Global Warming Debate

[SP1!]

Al Gore is a fraud (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack/)

It may be warming but its most likely not us, this comes on the heels of a computer simulation that states if we make drastic changes it would only make a .5 degree change in 50 years.

Science is never set in stone, especially if people are deliberately making data fit their scenarios and cheering the deaths of those that dispute their findings.

[keithy_19]

Eh. Don't like that people hacked into their system.

[boosterp]

I would not claim hoax. This proves that there is discussion on both sides of the isle and the testing of hypothesis, not a hoax or cover up.

[Syd]

Al Gore is a fraud (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack/)

It may be warming but its most likely not us, this comes on the heels of a computer simulation that states if we make drastic changes it would only make a .5 degree change in 50 years.

Science is never set in stone, especially if people are deliberately making data fit their scenarios and cheering the deaths of those that dispute their findings.

What will we do about the deaths from water shortages in the South or severe floodings along the Mississippi? We're quite likely to see these issues in our own lifetimes as snowpacks are no longer plentiful enough to supply water through the summer months and rain patterns shift as desertification begins to occur from 35N to 35S.

[TheMojoPin]

Global warming skeptics are seizing on portions of the messages as evidence that scientists are colluding and warping data to fit the theory of global warming

Because that scenario makes all kinds of sense.

[epo]

Because that scenario makes all kinds of sense.

How dare you sir! Those evil scientists have been lying to us so they could get more hippie toys!

[hanso]

The harps project doesn't help matters. However it keeps storms away so they say.

[sr71blackbird]

I think as any responsible science minded person who has any knowledge of evoloution and earth history, it is rediculous to exect the climate to stay stagant for perpetuity. Humans woul not have evolved if the climate did not change, and mammals would not have evolved and diversified to fill the various niches vacated by the dinosaur extinction 64 million years ago. The DNA molecule is extremely adaptive and the challenges (and obligation) of all living organisms is that they need to adapt and survive or they go extinct. Plain and simple. The climate dies change, wether at mans hand or not.

[GregoryJoseph]

The Global Warming scare has ALWAYS been a politically driven agenda.

Anyone who believes otherwise is foolish.

[spankyfrank]

well the thing people fail to realize is that when it comes to really big things like Global warming, it takes an extremely long time for it to take effect. There won't be any type of cataclysmic event. Very slow and steady is how it goes.

[GregoryJoseph]

The problem is that the planet is already cooling. Now it's being referred to as "climate change."

The theory that these changes were man made was always junk science.

[Recyclerz]

The Global Warming scare has ALWAYS been a politically driven agenda.

Anyone who believes otherwise is foolish.


<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/sad polar bear/KingHash/dailywhat2/knut_berlin_polar_bear.jpg?o=1" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v63/KingHash/dailywhat2/knut_berlin_polar_bear.jpg" border="0"></a>

Now you've given Knut a headache and the ahgg

[A.J.]

I'll believe in global warming the day the Maldives is underwater.

[Recyclerz]

I'll believe in global warming the day the Maldives is underwater.

http://thewondrous.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Underwater-Cabinet-Meeting-In-Maldives-01.jpg


That doesn't look so bad. Kinda fun, actually.

[TheMojoPin]

I think as any responsible science minded person who has any knowledge of evoloution and earth history, it is rediculous to exect the climate to stay stagant for perpetuity.

Who do you think is making this assumption?

[sr71blackbird]

Obviously whoever is scrraming how we are killing the planet.

[TheMojoPin]

Obviously whoever is scrraming how we are killing the planet.

Please tell me you're not serious.

You really think most of these people are completely unaware of even something so basic as the ice ages?

And we're not "killing the planet" so much as we're helping kill the life ON the planet.

[sailor]

Please tell me you're not serious.

You really think most of these people are completely unaware of even something so basic as the ice ages?

And we're not "killing the planet" so much as we're helping kill the life ON the planet.

people on both sides use the phrase "killing the planet (http://www.popsci.com/5ways)" in this discussion, so cut the kid some slack.

[TheMojoPin]

people on both sides use the phrase "killing the planet (http://www.popsci.com/5ways)" in this discussion

And is annoying as fuck, since it totally shifts the priority off of something that would make a lot more people take notice: ourselves.

[A.J.]

people on both sides use the phrase "killing the planet (http://www.popsci.com/5ways)" in this discussion, so cut the kid some slack.

And is annoying as fuck, since it totally shifts the priority off of something that would make a lot more people take notice: ourselves.

Yeah, but the planet isn't an asshole. People are.

[epo]

The problem is that the planet is already cooling. Now it's being referred to as "climate change."

The theory that these changes were man made was always junk science.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong about everything. Man is causing the root problem, which is the ridiculous rise in CO2, which is driving unnatural outputs such as temperature.

Warming or cooling isn't even the question at this point.

[spankyfrank]

All people have done is accelorate the rate at which the climate temperatures change, there still isn't going to be this giant weather event where everyone will be buried immediately under a ton of snow and ice.

[HBox]

HAY GUYS! SPEAKING AS SOMEONE WHOSE ENTIRE EDUCATION ON CLIMATE COMES FROM THE LOCAL WEATHER REPORT I SAY ITS OBVIOUS GLOBAL WARMING IS A FANCIFUL CHARADE!

[TheMojoPin]

All people have done is accelorate the rate at which the climate temperatures change,

Which potentially leads to all kinds of shitty (AKA deadly and destructive) side effects outside of just the temperature changing.

there still isn't going to be this giant weather event where everyone will be buried immediately under a ton of snow and ice.

Obviously.

[Donnie Iris]

The Global Warming scare has ALWAYS been a politically driven agenda.

Anyone who believes otherwise is foolish.


I think your logic is on the right path but would hesitate with such a broad generalization as always. This issue, not unlike many others, has a small number of "supporters" with genuine belief and passion on both sides.

Also, the "scare" is politicized by on all fronts, not just those on the side of the warning coming from modern science.

[TheMojoPin]

I think your logic is on the right path but would hesitate with such a broad generalization as always. This issue, not unlike many others, has a small number of "supporters" with genuine belief and passion on both sides.

Also, the "scare" is politicized by on all fronts, not just those on the side of the warning coming from modern science.

Very true. As with almost any major issue you need to be willing to dig through the bullshit. Dismissing it all is a foolish path.

[Syd]

All people have done is accelorate the rate at which the climate temperatures change, there still isn't going to be this giant weather event where everyone will be buried immediately under a ton of snow and ice.

It's a long drawn out event that will likely kill a significant portion of the human population -- including many, many Americans who live in the south. They have the worst supplies to water and are at the most risk to desertification and rising tides. From Southern California losing its supply of water from the Colorado to Georgia's water supply not being replenished because the rain patterns have perpetually shifted away from bringing its rainfall that people have become accustomed to.

It's a major, major deal that people will have to live with in a reasonable timeframe. We're running out of potable water for people and there's no way to fix that. Desalinization doesn't work on the scale necessary nor is there really enough time, money or want to deal with the problem now.

No amount of crying hoax or denying its existence changes the fact that it's coming. Methane is already leaking from our permafrost across the globe, glaciers are shrinking/disappearing and specific areas that absolutely require rainfall such as the Texas High Plains aren't receiving adequate amounts of it. We can wholly ignore temperature and still see that it is happening -- human spurred, augmented or otherwise. While reducing and conserving is important, the main goal for that is to ready America for the expenses of energy in the future. Dealing with global warming is no longer a matter of preventing it, but limiting the famine and water shortages that will be caused by it.

[hanso]

One side claims average temperatures have not gone up since 1998.
However the year 1998 was a spike in temp highs for the century.

[sr71blackbird]

Nothing man can do or not do will make any difference, so we just have to put aside political issues and just concentrate on surviving. One asteoid impact or volcanic eruption will undo all efforts of man. The wisest course is to prepare and move away from low lying areas, stop blaming the army corps for Katrina flooding and think if ways of turning seawater into drinking water. As glaciers melt and land below gets exposed, plants will grow and so some regions will flood and others exposed. Look up Pangea and you'll see that the earth has geographically changed in massive ways over millenia. Insted if destroying industry we should encourage innovation to solve these problems and at the same time not destroy the economy by tying it up in a beurocrstic mess with bullshit heathcare reform, we need to allow capitalism to thrive so the seeds for this innovation can take root. People having access to money enables them to experiment and find answers. Tying up money in a buecracy will only cause people to devote their time trying to avoid it.

[Syd]

Nothing man can do or not do will make any difference, so we just have to put aside political issues and just concentrate on surviving. One asteoid impact or volcanic eruption will undo all efforts of man. The wisest course is to prepare and move away from low lying areas, stop blaming the army corps for Katrina flooding and think if ways of turning seawater into drinking water. As glaciers melt and land below gets exposed, plants will grow and so some regions will flood and others exposed. Look up Pangea and you'll see that the earth has geographically changed in massive ways over millenia. Insted if destroying industry we should encourage innovation to solve these problems and at the same time not destroy the economy by tying it up in a beurocrstic mess with bullshit heathcare reform, we need to allow capitalism to thrive so the seeds for this innovation can take root. People having access to money enables them to experiment and find answers. Tying up money in a buecracy will only cause people to devote their time trying to avoid it.

Capitalism has never nor will ever build anything necessary for human survival. It isn't as profitable as other ventures. We have to rely on our fellow man to help us out in this situation, as we have in the past. A public works campaign to create more hydro, wind and geothermal plants combined with an expansive campaign to lure French nuclear sector workers to America to build up our own nuclear power system to their standards is what is necessary -- not relying on a company to help us should it help their profit margin.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Capitalism has never nor will ever build anything necessary for human survival. It isn't as profitable as other ventures.

It basically built this internet on which you made this post, otherwise you just might be running around on horseback with your message scrawled on a piece of slate or maybe parchment. Not that your (or my) message is necessary for human survival, but such free and widespread expression is a good thing. “Profit” is a distinctly capitalist term - what other ventures could possibly be “more profitable”.

[TheMojoPin]

Nothing man can do or not do will make any difference, so we just have to put aside political issues and just concentrate on surviving. One asteoid impact or volcanic eruption will undo all efforts of man. The wisest course is to prepare and move away from low lying areas, stop blaming the army corps for Katrina flooding and think if ways of turning seawater into drinking water. As glaciers melt and land below gets exposed, plants will grow and so some regions will flood and others exposed. Look up Pangea and you'll see that the earth has geographically changed in massive ways over millenia. Insted if destroying industry we should encourage innovation to solve these problems and at the same time not destroy the economy by tying it up in a beurocrstic mess with bullshit heathcare reform, we need to allow capitalism to thrive so the seeds for this innovation can take root. People having access to money enables them to experiment and find answers. Tying up money in a buecracy will only cause people to devote their time trying to avoid it.

Dear Lord.

[Recyclerz]

Dear Lord.

One man, one vote.

Still worth fighting for? :wink:

[TeeBone]

The lies this man has put upon an otherwise squishy-headed fan base of believers is amazing. Anyone who thinks that man alone is responsible for the Earth warming is a fool. How about the large orb we revolve around that actually warms us?
Gas up the private jet, we have to prepare the world for Earth Hour!!!!!:wallbash:

[TheMojoPin]

None of this really has anything to do with Al Gore.

[TeeBone]

None of this really has anything to do with Al Gore.

You're right----I HATE YOU!!!!

[TheMojoPin]

I'd be doing something wrong if you didn't.

[CruelCircus]

What will we do about the deaths from water shortages in the South or severe floodings along the Mississippi?

You'd think there'd be some way we could use one to fix the other.

The wisest course is to prepare and move away from low lying areas, stop blaming the army corps for Katrina flooding and think if ways of turning seawater into drinking water.

New Orleans was flooded by waters from the Lake, not from the Gulf. The levees were supposed to prevent that. Melting icecaps had nothing to do with it.

[IamFogHat]

Why are we perpetuating Sp!'s bullshit? Stop posting here.

[Syd]

It basically built this internet on which you made this post, otherwise you just might be running around on horseback with your message scrawled on a piece of slate or maybe parchment. Not that your (or my) message is necessary for human survival, but such free and widespread expression is a good thing. “Profit” is a distinctly capitalist term - what other ventures could possibly be “more profitable”.

Far out, I didn't know a government program (DARPA) by the Department of Defense was a private company. Going to go write my congressman and ask him why a corporation is acting as an arm of the government right now.

[opie's twisted balls]

Warming or cooling isn't even the question at this point.
Its absolutely the point when it comes to taking to task those responsible for the massive fraud that has been perpetrated in the name of faux environmentalism. The man made global warming hoax has cost individuals, companies and governments billions of dollars in hard and soft costs to solve a problem that never existed.


It's a long drawn out event
If its a long drawn out event the guess what skippy, the humans smart enough will adapt.

kill a significant portion of the human population -- including many, many Americans who live in the south
And then there are those who won't.


Capitalism has never nor will ever build anything necessary for human survival.
And just when I thought you couldn't say anything less intelligent.


None of this really has anything to do with Al Gore.
The fraud has everything to do with Al Gore, et. al because of the financial gain derived from their lies.


Far out, I didn't know a government program (DARPA) by the Department of Defense was a private company. Going to go write my congressman and ask him why a corporation is acting as an arm of the government right now.
Opps, you did it again.

[hanso]

Heaven forbid we go green and get off gas.

[sr71blackbird]

It would be nice but who has the money to get a new car? I'm still paying off my investment in this car, if suddenly a green alternative comes along and make my car worthless, then my investment would have been for shit. When I drove to Myrtle Beach from Long Island I had to stop maybe 3 times for gas. If I was in an electric car there's no way that I could have done that trip without recharging for many hours and it would have taken days. If I fill up my tank 3 times at $40 a pop, that's $120 worth of gas and it took me 9 hours to drive there. I hear I can fly to Florida for like $100 and be there in 2 hours. If going green is an advantage and it costs me less and saves me time I would do it, wouldn't you? But it's not. Not yet. So I'll wait.

[sr71blackbird]

The scam is that the idea of going green us attractive to all, but the actual implimentation if it to a level that could effect the global climate does not assure the goal at all, not guarantee it. Like I said before, but was laughed at, one massive volcanic eruption or a sizable asteroid impact will negate any gain though all that effort. I heard that Mt Penitubo released more chloroflorocarbons than the entire industrial revolution.

[SatCam]

It would be nice but who has the money to get a new car? I'm still paying off my investment in this car, if suddenly a green alternative comes along and make my car worthless, then my investment would have been for shit. When I drove to Myrtle Beach from Long Island I had to stop maybe 3 times for gas. If I was in an electric car there's no way that I could have done that trip without recharging for many hours and it would have taken days. If I fill up my tank 3 times at $40 a pop, that's $120 worth of gas and it took me 9 hours to drive there. I hear I can fly to Florida for like $100 and be there in 2 hours. If going green is an advantage and it costs me less and saves me time I would do it, wouldn't you? But it's not. Not yet. So I'll wait.

On a bad day I would both laugh and cry at your posts in this thread, but today I just want to thank you the infinite wisdom and educated foresight you bring to this board.

[TheMojoPin]

The fraud has everything to do with Al Gore, et. al because of the financial gain derived from their lies.

No, the article has nothting to do with Al Gore.

Who is "et al?" You seriously think at least thousands of scientists have conspired to make up global warming/climate change?

[GregoryJoseph]

You seriously think at least thousands of scientists have conspired to make up global warming/climate change?

Every scientist knew the planet's temperature rose for a period of time.

Thousands DID say it was man's use of fossil fuels, aerosols, and the like.

Thousands of others said there was no conclusive proof of it.

Guess whose side we heard most?

[TheMojoPin]

Every scientist knew the planet's temperature rose for a period of time.

Thousands DID say it was man's use of fossil fuels, aerosols, and the like.

Thousands of others said there was no conclusive proof of it.

Guess whose side we heard most?

The side that has a much larger general consensus (which still does not mean that they all agree on the exact same conclusions).

Your scenario implies that both sides were of comparable size. They were not and they are not. You heard one side the most because it represents the findings of far more people than the other side.

That said, what I'm most taking issue with is the idea of a "hoax" or "conspiracy" that would require collusion from a number of people around the world that would make the 9/11 and Kennedy assassination theories seem quaint and realistic in comparison.

[GregoryJoseph]

The side that has a much larger general consensus (which still does not mean that they all agree on the exact same conclusions).

Your scenario implies that both sides were of comparable size. They were not and they are not. You heard one side the most because it represents the findings of far more people than the other side.

That said, what I'm most taking issue with is the idea of a "hoax" or "conspiracy" that would require collusion from a number of people around the world that would make the 9/11 and Kennedy assassination theories seem quaint and realistic in comparison.

I don't think it represented the findings of "far more people" on the other side. Those who believed in the fossil fuel theory were heard because it helped the political agenda of certain politicians who chose to highlight the hypotheses of those scientists.

None of them could ever say they had CONCLUSIVE proof that the rise in temps was due to human activity.

That's like saying every time you attend a Cubs game they win, so therefore you are the reason for their success or failure.

It's junk science.

[hanso]

Every scientist knew the planet's temperature rose for a period of time.

Thousands DID say it was man's use of fossil fuels, aerosols, and the like.

Thousands of others said there was no conclusive proof of it.

Guess whose side we heard most?

Under Bush it was swept under the rug.
It wasn't like oil sales would help him or his top staff though was it?
He did make the "get off oil" speech at the end of his term.
At the start he gave vouchers to buy hummers.

[tanless1]

Heaven forbid we go green and get off gas.
Heaven forbid we play honest and make our energy afordable keeping more money in our pockets, making it easier for the individual to carry out experments in his own garage, that is where the inovations come from.

[TheMojoPin]

I don't think it represented the findings of "far more people" on the other side. Those who believed in the fossil fuel theory were heard because it helped the political agenda of certain politicians who chose to highlight the hypotheses of those scientists.

None of them could ever say they had CONCLUSIVE proof that the rise in temps was due to human activity.

That's like saying every time you attend a Cubs game they win, so therefore you are the reason for their success or failure.

It's junk science.

It's not junk science. No scientist is going to say that anything can be conclusively proven; scientific theories are always left open to evolution and change, as we've seen occur with the climate change school of thought. Your expectations are unrealistic and you're simply looking for excuses to be contrary. It doesn't matter what you believe; much more of the scientific community supports some variation of the climate change theories than those that think it is a "hoax" or that man has little or no impact on it, and that has nothing to do with political agendas.

[TheMojoPin]

making it easier for the individual to carry out experments in his own garage, that is where the inovations come from.

This simply is not true. Some innovations and inventions are indeed stumbled upon by people in their everyday lives. Most of them (and usually the ones that have the most impact over our lives), however, do not. "Garage innovations" are just going to net you another Snuggie more often than not.

[tanless1]

Airplanes, automobiles, microsoft, liquor, chocolate chip cookies....all invented insombodys garage before they were brought to market. Water purification systems, electricity or the ability to market it. Rocket pacs.....somtimes you've got to take a snuggie or 2. But how many jobs have the cookie industry alone given us ? And you can only suspect what I can do in my own garage.......let's not forget hydroelectric.......and asprin ? To lable its orgins as rural would be an understatment.

[tanless1]

You would benefit by associating w/ hillbillies.

[Recyclerz]

I don't think it represented the findings of "far more people" on the other side. Those who believed in the fossil fuel theory were heard because it helped the political agenda of certain politicians who chose to highlight the hypotheses of those scientists.

None of them could ever say they had CONCLUSIVE proof that the rise in temps was due to human activity.

That's like saying every time you attend a Cubs game they win, so therefore you are the reason for their success or failure.

It's junk science.

Let's skip the cant from both sides and look at what we know for sure:

- There are natural ebbs and flows in the climate of the planet. Extremes at either end cause problems for human societies (mini ice ages, droughts, etc.).
- Human activity is adding a new variable, large and increasing amounts of of carbon into the atmosphere. No one can be CERTAIN as to what the intermediate or long-term results can be since we lack a credible laboratory in which to run experiments but most mathematical models indicate this addition of carbon will tend to make the overall ecosystem warmer and will enable more "extreme" weather events and patterns. Over 90% of the relevant scientists worldwide have signed onto this view.
- Agriculture depends on predictable weather patterns. Any significant shifts are more likely to reduce food output, not raise it.

OK, I infer from those premises it would be wiser to prepare for the potential adverse effects of climate change and to examine ways we could limit the change vectors we are introducing into the ecosystem with our behavior than to ignore it. Given the fairly narrow climate parameters that the human race can succeed within, it seems kind of reckless to fuck with them through inertia in our behavior.

Just because most the the "faces" of the environmental advocacy movement are sanctimonious pricks doesn't mean we can ignore the increasingly large pile of facts that are piling up on one side of the scale.

My definintion of junk science is when somebody has a predetermined conclusion and cherry picks facts to support that conclusion. Although zealots on both sides fall into that sink hole, it seems to me that the folks who claim climate change is a hoax don't have much beyond junk science on their side of the ledger.

[TheMojoPin]

Airplanes, automobiles, microsoft, liquor, chocolate chip cookies....all invented insombodys garage before they were brought to market. Water purification systems, electricity or the ability to market it. Rocket pacs.....somtimes you've got to take a snuggie or 2. But how many jobs have the cookie industry alone given us ? And you can only suspect what I can do in my own garage.......let's not forget hydroelectric.......and asprin ? To lable its orgins as rural would be an understatment.

You're oversimplifying and romanticizing the idea of the "garage inventor" way too much.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Far out, I didn't know a government program (DARPA) by the Department of Defense was a private company. Going to go write my congressman and ask him why a corporation is acting as an arm of the government right now.

You said "capitalism", not "private company". Even so, doesn't matter cause without capitalism there would be no DARPA. Same result.

[tanless1]

You're oversimplifying and romanticizing the idea of the "garage inventor" way too much.

...how am I oversimplfying ? I've got a couple buddys working on a patent now. Ones a mechanicle hillbillie and the others a retired mig pilot.
The wright brothers were a couple of bicycle mechanics.

[tanless1]

...you realize the first 2 cycle engine was a heat engine ?
...the water wheel wasn't invented by a goverment, it was designed by a tinker.

[tanless1]

...where would the car industry be w/o blacksmiths ?

[tanless1]

...the point is, we have to struggle so hard just to stay free.,organizing so opressive legislation based on information that has been overmassaged to the point it no longer reflects the truth. Keeping or energy prices overly inflated which is evedent all the way to the retail level......it costs us time with family, knowelge of family history... and deminishes our own ability to persue/proceed w/ our own experments.

[TheMojoPin]

This is a bizarre swerve.

[tanless1]

....absolutly if I had more time at home id crack a physics or chemistry book just for fun !! And I know that I'm not specail.....just look around on this board alone....there cats here that are pretty wizard.
Dr kaku built a particle colider in his basement when he was 15 ? .... people realy are a product of what they surond themselves with , not so much what school they go to or what degree they have, but in the willingness to seek, not surounding themselvs w / nay sayers. Surround your self w/ misserable people and you too will be misserable

[Syd]

You said "capitalism", not "private company". Even so, doesn't matter cause without capitalism there would be no DARPA. Same result.

Capitalism doesn't count when it's socialism dolling out the money.

[opie's twisted balls]

Capitalism doesn't count when it's socialism dolling out the money.
And where do you think Obama and the other socialists get the buckets of money they hand out?

[badmonkey]

And where do you think Obama and the other socialists get the buckets of money they hand out?

Obama's stash

[TheMojoPin]

And where do you think Obama and the other socialists get the buckets of money they hand out?

That's the beauty of America. HODGEPODGE REPUBLIC, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[Syd]

And where do you think Obama and the other socialists get the buckets of money they hand out?

Where do you think the capitalists get to exploit workers at?

edit:
Seriously, stop pretending to be a Republican. You don't make enough money to be one so stop bothering.

[badmonkey]

Where do you think the capitalists get to exploit workers at?

edit:
Seriously, stop pretending to be a Republican. You don't make enough money to be one so stop bothering.

What do either of those ridiculous statements even mean?

[Recyclerz]

And where do you think Obama and the other socialists get the buckets of money they hand out?

http://www.chinatour.com/attraction/shanghai.night.light.jpg


Shanghai. Same as W.

[opie's twisted balls]

Where do you think the capitalists get to exploit workers at?

Well I'd hope those proletariat scum were plucked straight from their blissful life on a worker's collective.

Seriously, stop pretending to be a Republican.
Ummm, ok. Sorry to disappoint but I can't register as a Republican or Democrat. My political ideology would best be described as libertarian but if I had to pick one of the big two US parties it would be the GOP.

You don't make enough money to be one so stop bothering.
I didn't realize that 1) there was a minimum annual income required to join any political party and 2) that you have such excellent insight into my earnings. Must look into how you've managed to see my T4 and T5's. :dry:


Shanghai. Same as W.
I would have figured W. to be more of fan of the wetback.

[SP1!]

Eh. Don't like that people hacked into their system.
People didnt have a problem with hacking palins emails

I would not claim hoax. This proves that there is discussion on both sides of the isle and the testing of hypothesis, not a hoax or cover up.
Yeah, the problem is anyone who doesnt agree with them is canonized and instantly shunned even though they are the ones being objective on the topic, fact remains is that man is not 100% to be the only reason the climates have changed. Its been proven that volcanic eruptions release more co2 in the air than all the cars ever have yet that is ignored by most people. The hoax is the fact they have swindled billions from governments and now those governments wont admit they were fucked over so they are going to defend this any way they can. The bigger problem to me is pollution of the planet not the ozone, work on fixing that first and cut off funding from countries who dump waste in their waterways but dont cripple economies because it may lower the temperature .5 degrees in 50 years. That is just stupid.

All people have done is accelorate the rate at which the climate temperatures change, there still isn't going to be this giant weather event where everyone will be buried immediately under a ton of snow and ice.
Really? We did? Tell the dinosaurs there wont be a giant weather event, cause either a meteor killed them or a huge volcanic explosion killed them, either way those events wiped them out. And our temps arent changing that much, hell its been cooler the past few years than when I was a kid.

Oh and ignore the cover up that was done by major news outlets. (http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWI1NWEyOWEwNDg1NmFiODYwNTY1OWY5NGUxNDIxYzI=&6)

Its amazing, if documents were to help their supposed cause then they wouldnt hesitate to use them but since it makes them look foolish they wont use them, its all grandstanding and they cant admit further research is needed.

[foodcourtdruide]

People didnt have a problem with hacking palins emails




That's really not true. Why do you think that?

[boosterp]

-Yeah, the problem is anyone who doesnt agree with them is canonized and instantly shunned even though they are the ones being objective on the topic,

-fact remains is that man is not 100% to be the only reason the climates have changed.

- The hoax is the fact they have swindled billions from governments and now those governments wont admit they were fucked over so they are going to defend this any way they can.




Point one, not necessarily, the former chief of the NWS was a critic of those who think like Gore.

Point two, Man may not be 100% but is still the majority of the problem. From CFCs, industrial complexes pre-90s, to reduction of plankton that absorb CO2 due to fertilizer run off and choking algae these are man made problems.

Point three, I am not certain how old you are but I remember the CFC ban in the 80s and all the ozone talk plus there was big concern for acid rain. That's not junk science or swindled dollars that led to the CFC ban.

[opie's twisted balls]

Man may not be 100% but is still the majority of the problem.
I'd agree with you but you're wrong. The sun's activity and not man has the greatest impact on the earth's temperature.

concern for acid rain
The cause of acid rain was demonstrably different then what was being proposed for man made global warming.

[boosterp]

Of course the sun being our heat primary source has an impact, but over the past 1000 years the sun's temp has not changed enough to impact conditions here on Earth so I fail to see how that plays into the argument.

As for acid rain, that was an example to my point.

[The Jays]

I have no fucking clue what is going to happen with this cap and trade stuff, it could end up costing the country just as much as all this deficit spending that Bush and Obama have done thus far with their wars, their bailouts of banks, their bailouts to GM. I would just like each of us to be energy independent, stop sending money to the Middle East for oil. There's been lots of progress creating biofuels through plant oils and through algae farming. We can also save on money by generating our own energy through solar, through wind, through hydro, through geothermal, through nuclear, for us to save money and heat and cool our homes using basic physics instead of burning through more nonrenewable resources the way we have been. Forget the climate shit, how bout the fact that one day, oil coal and gas will run out, so how can we, as a people, do things more efficiently? It just seems like this negative bullshit gets in way of actual human progress, that we'd rather bitch about shit than solve some actual fucking problems and put some brain cells together and maybe even generate a job or two. Call me crazy.

Now is the right time... oil is going to run back up in price in no time, and we going to keep buying it because we don't think there's any alternative. Forget about dumping money into anything... either the government is going to do it or they ain't, that's just what politicians do, whether its Republicans and war or Democrats and entitlements...

I don't need government money to help people save money on heating and electric, I can let the buildings I design do that. I just need people to know that the technology is there, just need a little faith in fellow Americans who know how to get this shit done. Unfortunately, Americans don't seem to have faith in each other anymore, they just want to blame shit on the other side and think that's gonna solve problems. It won't.

I care about saving money, doing more with less, not relying on big government, big corporations, and big business for what I need in my life. If I can heat homes with less oil, run them with less coal-generated electric, and cool them with natural low energy methods, If we can produce buildings that do the work for themselves, I see that as straight up conservative, if I had to label it.

I am passionate about it, that's why the whole circus pisses me off, because instead of fighting over gay fucking British emails, we could be learning more and more about how to get things done.

It's getting cheaper and easier to do. Just today, I was going over with my architect employer how we will put a solar PV panel system on the roof to cut down on the electric costs, a system that feeds back into the grid, so that he gets credit for what he produces.

And I keep in touch with an architect I went to school with who works down in Austin, where they do sustainability as a lifestyle... We both know how to design buildings that supplement their own heating and cooling passively... they absorb heat during the day and radiate it at night, and during the summer, they get cooled through ground cooling and proper reflective roofing.. this shit ain't rocket science, just basic science.

We have the concepts, the technology, and the methodology to get all buildings, urban and rural, to use less energy. And I know it's the first steps, so we don't need to be zero energy off the bat, even though there are buildings which can do that. It's a matter of saving money now and using less and less fuel that we can. Less money going to the Middle East, less money going to people trying to building bombs.

[TheMojoPin]

I posted in one of the other Obama threads that the administration announced that they're looking in to finally expanding the nuclear power grid. We'll see if that actually pans out, but that would be a huge step in the right direction if it does.

[tanless1]

We've wanted to do that for the longest time. It is always blocked by the usual suspects, but now that obama is in, its a good idea. The cap and trade is a money transfer and percentage grab. Most of these solutions can be had w/o the legislation. Oil is getting ready to go up due to supply and demand...but who is standing in the way of the american people from increasing the supply and keeping the prices low. There is no reason we can't increase our energy on the nuclear side (should of been done years ago) and increase our independance from foriegn oil at the same time.

[The Jays]

We got to hit the electric thing from multiple fronts... wind power, hydro power, solar, safe nuclear. The big thing is, our buildings are the biggest wasters in terms of energy. They use up more fuel than cars and planes. We need to make our buildings better insulated, and they need to be allowed to be heated passively from the sun, heated geothermally, cooled from both ground cooling and from roof pond collectors, our roofs need to be white if they aren't covered in PV arrays, and we need to allow our buildings to be able to vent naturally through the stack effect and through laws of thermodynamics. And we shouldn't have to threaten people with fears of global warming, how about just to stop sending money to the Middle East and to Venezuela?

[tanless1]

...last I heard america is broke. Why aren't we persuing all energy at the same time knowing that the need for oil will naturaly decline as greener technology progresses.
There is no need for treatys to be signed that will force us to send more money out of the country......but this legislation is not about green tech. Or 4 degrees.....its about cripiling our nation to the point that they will be allowed to discard our pesky constituition and rewrite in there image.
....I'm getting preachy again, sorry guys.

[tanless1]

...I am looking forward to these large malls being dismanteled and returned to farming.
I miss catalouge shopping out of necesity.

[tanless1]

...oh yeah, quit building in the desert and then complain about a lack of water. Southern california, airizona, lower nevada.

[TheMojoPin]

We got to hit the electric thing from multiple fronts... wind power, hydro power, solar, safe nuclear. The big thing is, our buildings are the biggest wasters in terms of energy. They use up more fuel than cars and planes. We need to make our buildings better insulated, and they need to be allowed to be heated passively from the sun, heated geothermally, cooled from both ground cooling and from roof pond collectors, our roofs need to be white if they aren't covered in PV arrays, and we need to allow our buildings to be able to vent naturally through the stack effect and through laws of thermodynamics. And we shouldn't have to threaten people with fears of global warming, how about just to stop sending money to the Middle East and to Venezuela?

Definitely.

After the recent sale of the Sears Tower there was talk by the new owners of basically renovating the entire building along the lines of what you're talking about. It was largely with the idea of setting an example by having one of the biggest and most famous buildings in the world make this shift, but the whole idea seem to stop dead when people here flipped out because it would mean that the building would appear silver instead of black. All of that innovation seemingly killed because idiots want a building they have nothing to do with look the same color it's always been when they look at it.

[high fly]

I'd also add that residential design of detached dwellings needs to change.
I live in an old farm house in the country in subtropical Virginia.
The house is nearly fully shaded by mature oak trees.
Last summer I closed the windows and ran the air conditioner on about 5 or 6 days. The rest of the time I ran a couple fans on about a dozen days. Otherwise it was quite comfortable inside around 75 degrees or so.
The house is oriented to the prevailing winds and vents nicely. by watching which windows are opened the house has nice fresh air and is comfortable.

Houses are no longer designed with layouts that function that way so people run these expensive heating and cooling systems all the time.
Plus, houses are no longer built to last any more than about 20 years. Then that OSB under your siding is crumbling like a bag of stale Doritos and the shit is falling off the side of the house, the floors are sagging, all the mechanical systems are breaking down, you need a new roof, (thank the baby Jesus if you don't have to re-sheath any of it) and the drywall dips between the studs. A lot of this is because the builders have a powerful lobby that often writes building codes so you end up with houses, even the 3, 4 and $500,000 jobs lasting about as long as a trailer in a trailer park, maybe less.....

EDIT: So peple have these houses now with lots of insulation and the expensive windas with the UV double and triple-panes and all, but the design of the house has them still running up big bills to heat and cool the sumbitch because they keep it sealed up with no outside air and I'm sure that is not as healthy.
All new houses should have these hot water on demand systems like the Renai dillio.
I mean SHIT! these asphalt roofs last 20 years and no one seems to notice that all the historic houses have the same slate roof that was put on in George Washington's day or that the somewhat more recent metal ones last so much longer. Oh man, gimme a copper roof any day, or even aluminum....

[Syd]

New houses don't have much in the way of insulation or quality windows / doors. Most of things are expensive, and in the case of insulation being able to limit it to the bare minimum allows for more square footage to be advertised.

[The Jays]

It's not that expensive to use better insulation in new homes. A soy based foam insulation can provide R-19 for 3.5", even higher if the wall is a 2 x 6 wall, and foam insulation is preferred over batt blanket because it can provide an air and water tight seal, as well as a vapor barrier, and, as for windows, a higher SHGC can allow more solar heat gain in a space, and when furnished with areas that have thermal mass such as thick stone or concrete walls or floors, that heat can be captured during heating days to supplement a buildings' heating system. It's not harder to do, it's just that people go with stock plans and builders are lazy to step up their game. Architects need to be more involved in the plans they stamp.

[sr71blackbird]

Could it be that now that it is becoming apparent that global warming is not happening, that whatever funding was to be spent on the global warming issue can now be diverted to health care funding?

If it is determined that the leak of this information that disproves that global warming is happening was done so as to make the public feel better about spending its money on a much more government enriching and empowering program like health care, would you start to become skeptical as to why the government cares about your health care?

I didnt mean to shift the topics within this one thread, but if there is a subterfuge tie in, this would be significant, no?

[TheMojoPin]

What the fuck are you talking about.

[booster11373]

How has Global Warming been discredited?

[tanless1]

I'm not sure what your saying ,bird. I've always been very sceptical of this global warming legislation as away to circumvent our constition.
I also suspect that the health care legislation is just another attempt. Health care will blanket global warming as
"welfare and pursuit of happiness" will also achieve the diatary goals by regulating the amount of beef or meat.....you know the story.

[TheMojoPin]

I

That's heavy.

[tanless1]

...I'm editing!!!

[sr71blackbird]

::::sigh::::

[tanless1]

...both bills were created to control, not help.
I know...one world gov conspiracy, and yes I do experience shame in expressing it....
But not enough to be silent.

[HBox]

...both bills were created to control, not help.
I know...one world gov conspiracy, and yes I do experience shame in expressing it....
But not enough to be silent.

Don't conflate your insane, baseless paranoia into patriotism.

[tanless1]

...its not insane, nor baseless,nor parinoia. Just cautious observation.
Van jones stated that the climate legislation was a way to achieve social justice.....and look who's visiting the white house.
I'm not jumping up and down, or screaming at the terminal....and most importantly, I'm not refrencing YOU as blind communist sympathiser......so please don't attempt to shackle me w/ labels.

[HBox]

...its not insane, nor baseless,nor parinoia. Just cautious observation.
Van jones stated that the climate legislation was a way to achieve social justice.....and look who's visiting the white house.
I'm not jumping up and down, or screaming at the terminal....and most importantly, I'm not refrencing YOU as blind communist sympathiser......so please don't attempt to shackle me w/ labels.

So because a former White House advisor with no power once said global warming legislation is a means of social justice that means that global warming and health care legislation is a way to circumvent the constitution and create a one world government.

I see your point. That's not insane, baseless or paranoid.

[tanless1]

It is when that person has the presidents ear.
...I realise that my thoughts may be a little further down the road than yours.
...and the way you paraphrase indicates that. Yes , this legislation is a stone in the path. You can also see how both legislation packages can be used to achieve the other's goal.
...if you'd like to actualy have a conversation, id be interested. Consider what I've said, and maybe read some of my other posts in this thread.

[SonOfSmeagol]

At the risk of being repetitive:

"The planet already has begun the long process of devolving into a burned-out cinder, eventually to be swallowed by the sun" – ‘The Life and Death of Planet Earth’ seriously puts man in his place and is a good read. (http://books.google.com/books?id=yHRgrqY7ndwC&dq=life+and+death+of+planet+earth&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=6c4VS52kHM_ElAfGxpHPBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

[boosterp]

It might snow here, IN HOUiSTON on Friday! Where the fuck is your global warmng now bitches?

[TheMojoPin]

It might snow here, IN HOUiSTON on Friday! Where the fuck is your global warmng now bitches?

It's December and we've had NO snow in Chicago and it's been hovering in the 50's...so it's here.

[opie's twisted balls]

It might snow here, IN HOUiSTON on Friday! Where the fuck is your global warmng now bitches?

Remember its no longer "global warming" but now "climate change". Much easier to continue the lie when you broaden the scope of the bullshit.

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah, it would be crazy if scientific theories changed.

It's amazing how melting ice caps stopped melting and actually reversed and are now more ice than ever before.

Oh waaaaaaaait.

Global warming hasn't gone away. It's an aspect of the overall climate change. Your response is just reflective of people wanting to oversimplify something to the point of "I GUESS THIS MEANS IT'LL JUST BE HOT ALL THE DAMN TIME."

[weekapaugjz]

Yeah, it would be crazy if scientific theories changed.

It's amazing how melting ice caps stopped melting and actually reversed and are now more ice than ever before.

Oh waaaaaaaait.

Global warming hasn't gone away. It's an aspect of the overall climate change. Your response is just reflective of people wanting to oversimplify something to the point of "I GUESS THIS MEANS IT'LL JUST BE HOT ALL THE DAMN TIME."

but it's only like 30 degrees outside right now. i thought it was supposed to be hot all the time now? am i missing something?

[sr71blackbird]

Obama fixed the planet!

[TheMojoPin]

I thought I'd be wearing shorts in January! Oh, what a world!

[TheMojoPin]

Obama fixed the planet!

You're the size of a planet.

[sr71blackbird]

You used to be so cool. What happened? :)

[weekapaugjz]

You're the size of a planet.

pssst...it's supposed to be in portugese...

[opie's twisted balls]

Yeah, it would be crazy if scientific theories changed.
LMAO

The problem with the sanctimonious attitude you have, and is shared with the likes of Al Gore, David Suzuki, et. al, is that you're doing a complete 180. Only a few short years ago the man man global warming evangelists were touting the infallibility of their "science" and that the various IPCC reports (in particular the third version) were completely rock solid and not open for debate. If anyone provided a challenge they were called deniers in attempts to conger up similar emotions to those who claimed the Jewish Holocaust didn't occur. Gore's Inconvenient Truth was being force fed in schools and being presented as absolute fact, when efforts were made to introduce alternative points of view or theories they were discarded without any open debate. Now that there's growing public and scientific skepticism of their claims global warming is being warped into climate change.

Its the modern day equivalent of church insisting that the earth was flat and that to claim otherwise made you a heretic. Instead of the Pope and Rome making a fortune on controlling the masses you have Gore and others selling their snake oil in the form of carbon credits and other bogus products so people can feel good about driving their SUV's. Its all bullshit!

[TheMojoPin]

How is it bullshit? How is global warming not occuring? The larger idea of climate change doesn't negate global warming: it's unfortunately showing that we've probably got other problems piling up that we're potentially a big factor in in addition to global warming. You're talking like climate change theories cancelled out or "disproved" global warming. Since when?

And of course you prop up Al Gore in this debate. You act like we're lining up to fellate him yet the only people on this board that repeatedly act like he's some kind of environmental overlord and won't shut up about him and bring him up like he's "proof" that any theory about humanity's involvement in the climate change theories are bullshit.

[opie's twisted balls]

It's amazing how melting ice caps stopped melting and actually reversed and are now more ice than ever before.

Oh waaaaaaaait.
Unfortunately its on a PC at work but I'll share a document (its been appropriately peer reviewed) on the reality of the polar ice caps and glacier change.

Global warming hasn't gone away. It's an aspect of the overall climate change. Your response is just reflective of people wanting to oversimplify something to the point of "I GUESS THIS MEANS IT'LL JUST BE HOT ALL THE DAMN TIME."
The people, myself included, who have argued against the Gorzuki claim of man made global warming have never denied that there are changes in the earths climate or temperature. We have however insisted that their claims of flooded coastal cities, drowning polar bears, etc. were complete and utter emotional bullshit! There's always been climate change....long before our useless human asses crawled out of the swamp and long after we're gone. Its what any dynamic system with multiple unconnected variables does.


Obama fixed the planet!
Obama needs to focus on fixing his brother from another mother Tiger.

[spoon]

I really don't have to read this thread to understand the classic claims going back and fro here. Bottom line is that cleaning up the planet in all areas and growing our energy independence via alternative cleaner energy sources is a win win no matter what you believe. So then I ask you, why do you think this is even a debate? I think the answer is obvious and you're all falling for it. Well not all.

[TheMojoPin]

Unfortunately its on a PC at work but I'll share a document (its been appropriately peer reviewed) on the reality of the polar ice caps and glacier change.

Oh, so only that one document is the final word on the issue? This is going to be amazing.

The people, myself included, who have argued against the Gorzuki claim of man made global warming have never denied that there are changes in the earths climate or temperature. We have however insisted that their claims of flooded coastal cities, drowning polar bears, etc. were complete and utter emotional bullshit! There's always been climate change....long before our useless human asses crawled out of the swamp and long after we're gone. Its what any dynamic system with multiple unconnected variables does.

You're oversimplifying this into two extremes: either it's manmade or it's not. That's a ridiculous perspective to take on such a massive issue and nobody proposing the mankind-"assisted" climate change theories are blaming it solely or even mostly on humanity. The point is that there appears to be evidence that we're causing or helping to cause various critical anomalies in the overall system that are disrupting the natural climate change cycles. It's not an either - or type of scenario as you seem to want to present it as.

Why are you so angrily opposed to this line of thinking? Do you think generally working to cause less damage to the environment around us is something we shouldn't be doing?

[sr71blackbird]

The real thing is that the climate DOES change, it always has, always will. Nothing we do will totally effect it and it is not necessarily a bad thing. If we did manage to stop what nature intends to do, isn't that also wrong? During the dinosaur times the world was tropical, then a disruption comes along and offsets that tropical weather, and they go extinct. Mammals then proliferate and diversify. The earth goes through at least 7 periods of climatic change until we show up. There were 7 ice ages between the dinosaurs and us.

[TheMojoPin]

The real thing is that the climate DOES change, it always has, always will.

It's redundant to keep saying this: nobody is denying it.

If we did manage to stop what nature intends to do, isn't that also wrong?

Not necessarily. "Nature" isn't something you can judge as being right or wrong.

During the dinosaur times the world was tropical, then a disruption comes along and offsets that tropical weather, and they go extinct. Mammals then proliferate and diversify. The earth goes through at least 7 periods of climatic change until we show up. There were 7 ice ages between the dinosaurs and us.

Right, so why should we continue with practices that potentially just accelerate these processes or throw a spanner in the works and cause "the system" to be even more unpredictable? Your posts seem to be reflecting a "why bother?" mentality, so please correct me if that's not the case.

Like spoon pointed out, there's a ton of benefits to going "green" for us beyond the lofty and misguided idea of "saving the planet" (it's actually us that needs the saving). Isn't beneficial just to work to a point where we're not dependent on limited and polluting sources of energy? Wouldn't it be beneficial to just have less junk going into the air and water and fucking up our food and making us sick?

[tanless1]

The sahara was a garden spot, and will be again.
Yes, it needs to be cleaned up, but not based on a lie. The epa budget has been doubled...and let's develop technology as we solve our energy issues, then export it.
....not cripple ourselves to buy into a carbon credit scheme that will make the undeserving obcennely rich.

[opie's twisted balls]

How is it bullshit? How is global warming not occuring? The larger idea of climate change doesn't negate global warming: it's unfortunately showing that we've probably got other problems piling up that we're potentially a big factor in in addition to global warming. You're talking like climate change theories cancelled out or "disproved" global warming. Since when?
Its bullshit because of the scale used to measure "global warming" and you've hit it by your own comment of "larger idea". Lets go with the generally accepted scientific value and say the earth is (and I apologize to the creationists...go play with a pretend dinosaur bone and come back in a few minutes) around 4.5 billion years old. Put that into a very visual perspective...

4,500,000,000

OK, lots of zeros. The global warming fanatics use at most the past 1000 years to represent change. Thats only 0.00002% of the earths existence. Since thats kind of an abstract number tie it to something identifiable. If the average American lives to 75 it would be like painting their entire health by only a specific 2.2 minutes of their entire life. Its a completely unrealistic measure of what normally goes on with our climate and environment.


And of course you prop up Al Gore in this debate. You act like we're lining up to fellate him yet the only people on this board that repeatedly act like he's some kind of environmental overlord and won't shut up about him and bring him up like he's "proof" that any theory about humanity's involvement in the climate change theories are bullshit.
Why wouldn't I mention Gore??? He's both the self-appointed and horde anointed grand wizard of climate change. To not identify him being the poster child of this bullshit would be lunacy.


Bottom line is that cleaning up the planet in all areas and growing our energy independence via alternative cleaner energy sources is a win win no matter what you believe.
No argument on that at all! It comes down to a fundamental difference in opinion between environmentalism and conservationism. Only a complete asshole would suggest that we not be good stewards of the earth and wherever possible do what we can to reduce energy consumption and not pollute. I'm all for making houses more energy efficient, recycling when it makes sense (vs some programs where the recycling leaves a greater net footprint then if you were to just landfill the item), etc.


Oh, so only that one document is the final word on the issue? This is going to be amazing.
Of course its not one document you pinhead and my exact point is that there's rarely the final say on anything. My reason for singling out this particular piece is that it clearly articulates the other opinion that global warming isn't man made and that those opinions, because they're equally credible, should be presented alongside those of the IPCC for public debate.


You're oversimplifying this into two extremes: either it's manmade or it's not. That's a ridiculous perspective to take on such a massive issue and nobody proposing the mankind-"assisted" climate change theories are blaming it solely or even mostly on humanity. The point is that there appears to be evidence that we're causing or helping to cause various critical anomalies in the overall system that are disrupting the natural climate change cycles. It's not an either - or type of scenario as you seem to want to present it as.
I'm the one attempting to polarize this into extremes??? Sorry but no. Of course humans have an impact on our environment, we're just like any other variable. My personal argument is to the extent we have the ability to effect change.


Why are you so angrily opposed to this line of thinking? Do you think generally working to cause less damage to the environment around us is something we shouldn't be doing?
If I come across as angry its mainly because of a deep rooted loathing for hypocrisy and public opinion being swayed by inaccuracy. That Gore has made millions preaching his garbage and selling carbon credits while at the same time flying around in a shamefully polluting private jet disgusts me. That his movie is presented without challenge to impressionable youth disgusts me. That so many people have been sold a bill of goods on faux environmentalism without looking at real issues like poisoned rivers or the destruction from China or India disgusts me.

And again of course we should be doing something but we shouldn't be running around like Chicken Little that the sky is falling (or oceans rising). Efforts should be focused on preserving endangered species, developing more sustainable and productive farming methods, reducing pollution (which is different then emissions) and legitimate education.


It's redundant to keep saying this: nobody is denying it.
You continue to dodge the crux of that particular issue. The Gorzuki mantra has gone from global warming to climate change.


"Nature" isn't something you can judge as being right or wrong.
Sure you can. The platypus and gingers are both clearly wrong.


Right, so why should we continue with practices that potentially just accelerate these processes or throw a spanner in the works and cause "the system" to be even more unpredictable? Your posts seem to be reflecting a "why bother?" mentality, so please correct me if that's not the case.
There's the hubris of your argument. That humans can have such a demonstrable impact on the earth in any particular direction. In the 1970's some of the best scientific minds of their time claimed that we were entering a period of man made accelerated global cooling and that to slow the impending doom we should take such radical steps and burning massive stocks of used tires and other waste product to raise the global temperature. Guess what, they were wrong and it was a normal micro cyclical cooling period much like we're going through a normal micro cyclical warming period now.

I certainly don't have a "why bother" attitude. But I refuse to support flawed concepts like they Kyoto Protocol that do nothing to address real problems.


it's actually us that needs the saving
I can kind of agree with you on that one. Yes we're the problem but I don't believe that in the medium term (i.e. one million years) of the earths existence that we need saving. Humans are no different then any other parasite and that once our host (earth) has had enough of us we'll be shaken off like the fleas we are.


Isn't beneficial just to work to a point where we're not dependent on limited and polluting sources of energy? Wouldn't it be beneficial to just have less junk going into the air and water and fucking up our food and making us sick?
Despite that I earn a large portion of my income directly and indirectly from O&G I completely agree that we need to reduce our dependence on any limited source of energy to both reduce pollution and self-servingly to keep the annuity revenue stream going as long as possible.



Christ on a pony that was a long reply. I need a drink.

[GregoryJoseph]

So very cold outside...:surrender:

[sr71blackbird]

Amazing reply Opie! You are a smart man!

[SP1!]

Yeah, it would be crazy if scientific theories changed.

It's amazing how melting ice caps stopped melting and actually reversed and are now more ice than ever before.

Oh waaaaaaaait.

Global warming hasn't gone away. It's an aspect of the overall climate change. Your response is just reflective of people wanting to oversimplify something to the point of "I GUESS THIS MEANS IT'LL JUST BE HOT ALL THE DAMN TIME."
Nobody disputes that temps change, the problem is that data they are using saying we caused it has been proven to be falsified. The biggest issue isnt that its happening but you take away all their faulty data then the proof we are causing it is pretty thin.

Its pretty obvious that money is the driving force behind the issue, to ignore that fact is just ludicrous.

but it's only like 30 degrees outside right now. i thought it was supposed to be hot all the time now? am i missing something?
Yes, according to some of the gloomiest scenarios is that mexico and the south should be uninhabitable and canada will be the next beach resort area. They ignore the fact that CO2 levels were higher in pre historic periods than man could ever produce, but lets not let reality get in their way, man is the sole reason for warming never mind that other data has been released that proves otherwise.

I really don't have to read this thread to understand the classic claims going back and fro here. Bottom line is that cleaning up the planet in all areas and growing our energy independence via alternative cleaner energy sources is a win win no matter what you believe. So then I ask you, why do you think this is even a debate? I think the answer is obvious and you're all falling for it. Well not all.

That I can agree with, lets stop pollution but there is no reason to punish people severely for not believing the bullshit, pass low goals at first then gradually step them up, step one is to clean the water ways. Treat chemical runoff from farms in the midwest and create a better landfill solution, pollution was an issue in the 70s, 80s, and now fix that to make the world better not taxing the fuck out of us.

[Syd]

No denier of climate change has ever been able to tell me how the climate hasn't changed from humans pulling up hydrocarbons and other fossil fuels from the ground and releasing them into the atmosphere. All things being equal, the laws of thermodynamics are exactly that and we can't get around it no matter how hard your Republican representative that is funded by industry says we can.

edit:
now granted there is a drive for entropy on Earth but that is why it's snowing in Houston, the Mississippi will have more severe flooding than usual this year, there was a bad ice storm in Kentucky and why the South will have extreme droughts coming up in the summer of 2011. Earth is going to kill us all or make life extremely difficult as it shifts itself back to "normal"

[SP1!]

No denier of climate change has ever been able to tell me how the climate hasn't changed from humans pulling up hydrocarbons and other fossil fuels from the ground and releasing them into the atmosphere. All things being equal, the laws of thermodynamics are exactly that and we can't get around it no matter how hard your Republican representative that is funded by industry says we can.

edit:
now granted there is a drive for entropy on Earth but that is why it's snowing in Houston, the Mississippi will have more severe flooding than usual this year, there was a bad ice storm in Kentucky and why the South will have extreme droughts coming up in the summer of 2011. Earth is going to kill us all or make life extremely difficult as it shifts itself back to "normal"

First lets not act like the dems arent just as corrupt on the issue as repubs, now since humans are the reason for all the CO2 levels then explain why there is verifiable proof that there were levels of CO2 that dwarfs the levels today but recorded in the soil millions of years ago?

And FYI, the south just came out of a severe drought and flooding happens coming out of drought, that is why there is flooding in mississippi and past has proven that freak snowstorms happen in texas occasionally, its the effect of cold fronts sweeping in off the rockies. Shit happens, its weather cycles that we can never control.

Georgia had their biggest snowstorm ever in '92 or '93 when it was just 65 degrees two days before, weather is unpredictable just as the planet to us, remember our time is barely a toe print on the planet so lets not act like we really have all the knowledge.

Global warming is just a cash grab, saying its not is ignoring the obvious.

[sr71blackbird]

Kill the Humans!!

[TheMojoPin]

Its bullshit because of the scale used to measure "global warming" and you've hit it by your own comment of "larger idea". Lets go with the generally accepted scientific value and say the earth is (and I apologize to the creationists...go play with a pretend dinosaur bone and come back in a few minutes) around 4.5 billion years old. Put that into a very visual perspective...

4,500,000,000

OK, lots of zeros. The global warming fanatics use at most the past 1000 years to represent change. Thats only 0.00002% of the earths existence. Since thats kind of an abstract number tie it to something identifiable. If the average American lives to 75 it would be like painting their entire health by only a specific 2.2 minutes of their entire life. Its a completely unrealistic measure of what normally goes on with our climate and environment.

Again, I think you're working with too broad a stroke. You're transposing the rhetoric of sensational alarmists a la the boogeyman that is Gore to the breadth of the scientific opinions regarding man's impact on climate change. You're also working too hard to spin any findings that man is having an impact as being irrelevant. One can't always analyze this issue under the scope of the the entire existence of the planet: too often you're going end up with superfluous data that has nothing to do with examining the impact that "moden" man has potentially had on the environment. It would be like demanding that EVERY study on the effect of cars on the environment always took into account the billions of years where cars didn't exist. Should the focus ONLY be on the last 1,000 years or so? Of course not. Is the focus ONLY on the last 1,000 years or so? Of course not. It's incredibly telling that you so readily lump in all of the research as limited only to the last 1,000 years and that you label all of the researchers as "fanatics."

Why wouldn't I mention Gore??? He's both the self-appointed and horde anointed grand wizard of climate change. To not identify him being the poster child of this bullshit would be lunacy.

Because Gore is not the end-all-be-all final word on climate change. He's certainly not propped up by anyone on this board or used to back up climate change debates, so bringing him up effectively amounts to a strawman. The climate change debate does not hinge on Al Gore.

No argument on that at all! It comes down to a fundamental difference in opinion between environmentalism and conservationism. Only a complete asshole would suggest that we not be good stewards of the earth and wherever possible do what we can to reduce energy consumption and not pollute. I'm all for making houses more energy efficient, recycling when it makes sense (vs some programs where the recycling leaves a greater net footprint then if you were to just landfill the item), etc.

I think we actually agree more than you realize.

Of course its not one document you pinhead and my exact point is that there's rarely the final say on anything. My reason for singling out this particular piece is that it clearly articulates the other opinion that global warming isn't man made and that those opinions, because they're equally credible, should be presented alongside those of the IPCC for public debate.

There's no need for namecalling. My response was based on your own words: you were going to show us A document. You're also arguing with me over something I'm not claiming and that most climate change theorists aren't proposing: that global warming is solely manmade. There's a huge difference between what you seem to be implying is being said by most ("THIS IS ALL MAN'S FAULT!!!") and what is typically said ("Man is playing a role in this change").

I'm the one attempting to polarize this into extremes??? Sorry but no. Of course humans have an impact on our environment, we're just like any other variable. My personal argument is to the extent we have the ability to effect change./quote]

We have the ability to effect change for ourselves at the very least. Even if we can't effect climate change to any significant degree we can still make our lives better by reducing waste and pollution and so forth to improve our health and food and water and so on.

[quote]If I come across as angry its mainly because of a deep rooted loathing for hypocrisy and public opinion being swayed by inaccuracy. That Gore has made millions preaching his garbage and selling carbon credits while at the same time flying around in a shamefully polluting private jet disgusts me. That his movie is presented without challenge to impressionable youth disgusts me. That so many people have been sold a bill of goods on faux environmentalism without looking at real issues like poisoned rivers or the destruction from China or India disgusts me.

So your response seems to be to throw the baby out with the bathwater and just reject anything that even hints at mankind's culpability when it comes to climate change. It's ridiculous that you let someone like Al Goire color your entire perception of such a massive issue and realm of science.

And again of course we should be doing something but we shouldn't be running around like Chicken Little that the sky is falling (or oceans rising). Efforts should be focused on preserving endangered species, developing more sustainable and productive farming methods, reducing pollution (which is different then emissions) and legitimate education.

Much of that is already out there if you just look for it instead of focusing only on the Chicken Littles because you want to make yourself mad.

You continue to dodge the crux of that particular issue. The Gorzuki mantra has gone from global warming to climate change.

How am I dodging it? Good scientific theories are able to evolve. It's essential to the scientific method.

There's the hubris of your argument. That humans can have such a demonstrable impact on the earth in any particular direction. In the 1970's some of the best scientific minds of their time claimed that we were entering a period of man made accelerated global cooling and that to slow the impending doom we should take such radical steps and burning massive stocks of used tires and other waste product to raise the global temperature. Guess what, they were wrong and it was a normal micro cyclical cooling period much like we're going through a normal micro cyclical warming period now.

The point is that it's not just an issue of getitng "cooler" or "warmer." Trying to boil it down to only temperature change cheapens and oversimplifies the entire thing.

I certainly don't have a "why bother" attitude. But I refuse to support flawed concepts like they Kyoto Protocol that do nothing to address real problems.

Agreed.

I can kind of agree with you on that one. Yes we're the problem but I don't believe that in the medium term (i.e. one million years) of the earths existence that we need saving. Humans are no different then any other parasite and that once our host (earth) has had enough of us we'll be shaken off like the fleas we are.

So wouldn't it make sense to not be so willfully parasitic?

Despite that I earn a large portion of my income directly and indirectly from O&G I completely agree that we need to reduce our dependence on any limited source of energy to both reduce pollution and self-servingly to keep the annuity revenue stream going as long as possible.

Again, I think we agree more than we disagree. I think the only place we really diverge is the idea that the climate change community is largely in cahoots simply to make money.

[TripleSkeet]

These posts are getting way too long.

[TheMojoPin]

Nobody disputes that temps change, the problem is that data they are using saying we caused it has been proven to be falsified. The biggest issue isnt that its happening but you take away all their faulty data then the proof we are causing it is pretty thin.

Its pretty obvious that money is the driving force behind the issue, to ignore that fact is just ludicrous.

How has climate change and all of the data behind it been proven to have been falsified? Are you seriously basing that conclusion only on the recent e-mail story?

Yes, according to some of the gloomiest scenarios is that mexico and the south should be uninhabitable and canada will be the next beach resort area. They ignore the fact that CO2 levels were higher in pre historic periods than man could ever produce, but lets not let reality get in their way, man is the sole reason for warming never mind that other data has been released that proves otherwise.

Yes, because such a prehistoric environment would be oh-so-hospitable to humans and we'd survive just fine. This is the mentality that bugs me the most about the "save the planet" idea because it allows people to point to other periods in the Earth's history where these situations existed before. Yes, the planet can take it...we can't. That should be the point.

That I can agree with, lets stop pollution but there is no reason to punish people severely for not believing the bullshit, pass low goals at first then gradually step them up, step one is to clean the water ways. Treat chemical runoff from farms in the midwest and create a better landfill solution, pollution was an issue in the 70s, 80s, and now fix that to make the world better not taxing the fuck out of us.

How do you see people as being punished servrely right now?

[Dude!]

These posts are getting way too long.

you got that right
mojopin just likes to see
lots of his own words
on the screen
look at me... look at me

[TheMojoPin]

Says the guy who has always been unecessarily making his posts longer.

[Serpico1103]

How do you see people as being punished servrely right now?

Due to high taxes to fund pollution clean up, most households can only afford 2 new cars and 1 (yes one) video game console. It reminds we of the great depression.

[Syd]

First lets not act like the dems arent just as corrupt on the issue as repubs, now since humans are the reason for all the CO2 levels then explain why there is verifiable proof that there were levels of CO2 that dwarfs the levels today but recorded in the soil millions of years ago?

And FYI, the south just came out of a severe drought and flooding happens coming out of drought, that is why there is flooding in mississippi and past has proven that freak snowstorms happen in texas occasionally, its the effect of cold fronts sweeping in off the rockies. Shit happens, its weather cycles that we can never control.

Georgia had their biggest snowstorm ever in '92 or '93 when it was just 65 degrees two days before, weather is unpredictable just as the planet to us, remember our time is barely a toe print on the planet so lets not act like we really have all the knowledge.

Global warming is just a cash grab, saying its not is ignoring the obvious.

Cap and trade is a cash grab -- climate change, global warming or whatever you want to call it is a reality. We've very much made an impact on the Earth's environment through heating it up just by existing alone -- human beings are basically big giant heat pumps. Needless to say our millions of cattle, cars, factories and other things that create heat are doing all the same as well. There's certainly weather cycles, but there's the cold hard fact that we're digging stuff out of the ground and putting it up into the atmosphere. That changes the environment, period. It's not a system capable of ignoring variables.

[Syd]

Secondly, about companies passing on the taxes to the consumer. Did companies keep prices low during Katrina or during the oil price buildup? Or did the consumer end up paying more?

Now, is the fossil supply endless? Is our supply of oil on the decline, as indicated by the IEA? Will scarcity increase costs? Will these increases be paid for by the consumer?

If costs will increase on their own, is it not in our best interest to "go green" and move towards energy that might be more expensive in there here and now but be quite cheaper in the future? Or is it better to just simply go forward with things and ignore the coming reality of $4, $5 gallons of gas?

On one hand, we can plan ahead -- or do we just focus on not making things expensive for the next few years so they can be wildly expensive thereafter with no recourse?

[epo]

These posts are getting way too long.

I think they aren't long enough.

[opie's twisted balls]

Amazing reply Opie! You are a smart man!
Thank you and thank you. However I really don't think of myself of being particularly smart, just like to understand all sides of a topic that I'm passionate about before I start drinking the koolaid.


Its pretty obvious that money is the driving force behind the issue, to ignore that fact is just ludicrous.
Exactly!!!! Its a cliche but when in doubt follow the money.

and canada will be the next beach resort area
Somehow I have a hard time envisioning palm trees on the shore of Wakaw lake.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3484/3271955521_92883bb133_m.jpg


Kill the Humans!!
At times I think that would be the best solution to all our problems.


Again, I think you're working with too broad a stroke. You're transposing the rhetoric of sensational alarmists a la the boogeyman that is Gore to the breadth of the scientific opinions regarding man's impact on climate change. You're also working too hard to spin any findings that man is having an impact as being irrelevant. One can't always analyze this issue under the scope of the the entire existence of the planet: too often you're going end up with superfluous data that has nothing to do with examining the impact that "moden" man has potentially had on the environment. It would be like demanding that EVERY study on the effect of cars on the environment always took into account the billions of years where cars didn't exist. Should the focus ONLY be on the last 1,000 years or so? Of course not. Is the focus ONLY on the last 1,000 years or so? Of course not. It's incredibly telling that you so readily lump in all of the research as limited only to the last 1,000 years and that you label all of the researchers as "fanatics."
Of the climate change deniers there has never been the claim that human activity doesn't have an impact on our environment. The argument is to the extent that we can change our climate in any particular direction. Have you watched An Inconvenient Truth, the IPCC reports or any similar sources of the climate change propaganda? The "hockey stick" that is the basis for much of their fear mongering shows only the past 1000 years.

Because Gore is not the end-all-be-all final word on climate change. He's certainly not propped up by anyone on this board or used to back up climate change debates, so bringing him up effectively amounts to a strawman. The climate change debate does not hinge on Al Gore.
No he's not but Gore has become the lightening rod for man made global warming and his little movie/powerpoint presentation have been used as the basis for sweeping political, social and economic changes that are all based in flawed science.

I think we actually agree more than you realize.
I think you're wrong.

There's no need for namecalling. My response was based on your own words: you were going to show us A document. You're also arguing with me over something I'm not claiming and that most climate change theorists aren't proposing: that global warming is solely manmade. There's a huge difference between what you seem to be implying is being said by most ("THIS IS ALL MAN'S FAULT!!!") and what is typically said ("Man is playing a role in this change").
I'm sorry, would you like a hug? Here's the document I was referring to:

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered; aps.pdf (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?nwj2lt3roem)

If you'd like another source of information to look at the counterpoint to the Gore view of global warming check: http://friendsofscience.org/

We have the ability to effect change for ourselves at the very least. Even if we can't effect climate change to any significant degree we can still make our lives better by reducing waste and pollution and so forth to improve our health and food and water and so on.
OK, that we agree on and you've effectively quoted my words verbatim. Environmentalism vs. conservationism. One is bullshit one is prudent and responsible.

So your response seems to be to throw the baby out with the bathwater and just reject anything that even hints at mankind's culpability when it comes to climate change. It's ridiculous that you let someone like Al Goire color your entire perception of such a massive issue and realm of science.
Again, Gore isn't the end all, be all for/from the man made global warming camp but he is undeniably the most visible and most trenchant mouthpiece. There are others who are equally culpable in spreading the myth.

Much of that is already out there if you just look for it instead of focusing only on the Chicken Littles because you want to make yourself mad.
Sure things are being done for real and effective environmental preservation but much more could be occurring had the bulk of individual and governmental focus, and money, being wasted on solving a problem that isn't nearly as bad as its being made out to be.

How am I dodging it? Good scientific theories are able to evolve. It's essential to the scientific method.
The problem is that the global warming fanatics never held to the scientific method. They used suspect data sets that weren't appropriately diverse, skewed the presentation of results to articulate a one sided and predetermined opinion and refused to allow a public debate. The supporters of the IPCC reports insisted that their opinions were rock sold and beyond question. That sort of fervent attitude of infallibility is normally reserved for religion.

The point is that it's not just an issue of getitng "cooler" or "warmer." Trying to boil it down to only temperature change cheapens and oversimplifies the entire thing.
But that's EXACTLY what Gore, Suzuki, etc. are trying to do. The whole "even if temperatures only rise by 2 degrees cities will be flooded, polar bears will drown, people will starve, etc.". Its attempting to elicit an emotional response from the great unwashed masses to fork over their money.

So wouldn't it make sense to not be so willfully parasitic?
Insulate your houses, shut off lights when you're not in the room, look for smart alternative and sustainable energy sources, give a hoot don't pollute, recycle when it makes sense. All of that behavior is responsible and what we should be doing. But trying to con people out of their money to buy carbon credits or other devices that simply transfer wealth do nothing to better our environment.

I think the only place we really diverge is the idea that the climate change community is largely in cahoots simply to make money.
Al Gore, David Suzuki notwithstanding I don't believe that all the climate change community has conspired to make money. I think that like most scientific activity it began with altruistic intents. The first IPCC report (1990) was a fair and balanced document that called for a reduction in greenhouse emissions, fossil fuel consumption and pollution. By the time the second IPCC report (1995) was written a group of politicians, policy makers, lobbyists and businessmen clued into the fact that there were elections to be won and money to be made on selling climate change and an industry was born. What occurred then is something hardly seen, part of the business community was walking lockstep with the hardcore environmentalists. That bred an situation where there was massive pressure on the scientific community to continue to deliver the goods with ever increasing dire threats on what would happen if we didn't act.


These posts are getting way too long.
Yes

[TheMojoPin]

I'm not defending Al Gore or "fanatics," so I really don't feel like continuing this since you seem to be coming at it like I'm supporting a select group they you're targeting your ire at and allowing to define your perception of the climate change school of thought. You've got some good points in there and I do still think we actually agree more than we disagree, but largely you're ranting about specific people and their particular rhetoric that nobody here is really defending.

That said, I take issue with this notion:

Al Gore, David Suzuki notwithstanding I don't believe that all the climate change community has conspired to make money. I think that like most scientific activity it began with altruistic intents. The first IPCC report (1990) was a fair and balanced document that called for a reduction in greenhouse emissions, fossil fuel consumption and pollution. By the time the second IPCC report (1995) was written a group of politicians, policy makers, lobbyists and businessmen clued into the fact that there were elections to be won and money to be made on selling climate change and an industry was born. What occurred then is something hardly seen, part of the business community was walking lockstep with the hardcore environmentalists. That bred an situation where there was massive pressure on the scientific community to continue to deliver the goods with ever increasing dire threats on what would happen if we didn't act.

...because it creates a "scientific community" that doesn't really exist. You certainly have large clusters or think tanks of likeminded scientisits and researchers around the world, but your scenario treats them as this largely unified and likeminded group when it's actually an incredibly competitive and diverse field. You totally gloss over how there could possibly be "pressure" over most of such a gignatic and varied global community. It's effectively creating a pseudo-conspiracy theory that puts the 9/11 and JFK ones to shame: in short: it's simply too damn big. You're merging valid ideas (that people are certainly for political clout and financial gain through the environmentalism "business") with ones that are broad generalizations that create "sides" that don't really exist. Bsusinesses and politicians looking for gain out of this often look for ways to help each out, but they don't exist as a singular entity that can bully around or "buy" the majority of the world's scientific community, just like how that global scientific community isn't the pseudo-hive mind you're presenting it as, where you've huge numbers of people around the world in a very competitive field falling into line because someone is waving money in the air.

[opie's twisted balls]

I really don't feel like continuing this
Cool, I won! :laugh:

lighten up Frances, it was a joke


Your quiting aside. You've taken the position in this thread that the group supporting man made global warming are the ones who in simplistic and basic terms are right and that the other platform is wrong. I'm only citing specific people because if I used someone more obscure like Rajendra Pachauri most people wouldn't know who the hell I'm talking about.


because it creates a "scientific community" that doesn't really exist. You certainly have large clusters or think tanks of likeminded scientisits and researchers around the world, but your scenario treats them as this largely unified and likeminded group when it's actually an incredibly competitive and diverse field. You totally gloss over how there could possibly be "pressure" over most of such a gignatic and varied global community. It's effectively creating a pseudo-conspiracy theory that puts the 9/11 and JFK ones to shame: in short: it's simply too damn big. You're merging valid ideas (that people are certainly for political clout and financial gain through the environmentalism "business") with ones that are broad generalizations that create "sides" that don't really exist. Bsusinesses and politicians looking for gain out of this often look for ways to help each out, but they don't exist as a singular entity that can bully around or "buy" the majority of the world's scientific community, just like how that global scientific community isn't the pseudo-hive mind you're presenting it as, where you've huge numbers of people around the world in a very competitive field falling into line because someone is waving money in the air.
I stand by my opinions re. the flawed science and concerted efforts of misdirection and not addressing multiple POV's. As with all things history will be the judge.

[TheMojoPin]

Your quiting aside. You've taken the position in this thread that the group supporting man made global warming are the ones who in simplistic and basic terms are right and that the other platform is wrong.

That's not what I'm doing (mainly because there are a number of global warming/climate change public figures and theories I disagree with, so to say I think their "group" is right is not true at all), though it's clear that's what you think/expect and that's why I don't see a need to continue because it's a fruitless debate where we're arguing past each other. You made your points and I made mine. Such is life.

[tanless1]

I am looking forward to a tropical sahara, who are we to rob them of this, may be what we need to shore up the loss of rainforest.....I'm excited.

[boosterp]

It's snowing bitches, in Houston! Here's your global warming!













I am being sarcastic about climate change, but it is snowing.

[epo]

Is it weird that only Fox News, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times and London Times are reporting this story?

[boosterp]

Is it weird that only Fox News, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times and London Times are reporting this story?

And just what are you trying to say young dem?

[CountryBob]

Was reading a great article about climate warming in National Geographicl ast night while getting a haircut. Cant remember the exacts but said something like it would take 100's of years for the earth to get back to pre industrial revolution levels of CO2 if we completely stopped burning all fossil fuels. Amazing!

[TheMojoPin]

Is it weird that only Fox News, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times and London Times are reporting this story?

Everyone reported it. They're just the ones who won't stop harping on it.

[TeeBone]

I don't know how these fuckers can keep a straight face, going to Copenhagen and talk through what is obviously (through science, logic and reason) a pile of BULLSHIT.....Methane laced bullshit that is.:nono:

[WRESTLINGFAN]

They want their Oscar back

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/al-gore-oscar-global-warming.html

[TheMojoPin]

So they're basically just admitting that they gave it to him for the content as opposed to the craft? Nice.

[Syd]

Was reading a great article about climate warming in National Geographicl ast night while getting a haircut. Cant remember the exacts but said something like it would take 100's of years for the earth to get back to pre industrial revolution levels of CO2 if we completely stopped burning all fossil fuels. Amazing!

We're beyond CO2 being the biggest threat -- methane leaking from permafrost is the thing we still have the ability to curtail and limit the devastation that will be caused to our ability to grow food.

[SonOfSmeagol]

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2009/12/04/1259926319_9379/539w.jpg


Climate scientist bursts into flames at sunrise! (http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/12/04/united_nations_to_probe_climate_e_mail_leak/)

[Dude!]

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2009/12/04/1259926319_9379/539w.jpg


Climate scientist bursts into flames at sunrise! (http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/12/04/united_nations_to_probe_climate_e_mail_leak/)

hmmm....
i'll wager that the hoax
of global warming is not
that dude's only agenda

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Kill the Humans!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl-N__xMwds

[Dude!]

1200 limos
140 private planes
what an incredible 'carbon footprint'

oh no,
these are not hypocritical fools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

[epo]

UN Climate Chief: Hacked emails were planned and well-funded (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091206/un-climate-chief-hacked-emails-were-planned-and-well-funded-copenhagen-climate-conference.htm)

UN's climate science body said that the Climategate controversy was the work of a well-thought plan and the hackers were probably paid to do it.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the theft of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was not the work of amateur climate skeptics.

Ypersele speculates that hacked emails were done by a well-funded, sophisticated group with the aim of destroying public confidence in the science of man-made climate change.

Of course this was coordinated. Their timing was a little too perfect right before the Copenhagen meetings.

[Dude!]

UN Climate Chief: Hacked emails were planned and well-funded (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091206/un-climate-chief-hacked-emails-were-planned-and-well-funded-copenhagen-climate-conference.htm)



Of course this was coordinated. Their timing was a little too perfect right before the Copenhagen meetings.

i say give the hackers a nobel prize

they are just 'whistle-blowers'
that the left usually defends

[tanless1]

What about "whistleblower" protections ?

[Dude!]

What about "whistleblower" protections ?

yes, they should have them
plus a huge reward

[epo]

i say give the hackers a nobel prize

they are just 'whistle-blowers'
that the left usually defends

Don't worry...they'll get a "special prize" from jail.

[boosterp]

1200 limos
140 private planes
what an incredible 'carbon footprint'

oh no,
these are not hypocritical fools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.

Sounds nice.

[badmonkey]

UN Climate Chief: Hacked emails were planned and well-funded (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091206/un-climate-chief-hacked-emails-were-planned-and-well-funded-copenhagen-climate-conference.htm)



Of course this was coordinated. Their timing was a little too perfect right before the Copenhagen meetings.

Ignore the information in the emails! They were stolen! They were leaked and not for public consumption! Every word in the emails are true, but they were only leaked by these hackers to debunk the work of these great scientists!

lol

[Dude!]

Ignore the information in the emails! They were stolen! They were leaked and not for public consumption! Every word in the emails are true, but they were only leaked by these hackers to debunk the work of these great scientists!

lol

i know
epo's approach
makes him look foolish

if they were Bush's secret files
he would care less how
they were made public

with this and the demise
of health care "reform"
his whole world is collapsing

[TheMojoPin]

Nobody should ignore the e-mails.

[Dude!]

Nobody should ignore the e-mails.

although
they should ignore
all your posts

[SatCam]

Nobody should ignore the e-mails.

mojo has spoken. i better not catch anyone ignoring those emails. that means you epo

[epo]

mojo has spoken. i better not catch anyone ignoring those emails. that means you epo

The emails should not be ignored. However the distortions of them, the lack of context given to them, and the manner in which they were gotten should not be ignored either.

[keithy_19]

Nobody should ignore the e-mails.

These emails should not be ignored. Nor should the people that hacked into the system go unpunished.

[SatCam]

These emails should not be ignored. Nor should the people that hacked into the system go unpunished.

lets just pretend this whole thing never happened

[opie's twisted balls]

1200 limos
140 private planes
what an incredible 'carbon footprint'

oh no,
these are not hypocritical fools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
Ya know, I can deal with the politicians and bureaucrats pulling this sort of hypocritical garbage since thats what they do but I do take issue with the protesters. I would hope that none of them arrived in private planes or limos but if they came from overseas or even elsewhere in Europe they likely took a plane which by the climate change zealots' own admission is one of the most polluting forms of transport. IMO they lose any ability to bitch and moan about climate change, the Alberta oilsands, etc.



Of course this was coordinated. Their timing was a little too perfect right before the Copenhagen meetings.
When should they have leaked the info? Just like there are Christmas sales before Christmas.


Don't worry...they'll get a "special prize" from jail.
Cool, maybe they'll be on the same cellblock as Gore when he's locked up for perpetrating massive fraud.


Sounds nice.
No kidding. Free blowjobs from Danish hookers! :thumbup:


if they were Bush's secret files
he would care less how
they were made public
Or the uproar of Cheney's safe. Maybe Nixon's tapes should never have been released.


However the distortions of them, the lack of context given to them, and the manner in which they were gotten should not be ignored either.
Really? Not unlike the "data" used to formulate the climate change hoax.

[TripleSkeet]

Why do people get so pissed off by this issue? I mean its pretty fucking obvious global warming is real, the whole debate is if its man made or not, right? So why all the anger? I dont get it.

[badmonkey]

Why do people get so pissed off by this issue? I mean its pretty fucking obvious global warming is real, the whole debate is if its man made or not, right? So why all the anger? I dont get it.

Not since the emails came out and showed that the data that got us this "scientific consensus" is flawed and the results can't be reproduced because they got rid of all the raw data they used for their research. Now the debate is more whether to keep calling people who didn't fall for it "deniers" or to start calling the ones that did "suckers".

[TheMojoPin]

That's not really the scenario at all, but if that's what gets you going, hey, more power to you. Those e-mails hardly represent a significant portion of the research into climate change. They should by no means be ignored and they do definitely shed light onto people pulling some bullshit, but to act like they throw the entirety of the thinking that man is having a significant impact in climate change into doubt is a ridiculous conclusion.

I don't know why people think it would be a bad thing if it was shown that there wasn't a human factor to climate change. That would be great news.

[opie's twisted balls]

Why do people get so pissed off by this issue? I mean its pretty fucking obvious global warming is real, the whole debate is if its man made or not, right? So why all the anger? I dont get it.
Yes there is consistent climate change. There are periods of micro warming and cooling and also major events of significant and longterm warming and cooling. That's not the issue up for debate or angry response.

My problem is two fold. One, the position taken as a result of very selective data that humans are the primary trigger for global warming. Two, that flawed initiatives like the Koyoto Protocol need to be implemented to save the planet from impending doom.

The IPCC reports, which form the basis for much of this hysteria, are inherently flawed in that they didn't use adequate data sets to confirm their conclusions and future hypotheses. When they are compared to other legitimate research it shows that their predictions are simply wrong and that there isn't an impending disaster. The climate change movement has done a wonderful job of marketing themselves to the media and embedding their message into popular culture to the point that its blindly accepted as reality and to question it makes you a hieratic. I've used the example previously in this thread but its the modern day equivalent of the Catholic Church insisting that the world is flat and to claim otherwise was blasphemous. To use another example look at eugenics. In the early 20th century there was a global movement to support eugenics as a means to externally improve humanity through selective breeding. The people supporting this plan weren't radicals, mad scientists, racists (at least by today's standards) and was prior to Nazism. No, they were the best scientific and social minds of their times and truly believed that there was a need to intervene in human evolution or else we'd die out or morph into a much weaker species. To look back on it now its ridiculous to think that any government would support such actions and how it would violate the most basic of human rights and medical ethics. And of course as time and science progressed its become clear that eugenics isn't an effective way to improve society or as they hoped eliminate certain diseases. The IPCC is in a similar position today as the IEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Eugenics_Conference) was 80 years ago and the questionable science from the IPCC leads to questionable motives in the like of global policy making.

The Koyoto Protocol or now COP15 are problematic in that they're based in the flawed IPCC reports and its frightening to think of the social and economic consequences if they're allowed to be implemented as demanded by the climate change zealots. Instead of focusing on real environmental issues Koyoto, etc. come down to nothing more than a wealth transfer from developed Western nations to developing Asian and African though the trading of carbon offsets or the establishment of concessional funding.

What this boils down to is that anyone living in North America, Western Europe, Australia are going to be getting the financial shaft to pay for solving a problem that doesn't exist.

[Syd]

Why do people get so pissed off by this issue? I mean its pretty fucking obvious global warming is real, the whole debate is if its man made or not, right? So why all the anger? I dont get it.

Things might cost more if we try to do something about it. Even if it is part of a cycle, we can still help out by not making it worse.

People need to cozy up to reality and realize everything is going to cost a great deal more in the near future whether or not we try to stem global warming or not. Energy isn't becoming more plentiful and Americans are consuming more and more and more, as well as the burgeoning middle classes in China and India.

[badmonkey]

Things might cost more if we try to do something about it. Even if it is part of a cycle, we can still help out by not making it worse.

People need to cozy up to reality and realize everything is going to cost a great deal more in the near future whether or not we try to stem global warming or not. Energy isn't becoming more plentiful and Americans are consuming more and more and more, as well as the burgeoning middle classes in China and India.

So why don't we work on ways to make things less expensive then instead of more? Us fighting "climate change" is like one of us pissing in the ocean to raise the sea level. I'm all for reducing pollution, but let's not pretend that spending a bunch of money on carbon credits is going to do anything for the environment other than maybe the guy selling the carbon credits gets to live in a nicer house.

[pennington]

Ignore the information in the emails! They were stolen! They were leaked and not for public consumption! Every word in the emails are true, but they were only leaked by these hackers to debunk the work of these great scientists!

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

http://www.churchofreality.org/images/wizard-of-oz.jpg

[pennington]

Oops, even NASA had to recalculate it's data:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

[TheMojoPin]

The thing that doesn't make sense about the "it's only about the money" theories is that all but proving that climate change abnormalities aren't caused by man or that we have minimal impact on them would be just as profitable. It's not like one side is the one where people can get rich and the other is some barren financial wasteland. If the information being "supressed" is so convincing, then why aren't the corporations and politicians who are opposed to green initiatives doing whatever they can to back it up, finance more studies and shout it from the mountain tops?

[epo]

The Truth About ‘Climategate’ (http://www.newsweek.com/id/225778)
Hacked e-mails have compromised scientists—but not the science itself.

Climategate has tarnished the image of climate research, but hasn't undermined its substance. At the risk of invoking the silver-lining cliché, maybe climategate will spur scientists to change how they conduct their research and engage with critics.

Of course...

[Syd]

So why don't we work on ways to make things less expensive then instead of more? Us fighting "climate change" is like one of us pissing in the ocean to raise the sea level. I'm all for reducing pollution, but let's not pretend that spending a bunch of money on carbon credits is going to do anything for the environment other than maybe the guy selling the carbon credits gets to live in a nicer house.

That's the point. Moving towards CFL lighting, mandating minimum MPG on cars and doing things like making ships use fuel better than bunker fuel are simple, easy and forward thinking steps to make things less polluting and more efficient. It does cost more in the here and now, but they eventually pay for themselves over time. Unfortunately the argument for reducing pollution wasn't framed as such and it never really gained traction. Expect during the next gas crunch (<1yr away) to have the argument shifted towards that when Americans face the reality of diminishing energy reserves and exponentially increasing costs of recovering what little energy is left.

[LordJezo]

My poo gas is now harmful to the human population:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/epa-declares-greenhouse-gases-hazardous-peoples-health-environment/story?id=9272194

[TheMojoPin]

I blame the cows.

[opie's twisted balls]

I blame the cows.

Nope, its the dogs (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/2987821/Save-the-planet-eat-a-dog).

And the dead (http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=1706).

[TheMojoPin]

There's probably still some dinosaur farts lingering around fucking shit up, too.

[LordJezo]

After a black guy asked me for lifting advice on the decline bench at the gym today (felt pretty cool to be helping a brother out) the regular folks got into a discussion about Copenhagen and how it's going to destroy third world countries by making the price of corn way too high for the poor to afford.

Pretty depressing conversation, population is going to be wiped out because of new CO2 taxes, guys at the gym were feeling pretty defeated about life because of this whole climate summit nonsense going on.

[disneyspy]

After a black guy asked me for lifting advice on the decline bench at the gym today (felt pretty cool to be helping a brother out) the regular folks got into a discussion about Copenhagen and how it's going to destroy third world countries by making the price of corn way too high for the poor to afford.

Pretty depressing conversation, population is going to be wiped out because of new CO2 taxes, guys at the gym were feeling pretty defeated about life because of this whole climate summit nonsense going on.

did he help you with your squat thrusts?

[boosterp]

I bet Jezo is a really muscular tanned guido that is from Staten Island and lives on the Shore.

[yojimbo7248]

My poo gas is now harmful to the human population:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/epa-declares-greenhouse-gases-hazardous-peoples-health-environment/story?id=9272194

then fucking stop your godamn poos gas, for god's sake

[yojimbo7248]

I bet Jezo is a really muscular tanned guido that is from Staten Island and lives on the Shore.

Lord "Situation" Jezo

[boosterp]

Lord "Situation" Jezo

Exactly.

[underdog]

I blame the cows.

Fuck you cow!

[TheMojoPin]

Maybe Jezo is the one delivering the punch in the famous clip. The rage on his face is because the girl just said that they should all get flu shots.

[LordJezo]

More about the rich countries trying to slaughter the poor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

Documents leaked from Hopenhagen.

[TheMojoPin]

More about the rich countries trying to slaughter the poor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

Documents leaked from Hopenhagen.

Man, the Guadian is always good for some LULZ.

One of most recent comments beat me to the punch:

... wait a moment: you state the talks are in "disarray" and that developing nations are "reacting furiously" ... yet you can't get a single named source in your piece and can only cite "a senior diplomat" and "an unnamed diplomat" (the same one? a different one? from a developing nation? from an NGO? who knows??!?!) ...

Woodward & Berstein would be so proud ...

Silly hippie newspaper.

[epo]

The Pew Center on Climate Change on the stolen emails situation: (http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-07-09.pdf)

Although a small percentage of the emails are impolite and some express animosity toward opponents, when placed into proper context they do not appear to reveal fraud or other scientific misconduct by Dr. Jones or his correspondents.

Why am I not shocked?

[opie's twisted balls]

The Pew Center on Climate Change..........."when placed into proper context they do not appear to reveal fraud or other scientific misconduct by Dr. Jones or his correspondents"
Accepting this opinion from The Pew Center is hardly objective or the final word in the "proper context" or content of the emails.

[LordJezo]

Population control coming!

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

New world wide laws to be enacted.

I have been saying this for years. Those who rule the Earth are starting their plans to reduce the worlds population. Fewer people mean the masses will be easier to control.

All the stuff that was once only in the realm of conspiracy nuts and crazies is here and going to happen.

[brettmojo]

Population control coming!

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

New world wide laws to be enacted.
About fucking time.

Hopefully they start by spaying and neutering the entire cast of Jersey Shore.

[opie's twisted balls]

Population control coming!

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438
I'm waiting for the "global warming is the reason there are so many fat fucks" theory.


I have been saying this for years.......All the stuff that was once only in the realm of conspiracy nuts and crazies is here and going to happen.
Your tinfoil hat has sprung a leak.

[epo]

Accepting this opinion from The Pew Center is hardly objective or the final word in the "proper context" or content of the emails.

Versus the opinion or conclusions of NewsCorp?

[opie's twisted balls]

Versus the opinion or conclusions of NewsCorp?
No, how about Friends of Science (http://www.friendsofscience.org/) or The Fraser Institute (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/)

[epo]

No, how about Friends of Science (http://www.friendsofscience.org/) or The Fraser Institute (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/)

Friends of Science:

Proponents of anthropogenic climate warming have criticized the Friends of Science as an Astroturfing organization with close links to the oil and gas industry

Fraser Institute:

Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have claimed the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method.

So two shitty Canadian "think tanks"? Come on...we're all better than that.

[opie's twisted balls]

So two shitty Canadian "think tanks"? Come on...we're all better than that.
kiss my Canadian pucker http://i49.tinypic.com/149a9p0.jpg

[The Jays]

If you don't trust the UN stuff, refer to the Goddard numbers, they also conclude that global temperatures have risen. Combined with the natural fact that CO2 works as a greenhouse gas to raise temperature from the sun (which can be tested with a simple home science experiment), and that CO2 levels have been rising throughout this century (see Charles David Keeling's work in Hawaii), it becomes easier to conclude that global warming is occurring, but, the acceptance of global warming does not mean you should automatically agree that cap and trade is the right way to go.

[LordJezo]

The critics are being silenced

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Wl0_5WwzSI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Wl0_5WwzSI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Right out in the open too so that others may see it and know that if they question the word of gore they shall not go unpunished.

[TheMojoPin]

Wait, what?

How is anything "silencing" him except his own heart? The guy has a freakin' pacemaker.

[SonOfSmeagol]

How is anything "silencing" him except his own heart? The guy has a freakin' pacemaker.

His gov’t health care plan would only pay for the UN-certified “wind-powered” model with solar backup, and he was indoors on a cloudy day, so…

[SP1!]

Friends of Science:

Fraser Institute:

So two shitty Canadian "think tanks"? Come on...we're all better than that.
Lets not act like the other "science" sources are not heavily financed from the people who hate the oil industry or want to push their own agenda.

Oh and I just noticed how someone changed the thread title, I forget most mods here dont like people to speak their mind freely so they tweak it to fit their narrow minded view all the time.

[SP1!]

The Pew Center on Climate Change on the stolen emails situation: (http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-07-09.pdf)

Why am I not shocked?
Mainly because you never form your own opinion, you take what is popular at the moment and jump in the bandwagon, both sides have an agenda but only one hasnt lied about tweaking data to prove their point.

And for all their doomsday "world is going to freeze suddenly" or "we will drown in the rising tides" talk, everyone has seemed to ignore the report that if we implement even the most drastic CO2 laws it will only lower expected temperatures by .5 degrees. Even the computer models refuse to conform to their bullshit.

[TheMojoPin]

Oh and I just noticed how someone changed the thread title, I forget most mods here dont like people to speak their mind freely so they tweak it to fit their narrow minded view all the time.

That has nothing to do with it. I changed it so that this could be the main thread for discussion and debate of the climate change theories/countertheories and because I merged a couple of other threads on the issue with this one. I'm not sure how "global warming debate" is fitting a narrow minded view since it doesn't state a conclusion either way.

[Dude!]

That has nothing to do with it. I changed it so that this could be the main thread for discussion and debate of the climate change theories/countertheories and because I merged a couple of other threads on the issue with this one. I'm not sure how "global warming debate" is fitting a narrow minded view since it doesn't state a conclusion either way.

that's bullshit

[TheMojoPin]

You're bullshit.

[PapaBear]

that's
bullshit
Fixed

[opie's twisted balls]

The critics are being silenced

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Wl0_5WwzSI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Wl0_5WwzSI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Christ on a pony, looked like he was tazed!





His gov’t health care plan would only pay for the UN-certified “wind-powered” model with solar backup, and he was indoors on a cloudy day, so…
Actually the only truly IPCC approved pacemakers are powered by nothing more then Al Gore's sense of self-importance.....they run for perpetuity.


I changed it.....I merged.....
You're bullshit.
Its like an MSNBC forum being moderated by Keith Olbermann

[TheMojoPin]

You're like an asshole forum being moderated by you.

[opie's twisted balls]

^

=

http://socialmedialawstudent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/vader-fail1.jpg

[LordJezo]

Wait, what?

How is anything "silencing" him except his own heart? The guy has a freakin' pacemaker.

Oh come on, a guy having a heart attack like that is natural? No way. It was done as an example to show what will happen to those who question. The timing of it was much too perfect for it to be a random thing.

[foodcourtdruide]

Oh come on, a guy having a heart attack like that is natural? No way. It was done as an example to show what will happen to those who question. The timing of it was much too perfect for it to be a random thing.

Yeah, the logical conclusion is a vast conspiracy that implanted some device on this man to detonate at the exact moment in time that this interview was being conducted on television. Everyone is in on it, apparently including the man who had a heart attack because the implanting of such a device would likely have required some form of invasive surgery. When he went to the hospital, certainly the doctors treating him would have been in on the conspiracy too. Maybe youtube is in on the conspiracy too? Since the video was posted on their site. Maybe they are promoting this "example" to others. Wait, WE watched the video? JEZO, QUICK PUT ON YOUR TIN FOIL HAT!!! DON'T THINK OF ANYTHING OR THE STAY-PUFT MARSHMALLOW MAN WILL ATTACK THE CITY!!!!!

[LordJezo]

YMaybe youtube is in on the conspiracy too?

youtube is owned by google, which is wildly accepted as part of the us government.

http://www.google-watch.org/jobad.html

[TheMojoPin]

How the fuck is something "wildly accepted?"

[Syd]

youtube is owned by google, which is wildly accepted as part of the us government.

http://www.google-watch.org/jobad.html

whats your thoughts on the montauk project/philadelphia experiment

[opie's twisted balls]

youtube is owned by google, which is wildly accepted as part of the us government.

Who knows, it's scary, but at least I'll have my .357 soon to back up my shotgun when things go bad.

You're the poster child for gun control!

[Syd]

Just as a heads up if you're worried about some sort of apocalypse situation, you're best off with water and antibiotics more than any gun.

[GregoryJoseph]

Just as a heads up if you're worried about some sort of apocalypse situation, you're best off with water and antibiotics more than any gun.

And what happens when they come for your water and antibiotics?

By the way, it's FREEZING over here...

[epo]

By the way, it's FREEZING over here...

Is that on a bumper sticker?

[GregoryJoseph]

No, but THIS IS! (http://images2.cafepress.com/product/402631792v0_480x480_Front.jpg)

[spankyfrank]

You guys know theres a fresh water shortage that is going to make water more expensive than oil within the next 20 years, right?

[epo]

You guys know theres a fresh water shortage that is going to make water more expensive than oil within the next 20 years, right?

Luckily that greaseball Gregory Joseph drinks oil.

[tanless1]

There are available solutions to that....and I don't believe the shortage part anyways.
Quit building in the desert and sueing other towns for their water.

[SP1!]

That has nothing to do with it. I changed it so that this could be the main thread for discussion and debate of the climate change theories/countertheories and because I merged a couple of other threads on the issue with this one. I'm not sure how "global warming debate" is fitting a narrow minded view since it doesn't state a conclusion either way.

Fine, I will give you that since you didnt change the tone of the post that started the thread, carry on, just drunk venting.

And did anyone mention the new study of how cows are creating a lot of methane adding to the problem?!!!!???????

FUCK YOU COW!!!!!!!!!

[TheMojoPin]

And did anyone mention the new study of how cows are creating a lot of methane adding to the problem?!!!!???????

FUCK YOU COW!!!!!!!!!

I posted this same sentiment earlier in the thread.

I'm glad we can find common ground in our justified hatred of these death-farting monsters.

[weekapaugjz]

I posted this same sentiment earlier in the thread.

I'm glad we can find common ground in our justified hatred of these death-farting monsters.

but then where will you get your cheezburgers?

[TheMojoPin]

but then wear will you get your cheezburgers?

Dammit.

Good point.

Can't we just bag these farts and then launch them into the sun? Or at least Canada?

[weekapaugjz]

Dammit.

Good point.

Can't we just bag these farts and then launch them into the sun? Or at least Canada?

can you imagine the stench of that methane wind whipping off of lake michigan?

[TheMojoPin]

Yes.

[keithy_19]

Yes.

Take that epo!

[GregoryJoseph]

It's still cold here.

[Foster]

It's still cold here.

haven't you heard, Global Warming makes it cold too :blink:

[GregoryJoseph]

haven't you heard, Global Warming makes it cold too :blink:

Oh yeah. "Climate change" is the new term, right?

[Foster]

Oh yeah. "Climate change" is the new term, right?

Correct, we used to call them seasons

[Syd]

phew good thing global warming means it's 40 celsius year round, world-wide and doesn't represent a 1-2 degree shift over time that causes cataclysmic failure in an extremely delicate ecosystem

but hey some dudes said in some emails some stuff that some other dudes told me

[Syd]

You guys know theres a fresh water shortage that is going to make water more expensive than oil within the next 20 years, right?

There's a fresh water shortage in most countries but it's due to happen in the US somewhat soon. The states nearer the equator will be hit first as they slowly dry up, then the states to the north with water sources that supply the south will see those dry up as well. Luckily, most people will be dead before this happens and its only us 20 somethings or younger that will get to see the carnage.

[GregoryJoseph]

The vast majority of fresh water on this planet is in the form of ice.

If global warming is real, we'll never run out of water.

[Syd]

We're very fortunate to have all these glaciers in our backyards.

[west milly Tom]

Where's the debate anyway? The EPA has got this one covered.

[Syd]

What's the cost of being wrong?

Say global warming is cyclical, the "disasters" that will occur are non-existent and that nothing much will change. life goes on.

What did we put all that money into? Reducing carbon emissions?

What's the easiest way of reducing carbon emissions? Normally, increasing efficiency of the system in question.

So we did all this, we made our industries more efficient, our homes more efficient, our cars more efficient and so on and so forth. Fortunately, it was never particularly necessary as we're hypothesizing.

Now consider our next problem that is currently happening: Reduced energy stores. Oil in particular -- nearly 3/4s of the oil burned in America is used on transportation. We have less oil available to us than ever before and what is left is more costly to bring to market.

Now we're stuck with a bunch of more efficient cars, more efficiently heated and cooled homes and most importantly more efficient industry.

So what's the downside in being wrong? A little less short term profit for a little more long term planning?

If I came to you in 2002 and said the price of a gallon of gas was going to double by 2005 and continue rising afterward and never really come down afterward. If you drove an <15mpg SUV during that time would you be more inclined to buy a more fuel efficient car?

We're dealing with the same issue now as the IEA has reported our oil reserves are rapidly diminishing and our production has reached a plateau, or even gone into decline.

The solution to both issues is one and the same.

Why is this even an issue? Even if we are wrong, we still come out ahead of other countries that refuse to act out of short term greed.

[SP1!]

phew good thing global warming means it's 40 celsius year round, world-wide and doesn't represent a 1-2 degree shift over time that causes cataclysmic failure in an extremely delicate ecosystem

but hey some dudes said in some emails some stuff that some other dudes told me
Funny even the most stringent CO2 changes enacted on man will only produce a .5 degree change in the temps according to the computer models, but hey keep perpetuation the lie that man is only to blame.

There's a fresh water shortage in most countries but it's due to happen in the US somewhat soon. The states nearer the equator will be hit first as they slowly dry up, then the states to the north with water sources that supply the south will see those dry up as well. Luckily, most people will be dead before this happens and its only us 20 somethings or younger that will get to see the carnage.
Funny here in the south we are drowning when last year every one was talking about us being a dust bowl in 5 years, guess what the currents shifted and normal rain came back and now we cant give all the free water away.

Man-Made global warming is a myth kid, get over it.

[epo]

Funny even the most stringent CO2 changes enacted on man will only produce a .5 degree change in the temps according to the computer models, but hey keep perpetuation the lie that man is only to blame.

That's just a ridiculous claim on your behalf. Almost every scientist will tell you that climate change is natural, and our CO2 output is creating unnatural results.

Man-Made global warming is a myth kid, get over it.

You're a myth.

[badmonkey]

That's just a ridiculous claim on your behalf. Almost every scientist will tell you that climate change is natural, and our CO2 output is creating unnatural results.



You're a myth.

CO2 is bad because it is a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the greenhouse gas that makes up most of the atmosphere. Guess what those little hydrogen cars you want us all to drive emit.

[epo]

CO2 is bad because it is a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the greenhouse gas that makes up most of the atmosphere. Guess what those little hydrogen cars you want us all to drive emit.

When did I mention cars? Oh wait...I didn't.

I WIN!

[WRESTLINGFAN]

CO2 is bad because it is a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the greenhouse gas that makes up most of the atmosphere. Guess what those little hydrogen cars you want us all to drive emit.

According to 5 unelected lawyers with zero backgrounds in Climatology they think its a pollutant.