A different view on Global Warming [Archive]

Bulldogcakes

02-04-2007, 06:24 AM

<a href="http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0">Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists...</a>  What I've been saying all along. Lack of data. Overblown conclusions from the data we have. Solar activity is more likely a much larger cause than we are, etc, etc. Even the climatologists who DO claim that we are contributing to global warming put our effect at around 25% of the total effect. And most aren't really comforatable even saying that. The big fancy shmancy Global warming conference put the TOTAL rise in global mean temps for the 20th century at . . . at . . . . . drumroll please . . . . . . . 8 tenths of one degree (.2 of which is our fault). Stop the presses. Global warming is a good reason to scare the public into believing that we need to get off Middle Eastern oil. But we should be doing that anyway. And if you get a warm nice day in January, enjoy it you worry warts. I will.     

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-4-07 @ 10:25 AM

cougarjake13

02-04-2007, 06:29 AM

you know how i look at the weird weather we've been having lately ???when you watch the weather report they always give you the highest and lowest for that day in historythis year is just gonna be one of those years that 20 yrs from now a weatherman says and today in 2006-2007 the high was 70 degreesi mean the planet has gone through many changes and no doubt some causes are humans but by how much are we really affecting the planet

Bulldogcakes

02-04-2007, 06:57 AM

cougarjake13 wrote:when you watch the weather report they always give you the highest and lowest for that day in history Yes, and look at how WIDE the range is, even in the 1800's before there were any cars. Also notice that those temps only go back about 150 years, on a planet that 4 BILLION years old. Thats a statistical sampling of .000000037 worth of data. To give you an idea of how small that is for statistical analysis, there are 350 million people in the USA, ask one person who will be the next president. Would you believe anything with that little data? It gives you an idea of how little data were dealing with and how broad the conclusions are being drawn from it. Plus, the weather on one day in New York tells you next to nothing about what the weather is like in Rio, Hong Kong, London, Rome, etc etc. small localized sampling tells you little about what going on globally.   Even the ice core samples give broad readings over hundreds of thousands of years, so you cant compare apples to apples. Plus they are spread out over a relatively small area of the planet (North and South pole areas) so again extrapolating that into global mean temps is too unreliable.

booster11373

02-04-2007, 07:08 AM

What really bothers me about the whole "there is no global warming" crowd is and I'm not putting anyone here in this group but...firstly by the time that it could be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to those that doubt it so, it will be to late to reverse the effects or at the very least minimize the impact that we as humans contribute to ifSecondly why should we just stagnate when it come to our industrial capacity to control pollution of any kind, as a society we should constantly strive to be come a more and more greener societythere are other points to this but I dont want to muddy the waters anymore

Yerdaddy

02-04-2007, 07:33 AM

I think your source, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post" target="_blank">The National Post</a>, and it's owner, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black" target="_blank">Conrad Black</a>, quite simply suck ass. [quote]Financial controversiesIn the 1980s, Black appropriated over $62,000,000 from the Dominion workers' <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_fund" title="Pension fund">pension fund</a>, over the opposition of his employees, before divesting himself of the grocery store chain.On <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_17" title="November 17">17 November</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003" title="2003">2003</a>, after an internal inquiry alleged that Black had received more than $7 million in unauthorized payments of company funds, it was announced that he would resign as chief executive of Hollinger. The SEC also launched an investigation of his company's affairs.On <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_17" title="January 17">17 January</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004" title="2004">2004</a>, Hollinger International reported that the executive committee of the board of directors had obtained Black's resignation as chairman. At the same time the special committee in Hollinger already investigating the unauthorised payments filed a lawsuit in New York for the recovery of the money.Hollinger International also filed a $200 million (USD) lawsuit against Lord Black and his former top lieutenant, David Radler, as well as the companies Black has used to control the publishing it. [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources" title="Wikipedia:Citing sources">citation needed</a>]On <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_15" title="November 15">15 November</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004" title="2004">2004</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC" title="SEC">SEC</a> filed civil <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud" title="Fraud">fraud</a> lawsuits against Lord Black and several others. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4014083.stm" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4014083.stm">[2]</a>On <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_17" title="November 17">17 November</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005" title="2005">2005</a>, eleven criminal fraud charges were brought by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney" title="United States Attorney">U. S. Attorney</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald" title="Patrick Fitzgerald">Patrick Fitzgerald</a> against Black and three former Hollinger executives. Eight of the criminal fraud charges are against Black, and a warrant has been issued for his arrest.On <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_15" title="December 15">15 December</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005" title="2005">2005</a>, four new federal charges were laid against Black by Fitzgerald in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago" title="Chicago">Chicago</a>. The new counts include <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_%28crime%29" title="Racket (crime)">racketeering</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice" title="Obstruction of justice">obstruction of justice</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering" title="Money laundering">money laundering</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fraud" title="Wire fraud">wire fraud</a>. Under the racketeering count, Fitzgerald is seeking <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure" title="Search and seizure">forfeiture</a> of more than $92,000,000 (USD).The obstruction count against Black relates to a video that appears to show Black illegally removing more than a dozen boxes from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto" title="Toronto">Toronto</a> office of Hollinger Inc. (s

Bulldogcakes

02-04-2007, 07:39 AM

Sure, attack the source not any of the assertions made. Copout.  goad goad goad

FUNKMAN

02-04-2007, 07:40 AM

alot of people getting paid big bucks to look into this. alot of future dollars to boot for the right corporations. WHO THE FUCK KNOWS?  It's pretty frustrating whenever you have two sides on an issue and you can't figure out who to believe, it takes you right back to politics, and what are each parties motive, money, favors????makes you fucking sick and want to punch babies...

sr71blackbird

02-04-2007, 07:40 AM

Notice how 99% of all species went extinct before man arrived on the scene.  Also, how did climate change before man arrived if man effects the environement so much?  I am not saying that we have no impact on the environment, but I AM saying that the environment changes REGARDLESS of what we do and if we were here or not. In FACT, we wouldnt BE HERE if there was no environmental changes.  Behold:<img src="http://earthnet-geonet.ca/images/teaching/ab/timeline_lrg.jpg" border="0" width="592" height="701" />

This message was edited by sr71blackbird on 2-4-07 @ 11:42 AM

foodcourtdruide

02-04-2007, 07:44 AM

sr71blackbird wrote: Notice how 99% of all species went extinct before man arrived on the scene.  Also, how did climate change before man arrived if man effects the environement so much?  I am not saying that we have no impact on the environment, but I AM saying that the environment changes REGARDLESS of what we do and if we were here or not. In FACT, we wouldnt BE HERE if there was no environmental changes.  Behold:<img src="http://earthnet-geonet.ca/images/teaching/ab/timeline_lrg.jpg" border="0" width="592" height="701" />This message was edited by sr71blackbird on 2-4-07 @ 11:42 AM I'm sorry, what do species becoming extinct have to do with global warming?

foodcourtdruide

02-04-2007, 07:48 AM

This has always been my opinion of global warming.. let's say there's a 40% chance it could be real. Let's say it'll take ten more years of research and fact gathering to truly pinpoint what global warming is and what its effects are.. then shouldn't we just treat it like it's real until we find out either way? If a doctor came to you tomorrow and said "there's a 40% chance you're diabetic, but we won't know for two weeks". Would you maintain a diabetic diet for two weeks until you know for sure!?The only benefit of treating global warming as false is that major corporations have easier regulations.

Gvac

02-04-2007, 07:49 AM

Has the Earth undergone drastic weather changes all throughout history?  Yes. Does it continue to do so?  Yes.Is mankind to blame? NO ONE KNOWS.  NO ONE.Any scientist worth their salt will tell you it's a working hypothesis at this point.  I don't think any reputable scientist would go on record saying that it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we're causing the planet to heat up.  When you factor money into the situation as Funkman stated, how the hell do we know who to believe?  Do I believe we should take all possible steps to reduce pollution?  Of course.  Do I believe reducing pollution will "save the planet?"  Not really.

Zorro

02-04-2007, 07:51 AM

The reality is...whether or not global warming exists doesn't matter. As people we are charged with taking care of the planet. Even the possibilty that global warming may be true means we should be doing everything to counteract it. Just like as people we exercise, eat right and take care of ourselves to extend our lives...the earth deserves the same consideration.

Bulldogcakes

02-04-2007, 07:55 AM

foodcourtdruide wrote: This has always been my opinion of global warming.. let's say there's a 40% chance it could be real. Let's say it'll take ten more years of research and fact gathering to truly pinpoint what global warming is and what its effects are.. then shouldn't we just treat it like it's real until we find out either way?OK then. Stop using your car. Turn off the heat in your house. No Ron and Fez unless its a battery powered radio. Dont buy any food which isn't grown in your area (or anything else that needs to be transported with gas powered vehicles), AND GET OFF THE INTERNET!THat is what you're talking about. Unless you get your electric from NUCLEAR energy (90% of the USA doesn't), you're part of the problem.Instead of saying we should "do something", think about what that actually means.     

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-4-07 @ 11:57 AM

A.J.

02-04-2007, 08:12 AM

Reduce the population, reduce the pollution.

MellySmelly

02-04-2007, 08:21 AM

IMHO the cause of global warming can be directly linked to the hotness of Don Stugots

TheMojoPin

02-04-2007, 08:34 AM

I agree with Gvac about a point that's so often lost...the majority of scientists that point to global warming realize, like any good person of science, that it's un an unproven theory.  A lot of evidence can possibly point to different reasonings, but nobody who actually knows their shit is out there saying it's concrete any single way.  Anyone who says either "there's no global warming" or "it's all mankind's fault" definitively is a willfully ignorant fool.I'm definitely in the camp were it looks like humans are CONTRIBUTING to dangerous climate and environmental changes, but not solely responsible.  There's a lot of things we can hopefully change or improve or even eliminate that would ideally extend our species' and others' survival in the very long run and hopefully just generally make things more comfortable and less batshit crazy.  But I totally disagree with the notion that humans are the primary cause behind climate change...there are plenty of environmental matters where we are basically stabbing the eco-system in the neck, but this is one area where it seems that while we are causing damage, it's tiny in scope compared to anything else.  To put it in retarded (ie - me) terms, if the planet has survived volcanoes and dinosaur farts and everything else, it'll survuve us.  And that's where I see the biggest problem with most pro-environment movements...it seems to revolve around "save the planet."  The planet is a tough ol' broad...she'll survive us.  The focus should be "save/improve us."  I think a lot more people have a vested interest in that.  But hey, these are all my opinions...I could easily be wrong.

Jujubees2

02-04-2007, 08:51 AM

Then why is ExxonMobil trying to pay off scientists to write dissenting papers on global warming?<a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/02/1511229&threshold=1">http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/02/1511229&threshold=1</a>  and why is ExxonMobil paying over $16 million to debunk something that doesn't exist?<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html">http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html</a>Surely, ExxonMobil could put some of their record-setting profits to better use.

Bulldogcakes

02-04-2007, 09:04 AM

Jujubees2 wrote: Then why is ExxonMobil trying to pay off scientists to write dissenting papers on global warming?<a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/02/1511229&threshold=1">http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/02/1511229&threshold=1</a> and why is ExxonMobil paying over $16 million to debunk something that doesn't exist?<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html">http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html</a>Surely, ExxonMobil could put some of their record-setting profits to better use.Because its in their interest to do so silly.  And that neither PROVES or DISPROVES anything, it just changes the subject.  I'm simply saying whatever they find should neither be accepted or dismissed because of who funded it. Maybe there are legit areas of research that cant find funding through the usual Government channels. Should I as a Republican disbelieve all the government funded research when the bureaucrats who approve these funds vote overwhelmingly Democratic? And give the $$ to the overwhelmingly liberal universities? No, you take the facts as they are and give them a good critical analysis and see if they hold up.   Science should be taken on its merits, not who paid for it. It either works or it doesn't. Politics and sources have nothing to do with it.

Jujubees2

02-04-2007, 09:11 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Jujubees2 wrote: I'm simply saying whatever they find should neither be accepted or dismissed because of who funded it. Maybe there are legit areas of research that cant find funding through the usual Government channels. Should I as a Republican disbelieve all the government funded research when the bureaucrats who approve these funds vote overwhelmingly Democratic? And give the $$ to the overwhelmingly liberal universities? No, you take the facts as they are and give them a good critical analysis and see if they hold up.   Science should be taken on its merits, not who paid for it. It either works or it doesn't. Politics and sources have nothing to do with it.   What world are you living in?  Of course the source of the funding is important. Do you think that if a group does a study for the tobacco indutry that said tobacco kills will get much more business?  Which makes studies funded by the government and by the United Nation all that much more vital.  Of course, that doesn't go for the current administration who picks and chooses what "science" it wants to believe.  And, until recently, the people who were voting on where the funding goes have been a Repulican majority.

FezPaul

02-04-2007, 09:44 AM

A.J. wrote: Reduce the population, reduce the pollution. <img src="http://www.avert.org/media/headers/statindx_header.jpg" border="0" width="281" height="205" />We're working on it.

weekapaugjz

02-04-2007, 09:50 AM

A.J. wrote: Reduce the population, reduce the pollution. this was hitler's plan, no?

patsopinion

02-04-2007, 10:33 AM

the reason that the conservatives are saying that gloabl warming is bs is because it is the dems way of creating bigger governemtn with more oversite and power... in reality its an oil issuei dont know the exact quote but im attempting to refrence the lennon quote of how u track the money that said i do not have an opinion on the subject because i believe the world is going to end december 23, 2012 anyway and therefore your pitiful world will soon be meaninless. (amazon calander puts that as the end of the the world)  

This message was edited by patsopinion on 2-4-07 @ 2:38 PM

bobrobot

02-04-2007, 11:12 AM

Is it hot out or is it me???<img src="http://www.thefunkstore.com/VinylLps/March2005/Lp-JamesBrownColdSweat.jpg" border="0" width="351" height="348" />

spoon

02-04-2007, 12:14 PM

Jujubees2 wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Jujubees2 wrote: I'm simply saying whatever they find should neither be accepted or dismissed because of who funded it. Maybe there are legit areas of research that cant find funding through the usual Government channels. Should I as a Republican disbelieve all the government funded research when the bureaucrats who approve these funds vote overwhelmingly Democratic? And give the $$ to the overwhelmingly liberal universities? No, you take the facts as they are and give them a good critical analysis and see if they hold up.   Science should be taken on its merits, not who paid for it. It either works or it doesn't. Politics and sources have nothing to do with it.   What world are you living in?  Of course the source of the funding is important. Do you think that if a group does a study for the tobacco indutry that said tobacco kills will get much more business?  Which makes studies funded by the government and by the United Nation all that much more vital.  Of course, that doesn't go for the current administration who picks and chooses what "science" it wants to believe.  And, until recently, the people who were voting on where the funding goes have been a Repulican majority.Juju can't be more right here and BDC is drinking the repub cool aid yet again.  I didn't know you have a degree in any form of science to just rebuke or endorse any info out there.  You speak as if you know for sure and Mojo summed that up nicely.  As for the funding of research, I work in pharm research and how is it that whoever supports the study, their drug comes out as bette?.  Quite simply, it has an effect.  How is it that whenever the government and the VA are involved in a study that the cheapest agents always work best?  To not break down a study on it's setup and parameters is to read without being informed and the studies/science you posted is horrible.  From the source to the reasonining and more that link is insane.  If you truly don't think we as the dominant race on this planet, overpopulated and abusing this planet have no effect, you're just insane and looking to excuses to feel better about being a part of it or possibly motivated by crazy political agendas or ties.  Saying don't live to Juju is crazy too, but the little things add up.  True reform would occur if we as the most influential country on this planet didn't opt out of the major conferences and resolutions that come up as possible solutions.  True reform would be more possible if we put subsidies toward energy reform for real, as opposed to giving it to big oil companies to "research" these areas when most don't even pay most of their taxes in this country any longer.  Nice to take our tax dollars and setup their corp headquarters off-shore.

spoon

02-04-2007, 12:18 PM

patsopinion wrote: the reason that the conservatives are saying that gloabl warming is bs is because it is the dems way of creating bigger governemtn with more oversite and power... in reality its an oil issuei dont know the exact quote but im attempting to refrence the lennon quote of how u track the money that said i do not have an opinion on the subject because i believe the world is going to end december 23, 2012 anyway and therefore your pitiful world will soon be meaninless. (amazon calander puts that as the end of the the world) This message was edited by patsopinion on 2-4-07 @ 2:38 PM You mean the Mayan calander right?  That date is always through around as the end of the world, especially on Coast to Coast with Art Bell and more.  It's the new death date as 2k was the biggest for a long time with the y2k and more crashes expected at the time.  But if you don't believe money is the ultimate root of all this you'd have to be nuts.  It's always the reason, and it's amazing how greedy people and companies with plenty can get/be.

Bulldogcakes

02-04-2007, 06:30 PM

Jujubees2 wrote:What world are you living in? Of course the source of the funding is important. Do you think that if a group does a study for the tobacco indutry that said tobacco kills will get much more business? Which makes studies funded by the government and by the United Nation all that much more vital. Of course, that doesn't go for the current administration who picks and chooses what "science" it wants to believe. And, until recently, the people who were voting on where the funding goes have been a Repulican majority.No it doesn't. Again, you're thinking politically, I'm talking about science.  So if Einstiens theory of relativity was created in Nazi germany the equation doesn't work? If Newton was (and he was) a devoutly religious man, his theory on gravity is to be dismissed?   On and on. Science and politics are two seperate matters completely. If the science holds up it doesn't matter where it comes from. If you dont understand that you're a mushy head liberal! And I mean that in the scientific sense, of course.

TheMojoPin

02-04-2007, 06:40 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Jujubees2 wrote: What world are you living in? Of course the source of the funding is important. Do you think that if a group does a study for the tobacco indutry that said tobacco kills will get much more business? Which makes studies funded by the government and by the United Nation all that much more vital. Of course, that doesn't go for the current administration who picks and chooses what "science" it wants to believe. And, until recently, the people who were voting on where the funding goes have been a Repulican majority.No it doesn't. Again, you're thinking politically, I'm talking about science.  So if Einstiens theory of relativity was created in Nazi germany the equation doesn't work? If Newton was (and he was) a devoutly religious man, his theory on gravity is to be dismissed?   On and on. Science and politics are two seperate matters completely. If the science holds up it doesn't matter where it comes from. If you dont understand that you're a mushy head liberal! And I mean that in the scientific sense, of course.  Dude, this isn't Burning Man, so take down the giant guy made of straw.His point is that the perspective of the funding source is important to consider in these issues.  Your hypothetical examples would have worked if you had said:"If Einstein's theory of relativity research was funded by the Organization for the Theoretical Use of Atomic Power, does the equation not work?""If Newton's research was backed by the Apples Give You Cancer group, is his theory of gravity to be dismissed?"In both cases, no.  But you'd be a damn fool not to consider who is pushing what.  And typically groups backed by people with such a blatant and, quite frankly, desperate agenda, accepting them at face value just because it's a different opinion is absurd.  I'm not saying they're wrong...but your continued demands to ignore where the money goes rings pretty hollow.  Nothing is seperate when serious economic and political interests are involved.  Science, ANY science, isn't immune from these kinds of spin.  If something is propped up by a directly related special interest group and otherwise not widely accepted, 9 times out of 10 it's not due to some kind of massive and secret agenda or bias.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 2-4-07 @ 11:36 PM

foodcourtdruide

02-04-2007, 07:19 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: foodcourtdruide wrote: This has always been my opinion of global warming.. let's say there's a 40% chance it could be real. Let's say it'll take ten more years of research and fact gathering to truly pinpoint what global warming is and what its effects are.. then shouldn't we just treat it like it's real until we find out either way?OK then. Stop using your car. Turn off the heat in your house. No Ron and Fez unless its a battery powered radio. Dont buy any food which isn't grown in your area (or anything else that needs to be transported with gas powered vehicles), AND GET OFF THE INTERNET!THat is what you're talking about. Unless you get your electric from NUCLEAR energy (90% of the USA doesn't), you're part of the problem.Instead of saying we should "do something", think about what that actually means.     This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-4-07 @ 11:57 AM I don't really agree with what you're trying to say here. You know as well as I do that the decisions of the individual pale in comparison to the decisions of the major corporations that are causing pollution.

Yerdaddy

02-04-2007, 07:53 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Sure, attack the source not any of the assertions made. Copout.  goad goad goad The newspaper you cite has proven itself to be a liar and it's founder a corrupt businessman and should not be considered a credible source of information. You know how I feel about sources of information: the fact that people continue to use them because they like what they say rather than they care whether the information is right or not should have been proven by the fiasco in Iraq to be a dangerous and destructive tendency. If what you're claiming to be true is true - that global warming is a global conspiracy of opportunistic greedy scientists and liberals - then you should be able to produce better sources for your assertions. If this shitty "newspaper" is your best source then this is evidence of the opposite claims.What freaks me out is that the subject here is the earth and the scientific laws that govern it. Yet so many people are willing to buttonhole the monstrously complex subject into one or two glib generalizations or taking some scientific phenomenon that isn't evidence of global warming and claiming that this is proof that there is no global warming. What you've done is formed an opinion - usually based on political ideology of some sort - conservatism or libertarianism or simply a "what's best for big business is best for America" view - and searched for evidence or an argument that supports that position. (Again, this is evidence of the American tendency to love our opinions more than we care whether our opinions are true. We're known for this around the world.) And if this is the best evidence you've found then you don't take the subject seriously. You're ignoring the vast majority of credible sources of information and saying: "as long as I can pull some argument against global warming out of my ass it doesn't exist, (and, is in fact proof of my theory that it's all a liberal/scientist conspiracy)".Ultimately we have no choice but to trust scientists on this issue. It's infinitely more complicated than the subject of Iraq and we suck at understanding that - and we lost because we trusted obviously bad sources. So in terms of a citizen making decisions about climate change it's all a question of sources and how you treat them. The quality of America's response to global warming will depend on whether we've learned a fucking thing from Iraq about how to make decisions about sources and whether we're capable of telling who is lying to us and who isn't. And I can tell you that, like Iraq, it's us against the world.

spoon

02-04-2007, 08:46 PM

Make a baby with me Yerdaddy!Well put twinkle-sack, you complete me.

FMJeff

02-05-2007, 12:23 PM

I think there's an arguement to be made that although we do not know for sure whether our influence is affecting global climate, we should still be responsible for our actions and how we co-exist with the world around us. Being unsure about the data should not give us a license to continue polluting at the levels we do. There are still some irrefutable evidence that cannot be ignored, such as rates of deforestation due to farming and building, species extinction, coral reef pollution and bleaching, water pollution in major urban areas, etc. Global warming aside, we still punish the shit out of this planet. Hell, we killed an entire species off. A dolphin, in china, first mammal in years, now gone, forever, because the Chinese are filthy and their rivers are incapable of supporting life. The dodo, the passenger pidgeon...over hunting, etc.These things ARE our fault, and that is not in dispute. Global warming is just a way to place blame, with those most blameworthy saying "see, it ain't us". Well, it is...maybe not climate change, but ecosystem health is certainly at risk.

WRESTLINGFAN

02-05-2007, 03:28 PM

If the glaciers keep on melting, developers can turn apartment buildings in the NYC Metro area into luxury beach front condos in about 100 years

Mike from Bklyn

02-05-2007, 03:39 PM

I agree with Gvac.

epo

02-05-2007, 06:42 PM

If there is no other reason to consider Global Warming to be a serious threat and something that we as a species should do something about, then it should be our own health.  Today, HealthDay featured an article about the human health risks of global warming.  <a href="http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=601612">Link here.</a>  So honestly, it's at your doorstep now...are you willing to admit it exists & more importantly are you willing to make changes to help out?

NortonRules

02-05-2007, 07:20 PM

I couldn't agree with Bulldogcakes more.  Right on.  This is the biggest scam since organized religion, but this time it's the left doing it (although not many on the left have the balls to take on religion, either).  booster 11373: By your rationale, by the time I find out if there is an invisible boogeymen under my bed or not, it also might be too late and I might be killed.  Sometimes you have to let science and proof guide you, not a bunch of people who stand to profit off it by lying to you (democrats, liberal mainstream media, scientists with no morals).  This is like a SNL skit gone wrong.  It's seriously frightening to see so many people believe in something  that goes AGAINST science and fact (again, same as religion).  Now they're looking into the Bush Administration's efforts to sweep this under the rug?  If they did try, they did a bad job.  It's the single biggest story right now and has been for a long time (no one seems to be interested in the war).  I hear so few 'skeptic' stories, than I began questioning my sanity.  Now Al Gore's up for a peace prize?  For admittedly (depending on which side of his mouth he's talking out of) making a fantasy, fiction movie?  We are in deep trouble, people, but cars are not the cause.  The Earth has and will go through many cycles regardless of us.  If there's still anyone who believes in man-made global warming, please just tell me one thing...How did we get out of the previous ice ages without the assistance of cars and horrible horrible Republicans?

NortonRules

02-05-2007, 07:27 PM

Bulldogcakes is right.  If you believe humans are ruining the planet, then you should stop driving and riding in cars and buses.  Really, you should start a garden in your backyard, if you have one, and get your food that way.  Don't even think about cooking it.  You'll probably still have to kill some helpless trees in order to heat your home.  Put up or shut up.  Take some personal responsibility.  Al Gore hasn't walked the walk.  That should show how much he really believes in all of this.

PapaBear

02-05-2007, 07:32 PM

It's ridiculous to think that way. It's possible to have modern conveniences and still act responsibly.

Fez4PrezN2008

02-05-2007, 07:49 PM

Mike from Bklyn wrote: I agree with Gvac. I agree with Mike from Bklyn.

FUNKMAN

02-05-2007, 08:07 PM

I agree with Louie Schwartz

Doomstone

02-05-2007, 09:46 PM

NortonRules wrote: I couldn't agree with Bulldogcakes more. Right on. This is the biggest scam since organized religion, but this time it's the left doing it (although not many on the left have the balls to take on religion, either). booster 11373: By your rationale, by the time I find out if there is an invisible boogeymen under my bed or not, it also might be too late and I might be killed. Sometimes you have to let science and proof guide you, not a bunch of people who stand to profit off it by lying to you (democrats, liberal mainstream media, scientists with no morals). This is like a SNL skit gone wrong. It's seriously frightening to see so many people believe in something that goes AGAINST science and fact (again, same as religion). Now they're looking into the Bush Administration's efforts to sweep this under the rug? If they did try, they did a bad job. It's the single biggest story right now and has been for a long time (no one seems to be interested in the war). I hear so few 'skeptic' stories, than I began questioning my sanity. Now Al Gore's up for a peace prize? For admittedly (depending on which side of his mouth he's talking out of) making a fantasy, fiction movie? We are in deep trouble, people, but cars are not the cause. The Earth has and will go through many cycles regardless of us. If there's still anyone who believes in man-made global warming, please just tell me one thing...How did we get out of the previous ice ages without the assistance of cars and horrible horrible Republicans? Is this performance art?

Yerdaddy

02-06-2007, 02:08 AM

NortonRules wrote: I couldn't agree with Bulldogcakes more.  Right on.  This is the biggest scam since organized religion, but this time it's the left doing it (although not many on the left have the balls to take on religion, either).  booster 11373: By your rationale, by the time I find out if there is an invisible boogeymen under my bed or not, it also might be too late and I might be killed.  Sometimes you have to let science and proof guide you, not a bunch of people who stand to profit off it by lying to you (democrats, liberal mainstream media, scientists with no morals).  This is like a SNL skit gone wrong.  It's seriously frightening to see so many people believe in something  that goes AGAINST science and fact (again, same as religion).  Now they're looking into the Bush Administration's efforts to sweep this under the rug?  If they did try, they did a bad job.  It's the single biggest story right now and has been for a long time (no one seems to be interested in the war).  I hear so few 'skeptic' stories, than I began questioning my sanity.  Now Al Gore's up for a peace prize?  For admittedly (depending on which side of his mouth he's talking out of) making a fantasy, fiction movie?  We are in deep trouble, people, but cars are not the cause.  The Earth has and will go through many cycles regardless of us.  If there's still anyone who believes in man-made global warming, please just tell me one thing...How did we get out of the previous ice ages without the assistance of cars and horrible horrible Republicans?NortonRules wrote: Bulldogcakes is right.  If you believe humans are ruining the planet, then you should stop driving and riding in cars and buses.  Really, you should start a garden in your backyard, if you have one, and get your food that way.  Don't even think about cooking it.  You'll probably still have to kill some helpless trees in order to heat your home.  Put up or shut up.  Take some personal responsibility.  Al Gore hasn't walked the walk.  That should show how much he really believes in all of this. So I guess you could agree with Bulldogcakes more.

Bulldogcakes

02-06-2007, 02:40 AM

Here ya go Daddy-o, a different source<a href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm">Climatologist Calls Global Warming Fears 'Greatest Deception in the History of Science'...</a>Granted its one mans (expert) opinion, but he raises alot of interesting points to consider. and let me clarify something, I am not and never have said I am certain it isn't happening. Quite the contrary. THere is no doubt that global temps rose .8 of one degree last century. Whether this is man made or just the natural ebb and flow of the planet is what ats issue here to me.  And one thing that has always stuck in my craw about this is when I was a kid in the 70's, I rememeber news shows doing pieces about "The Coming Ice Age"  because (as this article states) global temps were FALLING in the 60's and 70's.  and Mojo, the strawman thing is getting old. Believe it or not, people can have different takes than you without it being a "strawman".

Gvac

02-06-2007, 02:52 AM

Mike from Bklyn wrote: I agree with Gvac.I'd like to see more posts like this. In every single thread. This Mike from Bklyn is one smart cookie.

Yerdaddy

02-06-2007, 03:16 AM

sailor

02-06-2007, 03:43 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: NortonRules wrote: Bulldogcakes is right. If you believe humans are ruining the planet, then you should stop driving and riding in cars and buses. Really, you should start a garden in your backyard, if you have one, and get your food that way. Don't even think about cooking it. You'll probably still have to kill some helpless trees in order to heat your home. Put up or shut up. Take some personal responsibility. Al Gore hasn't walked the walk. That should show how much he really believes in all of this.  And naturally you'll take some personal responsibility and, believing that humans are not ruining the planet, fly to Australia (the country with one of the thinnest layers of ozone coverage and the highest rate of skin cancer) and lie naked in a pool of baby oil in the sun for a week. Obviously this would be the only way to prove that you truly believe that there is no such thing as global warming. Let us know when you've booked your flight. i'm no expert, but isn't the ozone layer a completely different issue?  start a separate thread for the ozone layer!

epo

02-06-2007, 04:27 AM

Yerdaddy

02-06-2007, 05:24 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Here ya go Daddy-o, a different source<a href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm">Climatologist Calls Global Warming Fears 'Greatest Deception in the History of Science'...</a>Granted its one mans (expert) opinion, but he raises alot of interesting points to consider. and let me clarify something, I am not and never have said I am certain it isn't happening. Quite the contrary. THere is no doubt that global temps rose .8 of one degree last century. Whether this is man made or just the natural ebb and flow of the planet is what ats issue here to me.  And one thing that has always stuck in my craw about this is when I was a kid in the 70's, I rememeber news shows doing pieces about "The Coming Ice Age"  because (as this article states) global temps were FALLING in the 60's and 70's.  and Mojo, the strawman thing is getting old. Believe it or not, people can have different takes than you without it being a "strawman".  Seriously! This sources is worse than the last one! <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Free_Press" target="_blank">Canada Free Press</a> is not even a newspaper but just a website run by some conservative nut who apparently believe that the mafia was involved with 9-11! (She seems to have removed the article but the title is unambiguous.)Hawkins and McLeod allege that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11" title="9/11">9/11</a> terrorist attacks on the United States may have been a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia" title="Mafia">Mafia</a> plot and not the work of Arab terrorists. <a href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover071105.htm" title="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover071105.htm">[</a><a href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover071105.htm" title="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover071105.htm">9/11 and the Mob: It is even possible that this is not mob related?, Canada Free Press article</a><a href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover071105.htm" title="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover071105.htm">]</a> The rest of the wiki page speaks for itself. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ball" target="_blank">The author</a> is apparently the head of a 3 month old "environmental" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project">organization</a> that was formed when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe_%26_Mail" target="_blank">a real Canadian newspaper</a> published <a href="http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html" target="_blank">an article</a> exposing the author's funding by the energy industry, (if it's not bias why hide it?) and debunking some of his claims. Here's my main point: Look at the wiki page for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming" target="_blank">global warming</a>. Big page. Alot of scientific information. Alot of links to sources for that information like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change" target="_blank">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Meteorological_Organization" title="World Meteorological Organization">World Meteorological Organization</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasa" target="_blank">NASA</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_%26_Atmospheric_Administration" target="_blank">National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency" target="_blank">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc" target="_blank">BBC</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_magazine" target="_blank">Nature Magazine</a>... And you're linking me to a site that links the mafia to 9-11!

Yerdaddy

02-06-2007, 05:33 AM

sailor wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: NortonRules wrote: Bulldogcakes is right. If you believe humans are ruining the planet, then you should stop driving and riding in cars and buses. Really, you should start a garden in your backyard, if you have one, and get your food that way. Don't even think about cooking it. You'll probably still have to kill some helpless trees in order to heat your home. Put up or shut up. Take some personal responsibility. Al Gore hasn't walked the walk. That should show how much he really believes in all of this.  And naturally you'll take some personal responsibility and, believing that humans are not ruining the planet, fly to Australia (the country with one of the thinnest layers of ozone coverage and the highest rate of skin cancer) and lie naked in a pool of baby oil in the sun for a week. Obviously this would be the only way to prove that you truly believe that there is no such thing as global warming. Let us know when you've booked your flight. i'm no expert, but isn't the ozone layer a completely different issue?  start a separate thread for the ozone layer! What are you fucking kidding me? I made an utterly absurd argument to parallel is utterly absurd argument and you're fucking fact-checking me? Who gives a shit Holly Hall Monitor! I like it better the way it is.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 2-6-07 @ 9:36 AM

FMJeff

02-06-2007, 01:57 PM

looks like yerdaddy's warming faster than expected as well

DJEvelEd

02-06-2007, 02:27 PM

Mr. Cumia is way off on this one. He said something like "It's something we created that we are leaving our kids & grandkids to take care of" but I say that OUR grandfathers started this shit for us to start taking care of now.

WRESTLINGFAN

02-06-2007, 03:24 PM

One good thing about global warming is that it ended the last ice age

TheMojoPin

02-06-2007, 05:35 PM

This thread was basically a hilarious segment on The Colbert Report last night.

HBox

02-06-2007, 05:38 PM

It's just eczema.

Yerdaddy

02-07-2007, 01:48 AM

FMJeff wrote: looks like yerdaddy's warming faster than expected as well You wanna rain in my ozone hole?

scottinnj

02-08-2007, 08:15 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: . Global warming is a good reason to scare the public into believing that we need to get off Middle Eastern oil. But we should be doing that anyway. This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-4-07 @ 10:25 AM That's what I have been thinking for a long time-I never believed we as humans have the ability to damage the earth permanently....we could kill ourselves, but the earth will always be able to filter and clean our fuckups.  But damn it, we need to conserve energy to get off the tit of the middle east so we can stop giving the terrorists the money to buy the explosives that kill us.

scottinnj

02-08-2007, 08:21 PM

Can I ask someone for an answer to this:  How come oil is a "fossil fuel?"  I was taught in school that oil comes from dead dinosaurs.  The Saudis pull out of the ground 2 million barrels a day by themselves.  How many dinosaurs were there?

spoon

02-08-2007, 09:32 PM

Saw tha Mojo and it was hilarious.Also, it's a good thing that all the energy companies in the south are trying/building old fashioned coal burning plants without any new technology in order to beat the limits on CO2 production.  They refuse to upgrade their processing ability on CO2 even at only a 10% loss in profits while this is the dirtiest form of energy out there.  I read a couple articles on it in the past so it's not top of mind but it was very shady none-the-less.  The company in question (from the article), didn't raise prices until after the election bc it had the repub candidate in it's back pocket.  As soon as he won they hiked rates and the company got rights to land all over texas.  They claim the need for more energy and use rolling blackout scare tactics just as ENRON did, Cheney did and many others when they want things to occur.  Funny pattern I see here, even with our terror alerts.

Yerdaddy

02-08-2007, 09:39 PM

scottinnj wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: . Global warming is a good reason to scare the public into believing that we need to get off Middle Eastern oil. But we should be doing that anyway. This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 2-4-07 @ 10:25 AM That's what I have been thinking for a long time-I never believed we as humans have the ability to damage the earth permanently....we could kill ourselves, but the earth will always be able to filter and clean our fuckups.  But damn it, we need to conserve energy to get off the tit of the middle east so we can stop giving the terrorists the money to buy the explosives that kill us.Whew! I'm so relieved that it's only my existance that's at risk! But seriously, I'm convinced that global warming is real because the overwhelming majority of scientists say it's so (and if the overwhelming majority of doctors told me I had cancer I'd treat the cancer) but about ten years ago when I read Stephen J Gould say that humans only had the capacity to make the planet uninhabitable for the human species I had the same feeling that I had today when I read that Anna Nichole Smith had died: "Eh. No big loss."

Yerdaddy

02-08-2007, 09:48 PM

scottinnj wrote: Can I ask someone for an answer to this:  How come oil is a "fossil fuel?"  I was taught in school that oil comes from dead dinosaurs.  The Saudis pull out of the ground 2 million barrels a day by themselves.  How many dinosaurs were there?  Not counting Reeshy there were four:<img src="http://tvphotogalleries.com/data/512/1gg1.jpg" border="0" width="407" height="379" /> But "dinosaurs" is a teaching tool to refer to all living matter that lived, died and decayed over a long period of time. Most fossil fuels were plant or bacteria matter. And most of that was from reeshy's shower tiles.

Yerdaddy

02-08-2007, 09:54 PM

this is just wrong<img src="http://www.gagreport.com/images/goldengirlsgonewild.jpg" border="0" width="170" height="276" />

Chigworthy

02-09-2007, 10:41 AM

<img src="http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d61/BBuffet/girlinterrupted.jpg" border="0" width="200" height="201" />Golden Girl Interrupted

Midkiff

02-09-2007, 10:47 AM

Plain and simple - global warming is real, we are f**king up the earth, and if you refuse to see it you're stupid. Sorry.

Furtherman

02-09-2007, 10:50 AM

Furtherman

02-09-2007, 10:51 AM

jdmidkiff wrote: Plain and simple - global warming is real, we are f**king up the earth, and if you refuse to see it you're stupid. Sorry. *sigh*You're being fooled.

Midkiff

02-09-2007, 10:57 AM

Yes, all those oil company CEOs should be more trusted. Funny how disbelief of anything environmental goes hand-in-hand with republicanism. The Earth can surely handle anything humans do naturally, but our modern pollution is not natural. All the shit we make doesn't just go away. It stays here, trapped in the bubble of our atmosphere. Knowing that, you know you're filling your own air tank with toxins. I'm being fooled? I don't think so. It would be just like Fez in a space suit. Sooner or later he's going to smother in his own farts.

Chigworthy

02-09-2007, 11:03 AM

Where are you from?

Furtherman

02-09-2007, 11:12 AM

jdmidkiff wrote: Yes, all those oil company CEOs should be more trusted. Funny how disbelief of anything environmental goes hand-in-hand with republicanism. Just for the record, I loathe the current republican administration.  Sickened too. But my stance has nothing to do party affiliation.  It has to do with the research I did on my own looking into Global Warming.  I stated a bunch of it on another thread but the thing you have to remember that this "we're doomed!" mentality that people like Al Gore is shoveling at you is blown WAY WAY WAY out of proportion.  Look into it - there are plenty of scientific journals online now that you can access and with a little reading you'll see that we're not in so much danger you may think.Actually, we should be more worried of being hit by an asteroid.

spoon

02-10-2007, 10:29 AM

Furtherman wrote: jdmidkiff wrote: Yes, all those oil company CEOs should be more trusted. Funny how disbelief of anything environmental goes hand-in-hand with republicanism. Just for the record, I loathe the current republican administration.  Sickened too. But my stance has nothing to do party affiliation.  It has to do with the research I did on my own looking into Global Warming.  I stated a bunch of it on another thread but the thing you have to remember that this "we're doomed!" mentality that people like Al Gore is shoveling at you is blown WAY WAY WAY out of proportion.  Look into it - there are plenty of scientific journals online now that you can access and with a little reading you'll see that we're not in so much danger you may think.Actually, we should be more worried of being hit by an asteroid.Here's the thing Further, if it were a sudden hit by an asteroid we didn't see coming it's excusable, or at least not something we take a lot of blame for.  And let's sum up Jeff's point, we are in fact fucking up this planet as if were not running out of space already.  We can't just keep throwing our garbage out the window and not expect it to catch up with us.  Even if this issue was false, which 99% of reputable scientist say its not, what bad could come from us making cleaner, safer choices.  Getting away from dirty, limited energy sources.  All which have been clearly linked to bad human health (asthma, allergies and many far worse) and depletion of the ozone layer by dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere destroying the balance which protects every one of us and the planet itself from the harmful effects of the sun.  That company I mentioned in Texas is TXU.  If they get their plants in under the wire the US will have 150 new dirty coal burning plants in the US, and specifically Texas, by 2011.  And the energy need claim they tout as the reason is mostly created by their lobbying with others to reduce energy efficiency of appliances, especially air conditioners.  In fact, Texas is where it all started under, get this, G W, when he allowed and lowered energy efficiency levels for an AC company to compete in the housing market without taking fines for being way below the limit.  Now all the limits are way down, just like the MPG standards on cars in the US, due to the gov not helping us to move in the right direction but in fact in the opposite.  If we were even held to the old standards, in terms of AC in Texas, there would be no energy crunch and their claim would be mute.  They created their "rolling blackout" future threat in order to create fear and get their agenda through.  And if you think this is beyond their planning ability your out of your mind.  And it's incredible how often W is on the wrong/money side of the issues.  He got a ton of money and jobs for family based on his support.

spoon

02-10-2007, 10:51 AM

NortonRules wrote: Bulldogcakes is right.  If you believe humans are ruining the planet, then you should stop driving and riding in cars and buses.  Really, you should start a garden in your backyard, if you have one, and get your food that way.  Don't even think about cooking it.  You'll probably still have to kill some helpless trees in order to heat your home.  Put up or shut up.  Take some personal responsibility.  Al Gore hasn't walked the walk.  That should show how much he really believes in all of this.  You really aren't seeing the full picture huh?  Our efforts are great and needed more as symbolic, a form of what the people want encouraging our officials to move in the right direction.  If we as the US can't lead here, we're doomed.  Here's an example:If Texas and TXU get just 11 more low grade cool burning plants in the state, they'll more than double the company's current pollution of 78 million tons of planet-heating pollution each year....the equivalent of 11 million SUVs.  So you do the math NR.  Where is the real impact to be made?  And figure out that the industry under Bush's wing is trying to get 150 new plants overall in the US.  We'll be as dirty as China in no time at all.  And truthfully that's a real bad direction.  These plants refuse to even use newer methods that burn the coal cleaner by taking out the pollutants (better at least).  Already Texas air quality is a fucking joke. Due in fact to these type plants, the state ranks first in the nation in mercury emissions.  Mercury, a very potent neurotoxin, can damage the brains and nervous systems of fetuses and small children.  So where's the anti-abortion crowd on this one.  Oh, its ok when it happens to people involutarily due to corporate greed, but not based on individual choices.  And it true right wing fashion, they try to dumb down the issue by ferrying in bought toxicologists to city meeting throughout Texas where they make general claims that mercury isn't really so dangerous.  They talk about how safe it is in one sentence, then out of the other side of their mouth claim to be investing millions in "clean coal" research.  They never come to the table with actual facts, but statements and oblivious remarks talking down to the people. Just a note that this info is from a Jeff Goodell article and I didn't " " everywhere I should have.  Just being a good citizen here.

Mike Teacher

02-10-2007, 01:38 PM

Wow I went away and missed this thread I'll have to actually read the damn thing and see what's what.Real quick for me, Global Warming exists, so does Global Cooling, and a lot of Global fill-in-the-blank.The key, for me, the most difficult if not impossible [with the knowledge we have today, this may change in the future] task is to measure all the diff factors that ultimately affect the Earth's temp, and how much the 6 billion ants called humanity weigh in as a factor.Weather prediction makes computers just explode. We cant get all the variables in, oh shit what guy talked all about this, Godel maybe, about systems where there are so many variables that prediction of fututre events in that system are simply impossible. Not just difficult, but impossible. Not sure if the above fits that, but for now, we cant predict shit for weather, so as for predicting the future temp of the planet in one, ten, 100 years? Yow.

BLZBUBBA

02-10-2007, 01:55 PM

There is global warming.  The question is whether man's the cause.  Or if we're even making a significant impact.  There's a real difference between science and peer-reviewed science.  I'm all for finding the facts and seeing if we can make a difference by burning fewer fossil fuels.  I do find it odd that EXXON has stopped funding one of the major anti-warming science groups. Hell.  There were even doctors claiming cigarettes were good for you.  And cigarette companies denied they were addictive.  I say let the scientists,  independent scientists,  figure the thing out.THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING.  Man's impact is the question. I hope that man is making the difference.  If not...It's something that CAN'T BE reversed.  And things are really going to start getting shitty in a relatively short time.  A century or two?  A blink of an eye time-wise.

keithy_19

02-10-2007, 02:39 PM

Al Gore, the man who invented the internet, said global warming was real. I'm sticking with him.

keithy_19

02-10-2007, 02:42 PM

My problemw itht he global warming issue is that it's used as a political device. If you want to save the planet, fuck the politics. You're going to have tog et buddy buddy with the oil companie if thats what you think the problem is. Make them see your ways through the inside, not jsut standing on a pedestal on some stage yelling at the top of your lungs to a group of people that probably agrees with you. If it gets tv time, good, but the people that dopn't want to hear it are gonna turn it off anyway.

sailor

02-10-2007, 02:54 PM

Mike Teacher wrote: Wow I went away and missed this thread I'll have to actually read the damn thing and see what's what.Real quick for me, Global Warming exists, so does Global Cooling, and a lot of Global fill-in-the-blank.The key, for me, the most difficult if not impossible [with the knowledge we have today, this may change in the future] task is to measure all the diff factors that ultimately affect the Earth's temp, and how much the 6 billion ants called humanity weigh in as a factor.Weather prediction makes computers just explode. We cant get all the variables in, oh shit what guy talked all about this, Godel maybe, about systems where there are so many variables that prediction of fututre events in that system are simply impossible. Not just difficult, but impossible. Not sure if the above fits that, but for now, we cant predict shit for weather, so as for predicting the future temp of the planet in one, ten, 100 years? Yow.    james gleick talks about that in his book chaos.  any weather forecast outside of 5 days is an absolute guess.  i love that so many sites will give 10 day forecasts, and it makes me giggle to myself.side note, i loved that book when i read it 15 some-odd years ago.  lorenz and the butterfly effect, and who doesn't love mandelbrot sets?<img src="http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l25/madrigalq/mandelbrotset.png" border="0" width="500" height="375" />

Bulldogcakes

02-10-2007, 05:06 PM

Mike Teacher wrote: Wow I went away and missed this thread I'll have to actually read the damn thing and see what's what.Real quick for me, Global Warming exists, so does Global Cooling, and a lot of Global fill-in-the-blank.The key, for me, the most difficult if not impossible [with the knowledge we have today, this may change in the future] task is to measure all the diff factors that ultimately affect the Earth's temp, and how much the 6 billion ants called humanity weigh in as a factor.Weather prediction makes computers just explode. We cant get all the variables in, oh shit what guy talked all about this, Godel maybe, about systems where there are so many variables that prediction of fututre events in that system are simply impossible. Not just difficult, but impossible. Not sure if the above fits that, but for now, we cant predict shit for weather, so as for predicting the future temp of the planet in one, ten, 100 years? Yow.   Thank you. And were comparing accurate global temps collected in the past 150 years from the entire planet to rough, broad readings of ice core samples taken from 8 spots on the planet, 4 from each pole. Even the model for co2 causing global warming was performed in a fish tank. Last time I checked, Earth isn't a fish tank. When you add oceans, jet streams, plants, volcanos, solar activity, etc etc etc call me.   Some climatologists remind me of some nutritionists and people who sell vitamins and herbal remedies, overblown claims and recommendations based on very little data. Based on some science, so it sounds good, but its too complex to make anything close to a reliable predictions.

Mike Teacher

02-10-2007, 06:04 PM

Some climatologists remind me of some nutritionists and people who sell vitamins and herbal remedies, overblown claims and recommendations based on very little data. Based on some science, so it sounds good, but its too complex to make anything close to a reliable predictions. =This is a big part of the problem. It was really sad, seriously, as a kid who fucking loved science and persued a career involving it, to find out how much lying, cheating, stealing goes on in science, just like everything else. In a perfect world, science would exist in a vacuum. In theory, the people collecting the data should have absolutely no idea what they are doing, so that any pre-conceived notions of the outcome don't taint [hey now!] the results aka double blind trials. But this is impossible. The very act of measuring destroys the measurement, to some degree, always. People have agendas, most big science is gov or big biz-driven, so results that aren't in the best interest of the peeps who are funding the research may well be bent, skewed, cooked, ignored...Sagan said it best something along the lines of; Having all the degrees and expertise and awards is no guarantee whatsoever against being dead wrong.=Studying the planet a bit, you gotta feel a bit of an alrm in your head when you study the atmospahere, see pictures of it from space, and see how thin the shell really is.What the 'atmosphere' is depends on who defines it. It gets thinner and thinner but slowly so while there is still an 'atmosphere' 100+ miles up, what we might think of as the atmosphere is much thinner then that. In terms of breathing, pilots have to don O2 at 10,000 feet, so only 2 miles up and it's getting tough to breathe, after 5 miles up, forget it, unless you're an acclimated climber.So an 8,000 mile diameter rock has a shell of 'breathable' atmosphere thats less then 1% that diameter. Pretty thin at that perspective.Volcanoes, cosmic rays, geothermal, solar cycles [that we know of, I'd bet the farm there are longer cycles we're unaware of now], ice ages, axis procession, the oceans [holy shit the influence of the oceans in the local temp? If it wasnt for the gulf stream France might be the same temp as Siberia, they're at the same latitude]. All affect that shell, plus some more I'm guessing again we're clueless about. Repeated ad nausem in 'And The Band Played On':What do we think?What do we know?What can we prove?Very difficult to differentiate the three.

badmonkey

02-11-2007, 05:31 PM

I know nothing about the politics of this "source", but this article is pretty interesting regarding the media reporting of the "global warming"/"ice age" yo-yo that's been going on for the last hundred years or so. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp Badmonkey

sr71blackbird

02-11-2007, 10:39 PM

Interesting <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece" target="_blank">article</a>

TheMojoPin

02-12-2007, 06:36 AM

sr71blackbird wrote: Interesting <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece" target="_blank">article</a> The Times, and its sister paper <a href="http://null/wiki/The_Sunday_Times_%28UK%29" title="The Sunday Times (UK)">The Sunday Times</a>, are published by Times Newspapers Limited, a subsidiary of <a href="http://null/wiki/News_International" title="News International">News International</a>, itself wholly owned by the <a href="http://null/wiki/News_Corporation" title="News Corporation">News Corporation</a> group, headed by <a href="http://null/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch" title="Rupert Murdoch">Rupert Murdoch</a>. Though traditionally a <a href="http://null/wiki/Right-wing" title="Right-wing">right-wing</a> newspaper and a strong supporter of the <a href="http://null/wiki/Conservative_Party_%28UK%29" title="Conservative Party (UK)">Conservatives</a>, it has supported <a href="http://null/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29" title="Labour Party (UK)">New Labour</a> in the two last elections,<a href="http://null/#_note-0">[1]</a> after Murdoch allied himself with <a href="http://null/wiki/Tony_Blair" title="Tony Blair">Tony Blair</a><a href="http://null/#_note-1">[2]</a>. It has also come to stress Murdoch's "<a href="http://null/wiki/Neo-conservative" title="Neo-conservative">neo-conservative</a>" views over the broader and more balanced range of conservative views it has traditionally put forward.<a href="http://null/#_note-2">[3]</a>Just sayin'.  There's definitely a running theme.

Furtherman

02-12-2007, 07:18 AM

spoon wrote: Even if this issue was false, which 99% of reputable scientist say its not, There you go.That is simply NOT true.  I'm not saying you are lying, but you have been influenced by too many figures who have an agenda behind them.  Their grants for research depend on it, so they'll say anything to keep those find coming in.But if you look into independent opinion and scientific fact - you will see that most climatoligists do not agree that the human element is rapidly causing global warming on a catastrophic scale.  Yes, there is global warming and, like Mike The Teacher said above, global cooling.  And yes, cleaner engery sources is only common sense in the long run.  But the dire consequences predicted by such fare as An Inconnvienet Truth are blown way out of proportion.

TheMojoPin

02-12-2007, 07:57 AM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">Furtherman wrote: spoon wrote: Even if this issue was false, which 99% of reputable scientist say its not, There you go.That is simply NOT true.ÿ I'm not saying you are lying, but you have been influenced by too many figures who have an agenda behind them.ÿ Their grants for research depend on it, so they'll say anything to keep those find coming in.But if you look into independent opinion and scientific fact - you will see that most climatoligists do not agree that the human element is rapidly causing global warming on a catastrophic scale.ÿ Yes, there is global warming and, like Mike The Teacher said above, global cooling.ÿ And yes, cleaner engery sources is only common sense in the long run.ÿ But the dire consequences predicted by such fare as An Inconnvienet Truth are blown way out of proportion.<hr color="cococo" align="left">

QFT.

hwyengr

02-12-2007, 08:08 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Unless you get your electric from NUCLEAR energy (90% of the USA doesn't), you're part of the problem.For once in my life, I'm part of the solution!

Bulldogcakes

02-12-2007, 03:24 PM

This is a big part of the problem. It was really sad, seriously, as a kid who fucking loved science and persued a career involving it, to find out how much lying, cheating, stealing goes on in science, just like everything else. In a perfect world, science would exist in a vacuum. In theory, the people collecting the data should have absolutely no idea what they are doing, so that any pre-conceived notions of the outcome don't taint [hey now!] the results aka double blind trials. But this is impossible. The very act of measuring destroys the measurement, to some degree, always. People have agendas, most big science is gov or big biz-driven, so results that aren't in the best interest of the peeps who are funding the research may well be bent, skewed, cooked, ignored...I'll give you a great example of this, and this one came from the Pentagon and their buddies on the right. Rememeber all the stuff a few years ago about asteroids? About how a big one could wipe out the planet and what should we do about it? Now, that is and has been the case forever. Why the sudden panic? While possible, it's extremely rare in Earth's history. Asteroids that came (somewhat) close to Earth made news at the time, the Science and Discovery channels all did shows about the topic ad nauseum.Asteroids travel thousands of MPH. To be able to hit it, or even knock it off course would be an enormous undertaking. Its like trying to "hit a bullet with a bullet". The technology necessary would be the same kind of technology needed to hit other fast moving targets, say a nuclear weapon. Sound fimiliar? The Reagan era Star Wars program was dead at the time, you couldn't get funding for it on capitol Hill anymore, despite high profile supporters like Spkr Newt Gingrich. This became a way to keep it funded, cliaming to be for other uses. Always remember nobody wants to pay higher taxes, nobody wants to be inconvenienced in any way by a bunch of shmucks in Washington. So no politician worth his salt will frame the debate that way. There will be some hobgoblin, threatening us all, and lo and behold our glorious leaders will come save us from our horrble fate. Laughing all the way to the bank with our money, and our freedom. Which we sign away gladly. Suckers.   The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -H. L. Mencken

Furtherman

02-20-2007, 12:58 PM

Furtherman wrote: Actually, we should be more worried of being hit by an asteroid.What did I tell you?  WHAT DID I TELL YOU?!<h2><a href="http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=264972007" target="_blank">It may hit Earth ... but don't worry, we've got a plan</a></h2>It's a one in 45,000 chance, but in cosmic terms that's really fucking close!!!

Bulldogcakes

03-03-2007, 04:23 AM

Kill that source.  <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html">Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says...</a> In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. Solar Cycles Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. I also rememeber a similar article from NASA a few years back, but I tried to google it and came up empty.

Yerdaddy

03-03-2007, 05:30 AM

From the same article:Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists."His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070202-global-warming.html">"Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say"</a> [February 2, 2007].) Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations." Planets' Wobbles The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun. "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html">"Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says"</a> [September 13, 2006].) All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years. These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth. Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. "Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said. No Greenhouse Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface. He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars. But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin. Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide. Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store. "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years." It's one Russian scientist using contested anyalysis of a phenomenon on Mars to claim that climate change on earth isn't man-made, and the explainations by his detractors - and their credentials - in the same article (and the specific piece in that second linked article) are stronger arguments.Still, given the paltry amount of evidence presented in this thread against the existance of man-made global warming has only made me more confident that the vast majority of scientists would bet (I say "would bet" because credible scientists are intrinsically averse to statemetnts of certainty) that it's real and needs to be addressed. It this thread is meant to reflect the case against, then I think it's time to call in Lionel Hutz."Now Apu,

Yerdaddy

03-11-2007, 08:45 PM

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/science/earth/12climate.html" target="_blank">Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming</a> March 12, 2007WASHINGTON, March 11 (AP) — The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people will not have enough water, top scientists are likely to say next month at a meeting in Belgium.At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Tropical diseases like malaria will spread, the draft says. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.The draft document, the second of a series of four being issued this year, focuses on global warming’s effects. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.Now that we haven't really had a serious debate about the existence global warming, let's talk about the consequences.

Bulldogcakes

03-12-2007, 06:30 PM

Before we can talk about the consequences, Lets deal with the exaggerations. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin" title="NYTIMES on Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth"">NYTIMES on Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth"</a>But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism. “I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.” Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.” Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims. Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots. Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_colorado/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about University of Colorado">University of Colorado</a>, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.” Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence. “He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”

Yerdaddy

03-12-2007, 08:20 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Before we can talk about the consequences, Lets deal with the exaggerations. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin" title="NYTIMES on Al Gore's ">NYTIMES on Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth"</a>But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims. Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_colorado/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about University of Colorado">University of Colorado</a>, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”  Again, the problem is sources. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT AL GORE'S OPINION. I don't consider politicians experts on any subject except election campaigning, hiding bald spots with worse comb-overs and the DC area prostitue market. Relying on Al Gore as a source on science is like relying on George W Bush on a source on how to run an oil company. Fuck Al Gore. You're using him as a straw man. Tell me why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is wrong.

Furtherman

03-13-2007, 05:20 AM

<a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/not_that_simple_opedcolumnists_roy_w__spencer.htm? page=3">GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW</a>Before you wince that this is a Post article, know that the author is "Roy W. Spencer is principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala. He is also U.S. team leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA's Terra satellite." Al Gore is spreading unnecessary fear. His heart is in the right place, but his vision is WAY out of proportion. The Earth will shake us off like the animals we are eventually, but be careful of proposed doom by researchers whose grant money depends on what they say.