Oh right, Al Gore made a movie about, he was oviusly the first to think it up. And everyone who believes in global warming does so because of Al Gores movie. Not because of the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community. I see.

this thread is epic fail. Far smarter and more articulate folks than you have tried to debate this.

You are a rank amateur.

Agreed, wholly.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13090835&postcount=20

You must be in grade school.

Now that's just plain insulting. To grade schoolers everywhere. :p

Al Gore invented the idea of global warming? That's a ... strange belief. Cause, I thought it is being brought to us by, you know, practically the entire scientific community? Oh right, Al Gore made a movie about, he was oviusly the first to think it up. And everyone who believes in global warming does so because of Al Gores movie. Not because of the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community. I see.

The "Scientific communtiy" wanted to release Carbon Dioxide in the 1970's to combat global cooling. They thought a new Ice Age was under way. It is funny how so called free thinkers just follow like sheep. I guess it is easy to just believe certain aspects of the media and ignore others.....lol... I will have the last laugh once you spend your money to do nothing but make the scammers richer.

They thought a new Ice Age was under way.

Oh my god! You mean that 30-40 years ago scientists were alreadyaware that man made climate change was occuring but the were not then sure what form it would take, and in the last 30 years of scientific advancement, the theory behind it has refined to the point that this is clarified?

This is....well, not at all shocking at all.

Didn't NASA say that climate change on Mars is due to dust storms? But fuck science. It's only useful when it agrees with your political opinion.

The "Scientific communtiy" wanted to release Carbon Dioxide in the 1970's to combat global cooling. They thought a new Ice Age was under way. It is funny how so called free thinkers just follow like sheep. I guess it is easy to just believe certain aspects of the media and ignore others.....lol... I will have the last laugh once you spend your money to do nothing but make the scammers richer.

Explain your position on how your point of view, embraced, WON'T result in less regulation for already ever-so-responsible corporations, per favore.
Especially in the current business climate.
Maybe you don't know what a scammer is, or what "rich" means, besides the other stuff.
It could simply be, as i'd pointed out, you're a troll. Name was enough, now it's be nature.

Oh my god! You mean that 30-40 years ago scientists were alreadyaware that man made climate change was occuring but the were not then sure what form it would take, and in the last 30 years of scientific advancement, the theory behind it has refined to the point that this is clarified?

This is....well, not at all shocking at all.

Please spend your money it makes it funnier. The science behind climate change is a joke. Anyone who opposes the theory is ostircized. It is all about making money off of fear . Similar to the "Y2K bug".
see the original below:
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Didn't NASA say that climate change on Mars

See that? there's your problem. By the way, mars is FREEZING. What's your point?

The science behind climate change is a joke.

Uh huh. And your PhD in meterology is from...where again?

Didn't NASA say that climate change on Mars is due to dust storms? But fuck science. It's only useful when it agrees with your political opinion.

Your lying. Please post said document.

The "Scientific communtiy" wanted to release Carbon Dioxide in the 1970's to combat global cooling. They thought a new Ice Age was under way.

That's a straight out lie.

Explain your position on how your point of view, embraced, WON'T result in less regulation for already ever-so-responsible corporations, per favore.
Especially in the current business climate.
Maybe you don't know what a scammer is, or what "rich" means, besides the other stuff.
It could simply be, as i'd pointed out, you're a troll. Name was enough, now it's be nature.
I have no love for corporations but in the Untied States they want to charge Regular citizens a Tax on carbon emmisions. It is a flawed science. it is all about government power.

OK to start this off you must remember that the same hippocrite who is bringing you tacos (LG) is also the same guy who brought us mud. Taco taxation and mud removal are how this thieve makes a living. see the article link attached.

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/28609695/m/3610917221?r=1430927221#1430927221

I have no love for corporations but in the Untied States they want to charge Regular citizens a Tax on carbon emmisions. It is a flawed science. it is all about government power. please see the 1975 article on global cooling below and see their fix.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

That is because you live for catch phrases. reread please.

I have never heard that phrase before becuase I live for catch phrases? And what does me rereading have to do with it? I wasn't even arguing with you in that post, I was commenting on a phrase I had never seen before.

I have no love for corporations but in the Untied States they want to charge Regular citizens a Tax on carbon emmisions. It is a flawed science. it is all about government power.

Tax on regular citizens?
How about, corporations get regulated on emissions, INVOLUNTARILY, higher efficiency requirements *as contrasted with the SUV phenomenon*, and you don't intimate in the slightest that a corporation exists as "regular citizenry"?
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/288F640F-F004-41BD-9DA1C46501BFE4D3
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/contracts-agreements-incorporation/529-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
One link not "flawed science" doth make. And again, i invite you to research the "argument" you're implying in NS's very Forum Archives.
And as far as "government power" is concerned, are you fucking serious? Haven't you been paying attention?

Tax on regular citizens?
How about, corporations get regulated on emissions, INVOLUNTARILY, higher efficiency requirements *as contrasted with the SUV phenomenon*, and you don't intimate in the slightest that a corporation exists as "regular citizenry"?
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/288F640F-F004-41BD-9DA1C46501BFE4D3
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/contracts-agreements-incorporation/529-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
One link not "flawed science" doth make. And again, i invite you to research the "argument" you're implying in NS's very Forum Archives.
And as far as "government power" is concerned, are you fucking serious? Haven't you been paying attention?

this is the ground work for more taxes on flawed science. i am a capitalist and believe in the free market.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/scientists_ask_congress_to_fund_50

LOL. that is my point with climate change. I just want you to question and not jump off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings.

Please spend your money it makes it funnier. The science behind climate change is a joke. Anyone who opposes the theory is ostircized. It is all about making money off of fear .
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/scientists_ask_congress_to_fund_50

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Brevious
http://www.theonion.com/content/news...ess_to_fund_50

LOL. that is my point with climate change. I just want you to question and not jump off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings.


United States Earth
View Public Profile
Visit United States Earth's homepage!
Find More Posts by United States Earth
Add United States Earth to Your Buddy List

Today, 4:22 AM

this is the ground work for more taxes on flawed science. i am a capitalist and believe in the free market.I see. I wonder if you've researched the costs of your "beliefs".
Would you like some tax money issues spent on flawed projects, passed off as science, hmmm?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4694413
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3608305
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1724884
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1687466
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1683040
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1304298
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0000226E-C6D8-1332-86D883414B7F0000
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-koster3sep03,1,7404809.story?coll=la-news-a_section


?
More?

I see. I wonder if you've researched the costs of your "beliefs".
Would you like some tax money issues spent on flawed projects, passed off as science, hmmm?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4694413
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3608305
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1724884
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1687466
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1683040
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1304298
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0000226E-C6D8-1332-86D883414B7F0000
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-koster3sep03,1,7404809.story?coll=la-news-a_section


?
More?

You are making my point exactly. Do not let the government spend you hard earned money on flawed science.

please see the 1975 article on global cooling below and see their fix.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Are you ignoring me now because I named the fact that all you're doing is building a poor ad hominem argument based on flawed generalisations?

Have any of you read the article or do you just reply with "your feelings"? Please read the article before you make an ass of yourself.

Dude, we get like a troll a month starting a thread about this topic...

You are making my point exactly. Do not let the government spend you hard earned money on flawed science.

Wow. Way to miss the point! Not many could do it that flawlessly... congratulations.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11156
The market sorts out "flawed science", huh?

Are you ignoring me now because I named the fact that all you're doing is building a poor ad hominem argument based on flawed generalisations?

What part haven't I supplied with links to my side of the argument?
Please reread the defintion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Hey, know what'd be fun?

Remember global cooling? Whatever happened to that? It wasn't that long ago, either...

You are making my point exactly. Do not let the government spend you hard earned money on flawed science.

I'm not making any point for you about what you claim to be "flawed science".
People who spend literally their ENTIRE LIVES investigating real science with real consequences aren't going to be waved away by someone mewling about their delusions of a "free market".
The science will back them up, which is why there.is.so.much.evidence.and.so.few.credible.detractors.
Because you're not so intrepid as to do the work, i'll offer a little for you.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11156
The market sorts out "flawed science", huh?

People for the american way? are you serious? You might as well be sighting the communist manefesto.

What part haven't I supplied with links to my side of the argument?
Please reread the defintion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ahem...
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Argument: Man-made climate change exists.

Your reply: "The media" used to say that global cooling was going to happen.

I'm not making any point for you about what you claim to be "flawed science".
People who spend literally their ENTIRE LIVES investigating real science with real consequences aren't going to be waved away by someone mewling about their delusions of a "free market".
The science will back them up, which is why there.is.so.much.evidence.and.so.few.credible.detractors.
Because you're not so intrepid as to do the work, i'll offer a little for you.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/09-21-06.shtml
http://www.globalwarminghype.com/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42521

Here, try these out:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481034&highlight=climate+Straughn+warming
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473488&highlight=climate+Straughn+warming
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468351&highlight=climate+Straughn+warming
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443614&highlight=climate+Straughn+warming
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467191&highlight=climate+Straughn+warming

READ. CAREFULLY.
You will see that not only has this argument come up, been dealt with, put *relatively* to rest, resurrected, kneecapped, stabbed, slashed, eviscerated, decapitated, garlic-cloved, staked, and buried (not that it won't happen again) .... but, by a pretty substantial cabal of better-informed posters using more reputable sources, and yes, arguing better over the issue.

People for the american way? are you serious? You might as well be sighting the communist manefesto.
Oh, that scares you. It must be evil and wrong then, if you're afraid of artificial mental constructs, however they're spelled. :rolleyes:
As "sighting" goes ...:
http://www.woodtrimdash.com/Bush_Binoculars%20New.jpg

Ahem...


Argument: Man-made climate change exists.

Your reply: "The media" used to say that global cooling was going to happen.

Man Made climate change has never been proven. Flawed science. Climate change is real but can not be influnced to a point of actually matttering. the sun is warming all planets and the climate is a cylclic matter over several centuries.

Regardless of rather or not global warming is happening, we all know that nobody is going to stop using fossil fuel until it start to cost more than alternative source (some time after oil peak I am guessing). So all that fossil fuel is going up into the atmosphere anyway. Most alternative energy (aside from wind, but that's limited) are neither cost efficient nor environmentally friendly anyway. Truth is we don't have the technology to make low costing clean energy at this point.

Then again, considering how inaccurate the weather forecast seems to be, I don't know how to trust people to predict what's going to happen 100 years from now if they can't even tell me rather or not it's going to rain the next day.

Regardless of rather or not global warming is happening, we all know that nobody is going to stop using fossil fuel until it start to cost more than alternative source (some time after oil peak I am guessing). So all that fossil fuel is going up into the atmosphere anyway. Most alternative energy (aside from wind, but that's limited) are neither cost efficient nor environmentally friendly anyway. Truth is we don't have the technology to make low costing clean energy at this point.

Then again, considering how inaccurate the weather forecast seems to be, I don't know how to trust people to predict what's going to happen 100 years from now if they can't even tell me rather or not it's going to rain the next day.

:headbang:

you do know that WEATHER and CLIMATE are DIFFERENT right?

Regardless of rather or not global warming is happening, we all know that nobody is going to stop using fossil fuel until it start to cost more than alternative source (some time after oil peak I am guessing). So all that fossil fuel is going up into the atmosphere anyway. Most alternative energy (aside from wind, but that's limited) are neither cost efficient nor environmentally friendly anyway. Truth is we don't have the technology to make low costing clean energy at this point.

Then again, considering how inaccurate the weather forecast seems to be, I don't know how to trust people to predict what's going to happen 100 years from now if they can't even tell me rather or not it's going to rain the next day.

AMEN. I hate the fact that the pompus asses laugh at hypothosis. But they did the same to Hitler and asked us to fix that too.

AMEN. I hate the fact that the pompus asses laugh at hypothosis. But they did the same to Hitler and asked us to fix that too.

OK... what on earth do you mean by that?

Please spend your money it makes it funnier. The science behind climate change is a joke. Anyone who opposes the theory is ostircized. It is all about making money off of fear . Similar to the "Y2K bug".
see the original below:
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

I'll actually give you money if you can show one scientific journal that actually published a paper on Global Cooling (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/).

Man Made climate change has never been proven.

I'm curious, can you show me when science has ever proven anything?

Seriously, what in the holy fuck is with people making such authoritative statements about what they know to be true, in the face of experts, as if they somehow know better, then talk about science "proving" shit.

I swear, anyone who makes any claims about knowing better than experts and uses lines about science "proving" something just shows they are not worth being listened to

AMEN. I hate the fact that the pompus asses laugh at hypothosis.

H-Y-P-O-T-H-E-S-I-S

P-O-M-P-O-U-S

If you're going to call everyone "idiots" you might want to try not looking like one yourself.

But they did the same to Hitler and asked us to fix that too.

Wait, what does Hitler have to do with the subject?

Who here was either the "us" or "they" you referred to? Were you alive when Hitler was? Was anyone posting on this thread? Ha.

I guess it's just, if anyone disagrees with you they're a Nazi-appeaser. Lame, very lame.

Man Made climate change has never been proven. Flawed science.

I love, love, love the juxtaposition of these two statements. That's unintentionally marvelously hilarious. :p

Your lying. Please post said document.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html

Hey, know what'd be fun?

Remember global cooling? Whatever happened to that? It wasn't that long ago, either...

Hey, remember when global cooling was regarded as a valid hypothesis among the scientific community? Oh wait, didn't happen.

Remember when extensive work in studying climate has advanced in the decades since global cooling? Remember that science is not static? Remember that there is a scientific consensus on the topic of global warming? Remember that the hypothesis of global cooling is totally irrelevant to the topic of global warming? Nah, fuck it.

BECAUSE GLOBAL COOLING WAS NOT A VALID HYPOTHESIS, OBVIOUSLY GLOBAL WARMING IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FALSE. THIS IS HOW SCIENCE OPERATES.

Please, the logic behind these self-professed skeptics is sick.

H-Y-P-O-T-H-E-S-I-S
You know, we need someone of your intellect on UMP once more at the new locale....

I don't get it. Honest to God, I just do not get it. Why is there even a debate about this thing? I don't see a downside here . . . even if global warming is a scam or a product of over-reactionaries, you're still helping the enviorment, or has even that intention become too politically polarized?

I don't get it. Honest to God, I just do not get it. Why is there even a debate about this thing? I don't see a downside here . . . even if global warming is a scam or a product of over-reactionaries, you're still helping the enviorment, or has even that intention become too politically polarized?

It's because any who is attached to the "free market" knows what the ramifications of global warming means: placing (gasp!) regulations to stem the emission of greenhouse gases. That's why they say it's a fraud -- it has absolutely nothing to do with the available scientific data... and the fact that they politicize scientific fact is disgusting. Whether or not you believe in environmental regulations doesn't negate the scientific evidence. Christ.

Perhaps additional punctuation would make this thread more valid.

I don't get it. Honest to God, I just do not get it. Why is there even a debate about this thing? I don't see a downside here . . . even if global warming is a scam or a product of over-reactionaries, you're still helping the enviorment, or has even that intention become too politically polarized?

QFT

It's because any who is attached to the "free market" knows what the ramifications of global warming means: placing (gasp!) regulations to stem the emission of greenhouse gases. That's why they say it's a fraud -- it has absolutely nothing to do with the available scientific data... and the fact that they politicize scientific fact is disgusting. Whether or not you believe in environmental regulations doesn't negate the scientific evidence. Christ.


Oh please, it's got nothing to do with free market. I doubt very many global climate change deniers even support a free market. No, they deny for the same reason some people deny evolution. Total ignorance of science combined with mystical paranoia.

Of course climate changes. It doesn't change overnight though and what we're seeing now is from 50 years ago, at the least. Have humans accelerated it? Most likely we have. Is it as serious as the media and politicians make it out to be? Not at all. It's just scare tactics. These are the same ones that proclaim we'll run out of fossil fuels in a decade when we got at least another century worth of them. Global Warming is the new "hip fad" for the politically inept. Remember when it was feed the hungry children in Africa (still is but only on late night infomercials now). The main gripe I have with it is the scientific community more than anyone else. It seems apparent that their opinions are more determined by what party they are registered to than anything else. I also love that whenever there's some sort of global warming to-do there's a freak blizzard somewhere in the world or something of that nature.

:headbang:

you do know that WEATHER and CLIMATE are DIFFERENT right?

Last I check climate prediction nowadays involve supercomputers with weather simulation. If their understanding of weather is flawed, the climate prediction will be flawed as well.

But I am just saying, we can't really stop using fossil fuel at this point. according to US Census Bureaus the demand of fossil fuel is expected to have an exponential growth over the next 50 years, and that we will continue using oil as our primary energy source. So knowing all that fossil fuel is going to be in the air in the near future anyway. Some scientist got to show me the difference between putting them all up, say 30 years vs 50 years, before I would consider a hybrid car over a SUV.

Oh please, it's got nothing to do with free market. I doubt very many global climate change deniers even support a free market. No, they deny for the same reason some people deny evolution. Total ignorance of science combined with mystical paranoia.

Most skeptics I've come across are either a) libertarian or b) conservative. I understand that you and Neu Leonstein are exceptions, but this is generally what I've encountered.

Of course climate changes. It doesn't change overnight though and what we're seeing now is from 50 years ago, at the least. Have humans accelerated it? Most likely we have. Is it as serious as the media and politicians make it out to be? Not at all. It's just scare tactics. These are the same ones that proclaim we'll run out of fossil fuels in a decade when we got at least another century worth of them. Global Warming is the new "hip fad" for the politically inept. Remember when it was feed the hungry children in Africa (still is but only on late night infomercials now). The main gripe I have with it is the scientific community more than anyone else. It seems apparent that their opinions are more determined by what party they are registered to than anything else. I also love that whenever there's some sort of global warming to-do there's a freak blizzard somewhere in the world or something of that nature.

Let's analyze what's wrong with this post.

1: Global warming, or climate change, is a scientific issue, not a political one. It only turned political because governments may actually need to put some environmental regulations in place. The horror.

2: Know the difference b/w global warming and local weather. Global warming is the increase over the planet as a whole. Get this: one area may be very cold, while another exponentially hot. Doesn't change the fact that the ice caps are melting, though...

3: Got any evidence about scientific opinion and party registration?

Also what's with all the global warming activists (i.e. Al Gore especially) taking private airplanes or driving SUVs or using so much elecricity in their houses their bills are more than whole counties? Sting's wife took a helicopter once because she didn't want a 90 minute "electric" train ride...then she gets off and champions the gw cause. It's like one set of rules for them and another for the rest of us, albeit who's really surprised by that?

Also what's with all the global warming activists (i.e. Al Gore especially) taking private airplanes or driving SUVs or using so much elecricity in their houses their bills are more than whole counties? Sting's wife took a helicopter once because she didn't want a 90 minute "electric" train ride...then she gets off and champions the gw cause. It's like one set of rules for them and another for the rest of us, albeit who's really surprised by that?

None of that negates global warming's existence or nonexistence. Get a new argument.

Also what's with all the global warming activists (i.e. Al Gore especially) taking private airplanes or driving SUVs or using so much elecricity in their houses their bills are more than whole counties? Sting's wife took a helicopter once because she didn't want a 90 minute "electric" train ride...then she gets off and champions the gw cause. It's like one set of rules for them and another for the rest of us, albeit who's really surprised by that?

Well Al Gore clearly doesn't believe half the stuff he says. If he did he'd be living like Ted Kaczynski spreading his message by webcast.

before I would consider a hybrid car over a SUV.

Doesn't really even have to be a hybrid because getting an SUV is stupid.

SUVs = gas guzzlers
Gas prices = high

Saves you money.

Most skeptics I've come across are either a) libertarian or b) conservative. I understand that you and Neu Leonstein are exceptions, but this is generally what I've encountered.

Not I. Most skeptics I've come across are united by a) stupidity and b) inability to make arguments. Not economic stances.

Doesn't really even have to be a hybrid because getting an SUV is stupid.

SUVs = gas guzzlers
Gas prices = high

Saves you money.

A hybrid car is equally a waste of money consider how much you pay for it, and how much repair is gonna cost you. It's performance sucks so it's like throwing huge amount of money to get a piece of crap. It's like having a regular car but cost more and does less. Driving 2 engines around is stupid anyway. At least if I get a SUV I got some power in my car rather than driving something that feels like I am 20 years older.

Do note that I never tried to compare an SUV with a regular car. Regular car makes business sense, hybrid doesn't.

LOL.......live your carbon free life. i doubt it will change the fact that the polar ice caps on mars are melting at the same rate as ours. Wake up idiots. it is funny that most of you globalists preach to doubt your government especialy the USA. but fall for the global warming scam hook, line and sinker. Expand your mind and use true science, the hypothosis. Doubt all conclusions until there is fact. the enviromentalist facists say that if you doubt (hypothosis) global warming your a criminal. What happened to debate?Maybe the next 50 Katrinas will teach you something about global warming. Maybe not.

Maybe the next 50 Katrinas will teach you something about global warming. Maybe not.

Why single him out? Katrina didn't teach anyone anything apparently.

Why single him out? Katrina didn't teach anyone anything apparently.God bless America.

God bless America.With that kind of blessings, who needs curses? :D

To the OP:

Look, you're fighting a losing battle. The entire world understands that global warming is a huge problem* is a huge problem that must be faced. And while global warming is natural and we cannot stop it, the RATE of the global warming is not natural and we can help to curb humanity's pollution which is speeding up the rate of global warming.

*And it has been a huge problem ever since Al Gore invented* it.

*Right after he invented the internet.

I really don't see what the fuss is about though. Regardless of anyone's position on whether or not climate change is anthropogenic, it's pretty obvious that fossil fuels are going to run out/become prohibitively expensive in the pretty near future.

So it is sort of going to take care of itself (carbon emissions) whether anyone likes it or not.

Why can't the fanatical rightwingers be honest?And it has been a huge problem ever since Al Gore invented* it.AGW was first proposed by a Swede around 1900. He did the math and thought it was a really good idea. Presumably because of his local climate. Both his local peers and the Royal society dismissed it as science fiction.

Gore might be a nasty old fuck, but even you have to admit he's not a centennial.Right after he invented the internet.He never claimed to. He took credit for getting the www established. And shockingly, he has every right to. Apart from local political opponents with a desire to leech off his one bright moment, everyone, even the actual creators of the technology, freely and openly admits the credit is his. As does the documentation of the US political process.

About two years ago, if memory serves, Melkor started a thread about what the hell conservatism actually is. he'd done it today, I wouldn't have jumped in and proclaimed I, an anarchist, share a lot of conservative virtues and praised them for it. I'd have typed: fucking liars.
Try asking yourself why some day. Trust me, it's not because the local conservatives have changed.

This thread is completely worthless, but somewhat amusing. It's strange, but I could swear that the OP and the third post were posted just a few weeks ago! They got beaten down then as well, if I recall correctly.

However, one comment:
I really don't see what the fuss is about though. Regardless of anyone's position on whether or not climate change is anthropogenic, it's pretty obvious that fossil fuels are going to run out/become prohibitively expensive in the pretty near future.

So it is sort of going to take care of itself (carbon emissions) whether anyone likes it or not.

Because many fear that the carbon dioxide emissions is close to a tipping point now, where the climate change they trigger will be irreversible as nature takes over after reacting to the huge output. And then it won't matter if we reduce emissions, because it will be too late to stop the man made impact.

Regardless, it's fun to see the Bush administration slowly starting to adress the possibility of man-influenced global climate change...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7019346.stm

Hey moron "Flavor aid" is the generic version of "Kool aid". where do you think the phrase " drinking the kool aid " comes from? From mindless Sheeple who follow what they hear even to the death. Wake up and question what you are told.
Ahh...the irony. Here's a person using tired, worn-out phrases (Kool-Aid, Sheeple) that everybody stopped using 3 years ago to attack someone for being 'like everyone else'.
"I'm different to everyone else because I use phrases that everyone else uses!"

It could simply be, as i'd pointed out, you're a troll.
And not a particularly bright, nor (more importantly) funny, one at that.

A hybrid car is equally a waste of money consider how much you pay for it, and how much repair is gonna cost you. It's performance sucks so it's like throwing huge amount of money to get a piece of crap. It's like having a regular car but cost more and does less. Driving 2 engines around is stupid anyway. At least if I get a SUV I got some power in my car rather than driving something that feels like I am 20 years older.

Do note that I never tried to compare an SUV with a regular car. Regular car makes business sense, hybrid doesn't.

Definately not true. Are you speaking on what "you heard", or have you driven a hybrid car around? I own a Prius and it's perfect, I can't complain. I average 41.3 miles to the gallon. I go 70 on the freeway no problem, and I usually average over 50 mpg when I'm on the highway for 15 minutes or more. The car cost less than most big SUV's, and I've only taken it into the shop once for a very minor repair due to my own negligence in the 9 months I've owned it. I honestly think it's a great value. Go figure for a hybrid apparently...

I don't get it. Honest to God, I just do not get it. Why is there even a debate about this thing?
QFT.
Even the feeblest of minds have now agreed that Global Climate change is occurring:
(President) Bush urged delegates on Friday to set a joint long-term goal for reducing the CO2 emissions that were causing the climate to heat up.

"By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem. And by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it," Mr Bush said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7019415.stm

Now that even GWB has publicly stated there's a problem, we must brace ourselves for the inevitable, "We must do something! This is a serious new development! The ebil Liberal media is suppressing information about Global Climate Change!" from all the dittoheads.

Now that even GWB has publicly stated there's a problem, we must brace ourselves for the inevitable, "We must do something! This is a serious new development! The ebil Liberal media is suppressing information about Global Climate Change!" from all the dittoheads.
:D

Also, I found that the OP has made previous threads based on the exact same "article"... I wonder why he bothers...

Definately not true. Are you speaking on what "you heard", or have you driven a hybrid car around? I own a Prius and it's perfect, I can't complain. I average 41.3 miles to the gallon. I go 70 on the freeway no problem, and I usually average over 50 mpg when I'm on the highway for 15 minutes or more. The car cost less than most big SUV's, and I've only taken it into the shop once for a very minor repair due to my own negligence in the 9 months I've owned it. I honestly think it's a great value. Go figure for a hybrid apparently...

Nope can't say I drove one. I just look into the hybrid cars when they first came out and those are the critics that people complained about. Then again I really shouldn't be sidetracked into a car topic since I don't know enough about them to really make a statement. It just ended up that way since I was talking about emission a few topics back.

Nope can't say I drove one. I just look into the hybrid cars when they first came out and those are the critics that people complained about. Then again I really shouldn't be sidetracked into a car topic since I don't know enough about them to really make a statement. It just ended up that way since I was talking about emission a few topics back.

Do you talk about current vehicle performance based on 100 year old antiques? Because that's effectively what you're doing. Using first model performances and applying it to the entire principle regardless of actual later model performance.

OK to start this off you must remember that the same hippocrite who is bringing you global warming (Al Gore) is also the same guy who brought us the Y2K bug. Carbon offsets and Y2K computer fixes are how these thiefs make a living. see the article link attached.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

He only released the Y2k bug because shutting down all the computers would reduce unneeded energy consumption.

Hey, know what'd be fun?

Remember global cooling? Whatever happened to that? It wasn't that long ago, either...

'Global Cooling' was never accepted by the scientific community; there were articles published in popular magazines but no peer reviewed papers, and all major scientific organisations said that more research was needed before they could know for sure.

Contrast that with global warming, which is supported by a mountain of peer reviewed papers and endorsed by every major scientific organisation.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42521

World Nut Daily? The same organisation which claims that eating Tofu turns you gay and thinks that climate change was caused by Noah's flood? Yep, they're credible alright... :rolleyes:

Oh please, it's got nothing to do with free market. I doubt very many global climate change deniers even support a free market. No, they deny for the same reason some people deny evolution. Total ignorance of science combined with mystical paranoia.

It's interesting to note that if somebody denies evolution then they almost certainly deny Global Warming too; it's been described as 'Crank Magnetism'. :p

The point being that sometimes the message is more important than the messenger. We are ignoring the environment. We are ignoring peak oil. We are ignoring that corporations hide future problems behind a sea of political lobbyists and pocket scientists. We have much to gain by adopting a healthier attitude toward the environment and nothing to lose. Then, when we discover that we aren't important enough to disrupt Earth's climactic cycle beyond it's normal variation, it won't matter. :)

When Goofball opens his mouth to speak, the world trembles. I think this is a very healthy attitude, no matter where you stand on the issue :)

Do you talk about current vehicle performance based on 100 year old antiques? Because that's effectively what you're doing. Using first model performances and applying it to the entire principle regardless of actual later model performance.

Drop the topic, I already admit that my point of view is invalid. Hammering it in after someone already admitted something isn't going to make you look any smarter.

And there's no 100 years old antiques in hybrid cars. The reviews I read was like last years model, which was also when hybrid really first come out to the public in the US.

When Goofball opens his mouth to speak, the world trembles. I think this is a very healthy attitude, no matter where you stand on the issue :)

Lies! It's not when Goofball speaks when the world trembles. It's when he completes his ICBM (Inter Continental Ballistic Mud) silo. It's impossible to stop such a weapon. He'll make it rain mud everywhere.

As a hunter i want all animals to florish.

oh god that is funny! George Bush couldn't have said it better!

Lies! It's not when Goofball speaks when the world trembles. It's when he completes his ICBM (Inter Continental Ballistic Mud) silo. It's impossible to stop such a weapon. He'll make it rain mud everywhere.

Anywhere. As much as I like mud, Everywhere would be bad. Entertaining, yes. But bad. *nod*

One shouldn't simply dismiss the OP's main point just because one doesn't like him for the way he posts, there does seems to be something fishy about the way the global environment is discussed in world politics.

The popular certainty is that greenhouse gases are causing global warming and that humans are causing greenhouse gases, but in truth global warming is powered by the sun. The sun fluctuates between active and less active periods and these fluctuations drive the climate fluctuations on earth. The sun’s rays on the oceans create more CO2 and greenhouse gases than human activities do. Additionally, particles in the global atmosphere (i.e., world pollution in the atmosphere, not just a singular locale measurement like a city’s measured air pollution) comes mostly from volcanoes, which is a worse global offender than human activity is. Sunlight drives cloud formation and sea currents, which drive weather patterns, not CO2 and greenhouse gases. We like to blame human activity for climate change (warming) but during the period from WWII to 1975 as global industry increased tenfold the climate temperature decreased.

As to rising sea levels, changes in coastal sea levels happen throughout history. During the early medieval period the northern European coast line is known to have changed significantly enough to drive human population migration by the submerging of population centers. Additionally, tectonic plate movement drives the various land masses is diverse directions, some rising, others sinking, in a perpetual caldron of coastline change and landmass alteration.

The truth is that global warming and cooling are natural events that will occur regardless of human activity or no human activity. The earth has been warmer and colder than it is now, for example, during the middle medieval period there occurred what is known as the Warm Period (800-1300 AD) and it was significantly warmer than our current condition. It was warm enough then to allow grape vineyards in Northern England and medieval farming technology to be sufficient for sustained farming in Greenland (both of which are impossible now due to the climate is still too cool for the needed season long warm conditions required for those endeavors).

A common misunderstanding in the general public is the idea that we are capable of predicting significant future climate change at all. Although the current trend is for warmer temperatures, this could shift suddenly and the earth could begin to cool drastically again, if ocean currents or solar conditions change (as they do every thirty thousand years or so anyway to produce the known cyclic ice ages). The weather predictors we use only allow for the parameters that we build into them, not all actual observations which would be impossible, let alone take into account the unknown and unobserved but actual conditions that affect global climate on the solar system level).

Humans are essentially powerless in the face of nature to affect global weather change in any meaningful way, at this time. Nature’s control of the earth’s ever changing global weather system has driven the evolution of the species on the planet’s surface since time immemorial. Species survive and die because they adapt or fail to adapt to the ever changing conditions, not because they need to learn to successfully control their global environment.

So why is it then that our political positions are supposedly known from view point of global warming? It seems a rather whimsical battlefront to me.

One shouldn't simply dismiss the OP's main point just because one doesn't like him for the way he posts, there does seems to be something fishy about the way the global environment is discussed in world politics.

The popular certainty is that greenhouse gases are causing global warming and that humans are causing greenhouse gases, but in truth global warming is powered by the sun. The sun fluctuates between active and less active periods and these fluctuations drive the climate fluctuations on earth. The sun’s rays on the oceans create more CO2 and greenhouse gases than human activities do. Additionally, particles in the global atmosphere (i.e., world pollution in the atmosphere, not just a singular locale measurement like a city’s measured air pollution) comes mostly from volcanoes, which is a worse global offender than human activity is. Sunlight drives cloud formation and sea currents, which drive weather patterns, not CO2 and greenhouse gases. We like to blame human activity for climate change (warming) but during the period from WWII to 1975 as global industry increased tenfold the climate temperature decreased.

As to rising sea levels, changes in coastal sea levels happen throughout history. During the early medieval period the northern European coast line is known to have changed significantly enough to drive human population migration by the submerging of population centers. Additionally, tectonic plate movement drives the various land masses is diverse directions, some rising, others sinking, in a perpetual caldron of coastline change and landmass alteration.

The truth is that global warming and cooling are natural events that will occur regardless of human activity or no human activity. The earth has been warmer and colder than it is now, for example, during the middle medieval period there occurred what is known as the Warm Period (800-1300 AD) and it was significantly warmer than our current condition. It was warm enough then to allow grape vineyards in Northern England and medieval farming technology to be sufficient for sustained farming in Greenland (both of which are impossible now due to the climate is still too cool for the needed season long warm conditions required for those endeavors).

A common misunderstanding in the general public is the idea that we are capable of predicting significant future climate change at all. Although the current trend is for warmer temperatures, this could shift suddenly and the earth could begin to cool drastically again, if ocean currents or solar conditions change (as they do every thirty thousand years or so anyway to produce the known cyclic ice ages). The weather predictors we use only allow for the parameters that we build into them, not all actual observations which would be impossible, let alone take into account the unknown and unobserved but actual conditions that affect global climate on the solar system level).

Humans are essentially powerless in the face of nature to affect global weather change in any meaningful way, at this time. Nature’s control of the earth’s ever changing global weather system has driven the evolution of the species on the planet’s surface since time immemorial. Species survive and die because they adapt or fail to adapt to the ever changing conditions, not because they need to learn to successfully control their global environment.

So why is it then that our political positions are supposedly known from view point of global warming? It seems a rather whimsical battlefront to me.

I would like to elaborate on this because he brings up excellent points...

Did everyone here know that Natural Air Pollution (sea salt, volcano, etc) makes up 91% of the world's air pollution? Something many people don't tell you...

Still, it doesn't change the fact that the chemicals we put in the air have an effect on the atmosphere (not necessarily on the climate.)

Also, while CO2 is a dangerous, NO and Ozone is something we have to watch out for. See, NO and Ozone is affected by the UV radiation as followed

O3 + UV = O + O2
O + H2O = 2OH
OH + RH (Reactive Hydrocarbon) = R (athyl Radical) + H2O

That R is important:

R + O2 + M (Reactive Surface) = ROO + M

This is where NO comes in, a byproduct of car emmisions and industry

ROO + NO2 = RO + NO2

NO2 +UV radiation = NO + O

O + O2 + M = O3 + M

And the cycle continues. In most major areas there is aways a peak of CO2 and NO/NO2 in the early morning. If you look at the trend during the day, as NO2 levels drop, Ozone levels Rise proportionally. After the sun sets the radiation is gone and Ozone levels drop.

Now, why do we worry about Ozone and NO? Because they are both greenhouse gases that create each other. Here is a website that has data of both levels from Florida:

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/default.htm

Now terrian and population density are other factors in air pollution but thats for another time. What I'm showing is the basic stripped down look at air pollution. Ill try and post more figures up. Now air pollution is something that is dangerous and we should obviously try and prevent air pollution. However, no one knows if these gases can affect the climate or not affect the climate. Yet as Balderdash says (and I totally agree myfriend) politicians keep on about pollution like they know thats its happening. Al Gore is not a scientist. Neither is anyone in Congress. And NASA? For a bunch of smart men, they are constantly making mistakes so I honestly dont trust them. We need real Meteorologists and real Climatologists to tell us what is what. Ill be around to bring figures for this stuff a bit later once I can meet with my teacher.

Your future Meteorologist, Edonia

Did everyone here know that Natural Air Pollution (sea salt, volcano, etc) makes up 91% of the world's air pollution? Something many people don't tell you...


I have wondered about this and asked for this figure from many people. Im not trying to be a wiseass but could you please cite your source for this figure?

That's a straight out lie.

Actually there was a scare over global cooling much the same as their is over global warming today..I don't know about releasing carbon into the air and such though...personally I'm not worried about global warming and have no reason to be..far worse things that are more likely to be even more immediately catastrophic could happen

OK to start this off you must remember that the same hippocrite who is bringing you global warming (Al Gore) is also the same guy who brought us the Y2K bug. Carbon offsets and Y2K computer fixes are how these thiefs make a living. see the article link attached.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

Look, the MSTing shop is closed as a result of me not seeing many good MST3K episodes recently. Come back soon.

One shouldn't simply dismiss the OP's main point just because one doesn't like him for the way he posts, there does seems to be something fishy about the way the global environment is discussed in world politics.

The popular certainty is that greenhouse gases are causing global warming and that humans are causing greenhouse gases, but in truth global warming is powered by the sun. The sun fluctuates between active and less active periods and these fluctuations drive the climate fluctuations on earth. The sun’s rays on the oceans create more CO2 and greenhouse gases than human activities do. Additionally, particles in the global atmosphere (i.e., world pollution in the atmosphere, not just a singular locale measurement like a city’s measured air pollution) comes mostly from volcanoes, which is a worse global offender than human activity is. Sunlight drives cloud formation and sea currents, which drive weather patterns, not CO2 and greenhouse gases. We like to blame human activity for climate change (warming) but during the period from WWII to 1975 as global industry increased tenfold the climate temperature decreased.

As to rising sea levels, changes in coastal sea levels happen throughout history. During the early medieval period the northern European coast line is known to have changed significantly enough to drive human population migration by the submerging of population centers. Additionally, tectonic plate movement drives the various land masses is diverse directions, some rising, others sinking, in a perpetual caldron of coastline change and landmass alteration.

The truth is that global warming and cooling are natural events that will occur regardless of human activity or no human activity. The earth has been warmer and colder than it is now, for example, during the middle medieval period there occurred what is known as the Warm Period (800-1300 AD) and it was significantly warmer than our current condition. It was warm enough then to allow grape vineyards in Northern England and medieval farming technology to be sufficient for sustained farming in Greenland (both of which are impossible now due to the climate is still too cool for the needed season long warm conditions required for those endeavors).

A common misunderstanding in the general public is the idea that we are capable of predicting significant future climate change at all. Although the current trend is for warmer temperatures, this could shift suddenly and the earth could begin to cool drastically again, if ocean currents or solar conditions change (as they do every thirty thousand years or so anyway to produce the known cyclic ice ages). The weather predictors we use only allow for the parameters that we build into them, not all actual observations which would be impossible, let alone take into account the unknown and unobserved but actual conditions that affect global climate on the solar system level).

Humans are essentially powerless in the face of nature to affect global weather change in any meaningful way, at this time. Nature’s control of the earth’s ever changing global weather system has driven the evolution of the species on the planet’s surface since time immemorial. Species survive and die because they adapt or fail to adapt to the ever changing conditions, not because they need to learn to successfully control their global environment.

So why is it then that our political positions are supposedly known from view point of global warming? It seems a rather whimsical battlefront to me.

I would like to elaborate on this because he brings up excellent points...

Did everyone here know that Natural Air Pollution (sea salt, volcano, etc) makes up 91% of the world's air pollution? Something many people don't tell you...

Still, it doesn't change the fact that the chemicals we put in the air have an effect on the atmosphere (not necessarily on the climate.)

Also, while CO2 is a dangerous, NO and Ozone is something we have to watch out for. See, NO and Ozone is affected by the UV radiation as followed

O3 + UV = O + O2
O + H2O = 2OH
OH + RH (Reactive Hydrocarbon) = R (athyl Radical) + H2O

That R is important:

R + O2 + M (Reactive Surface) = ROO + M

This is where NO comes in, a byproduct of car emmisions and industry

ROO + NO2 = RO + NO2

NO2 +UV radiation = NO + O

O + O2 + M = O3 + M

And the cycle continues. In most major areas there is aways a peak of CO2 and NO/NO2 in the early morning. If you look at the trend during the day, as NO2 levels drop, Ozone levels Rise proportionally. After the sun sets the radiation is gone and Ozone levels drop.

Now, why do we worry about Ozone and NO? Because they are both greenhouse gases that create each other. Here is a website that has data of both levels from Florida:

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/default.htm

Now terrian and population density are other factors in air pollution but thats for another time. What I'm showing is the basic stripped down look at air pollution. Ill try and post more figures up. Now air pollution is something that is dangerous and we should obviously try and prevent air pollution. However, no one knows if these gases can affect the climate or not affect the climate. Yet as Balderdash says (and I totally agree myfriend) politicians keep on about pollution like they know thats its happening. Al Gore is not a scientist. Neither is anyone in Congress. And NASA? For a bunch of smart men, they are constantly making mistakes so I honestly dont trust them. We need real Meteorologists and real Climatologists to tell us what is what. Ill be around to bring figures for this stuff a bit later once I can meet with my teacher.

Your future Meteorologist, Edonia

Thank you for stepping in and explaining what i couldn't do in my drunken haze of last evening. If one questions (which is what science is about) Global Warming theory they are attacked and told the debate is closed. I hate the flat earthers who do this.

*snip*
Wasn't there also a Nova video made a while back saying that the magnetic poles were moving which would cause a significant climate change?

all you have done is drank the Kool-Aid(see jones town reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
)
You refuse to read contrary arguments. read the article then come back and spout off your sheeple remark.

Knock off the flaming. Refuting an argument and providing sources is proper debate.

Oh, how very brave of you teasing the retard.

You can knock off the flaming too.

Anywhere. As much as I like mud, Everywhere would be bad. Entertaining, yes. But bad. *nod*

So how do you explain that 50,000 tons of soft clay earth that you ordered hmmm?

So how do you explain that 50,000 tons of soft clay earth that you ordered hmmm?

I'm doing my part to fight global warming by constructing a new type of automobile that actually reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I call it the Chia-Car.
http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/chiacar.jpg

:D

OK... what on earth do you mean by that?

He means he's trolling, and he's going to think about it for a day before he revisits this idea.

there does seems to be something fishy about the way the global environment is discussed in world politics.

Yes indeed. Particularly with the deniers who apparently don't read. (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

The popular certainty is that greenhouse gases are causing global warming and that humans are causing greenhouse gases, but in truth global warming is powered by the sun.

Oh, "in truth." Har.

Technically you are correct, heating of the earth derives the power from the sun's radiation. Global anthropogenic climate change only manages to retain more of that heat.

The sun fluctuates between active and less active periods and these fluctuations drive the climate fluctuations on earth. The sun’s rays on the oceans create more CO2 and greenhouse gases than human activities do.

This is silly. Even if you supported and proved this statement it isn't an argument against anthropogenic climate change at all. So what if the sun does X+1 while humans only do X? Unless you've shown that X has no value you've really only shown that humans are not the sun.

Additionally, particles in the global atmosphere (i.e., world pollution in the atmosphere, not just a singular locale measurement like a city’s measured air pollution) comes mostly from volcanoes, which is a worse global offender than human activity is.

Hey true, volcanoes do (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Volcano/) pollute quite a bit.

I suppose you think this means humans don't pollute significantly.

Kind of like how murderers kill people, while most rapists do not, hence rape is an insignificant crime?

Unfortunately for your argument that isn't true - again, we're assuming that your qualifier about global pollution comes "mostly from volcanoes" is true and it still isn't a valid argument.

Sunlight drives cloud formation and sea currents, which drive weather patterns, not CO2 and greenhouse gases.

Yes that's true. We're talking climate, not weather, though. CO2 and greenhouse gases do effect climate.

We like to blame human activity for climate change (warming) but during the period from WWII to 1975 as global industry increased tenfold the climate temperature decreased.

Irrelevant. No one ever said the climate change model was supposed to be and immediate and direct correlation between global temperature and industry output.

As to rising sea levels, changes in coastal sea levels happen throughout history.

I'm finding this hilarious. It's like there's a dead body that's been raped. You, as an investigator, instead of trying to figure out the culprit, you say, "Oh, rape has happened throughout history. This isn't a crime." or perhaps "OK maybe it's a crime, but terrorism is a worst crime."

Something pretty fishy indeed.


The truth is that global warming and cooling are natural events that will occur regardless of human activity or no human activity.

This is the second time you've tried to just say "the truth" as if proclaiming your nonsense to be "truth" is alone enough to constitute an argument.

But again, as no one has argued that climate change would STOP without human involvement, your argument here is nothing but a strawman.

The earth has been warmer and colder than it is now, for example, during the middle medieval period there occurred what is known as the Warm Period (800-1300 AD) and it was significantly warmer than our current condition. It was warm enough then to allow grape vineyards in Northern England and medieval farming technology to be sufficient for sustained farming in Greenland (both of which are impossible now due to the climate is still too cool for the needed season long warm conditions required for those endeavors).

The fact that you can point out one instance of climate change really doesn't say anything about another.

A common misunderstanding in the general public is the idea that we are capable of predicting significant future climate change at all.

Oh, and I suppose the "general public" is just pleased to have your "truthful" corrections. An enlightenment, as it were. You don't support a single damn statement, just spitting out the same tired drivel and expect that to be some sort of fucking revelation.


Humans are essentially powerless in the face of nature to affect global weather change in any meaningful way, at this time.

I wonder if you can just repeat something enough times and it'll magically become true? Or maybe you have to say, "This is true" alongside each repetition. That's what keeps the truthyness in.

Nature’s control of the earth’s ever changing global weather system has driven the evolution of the species on the planet’s surface since time immemorial. Species survive and die because they adapt or fail to adapt to the ever changing conditions, not because they need to learn to successfully control their global environment.

Anthropogenic climate change is a scam because non-humans do not control the global environment? Wait, what?

So why is it then that our political positions are supposedly known from view point of global warming? It seems a rather whimsical battlefront to me.

Your political position is known to me:

http://www.dpm.org.uk/images/ostrich-head%20in%20sand.jpg