Let's start pumping out huge amounts of CFC's again then...kr@cker wrote:
ozone hole's "healing"
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Okay, And I'm Going To Believe You About Global Warming?
http://tbo.comATG wrote:
http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBHKNBE0VE.html
Further proof that the " Sky in falling global warming crowd" has it all wrong.
They can't predict next year, and they want you to change everything because of what they say?
My home town paper
No hurricanes for us this year...
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-11-27 23:51:15)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It is changing because it cycles. We cant stop it from cycling. Ya we might be making it warmer faster, but its natural for the earth to warm. It will then cool.
Yay for Sydney, got a 40C day over in the west. Summer still isn't due for a few days.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It snowed in Canberra at one pointSpark wrote:
Yay for Sydney, got a 40C day over in the west. Summer still isn't due for a few days.
but, but, but..................AL GORE says its true, ( you know Al, the inventor of the internet). He has traveled the world in motorcades, private jets and yachts to get this urgent message to the masses.
OK say that it's normal because it's just cycling, and say that we are speeding things up a bit.
Don't you guys think that the 'we're only speeding things up a little bit' might actually be bad as well?
Anyway; the earth will probably survive; it 'll be us who 'll get f*cked.
By the way; isn't it kind of odd that Europe takes Global Warming way more serious than the US?
And you can't just say; in my region everything is fine, so f*ck the rest.
Since things will always start in one region (or more regions) and then spread?
Oh and just on a side note; There's also a threat that (a relative) few people know of that could destroy the world sooner than Global Warming. There's this huge volcano (I believe it was in America) that is currently inactive.
It covers a huge area, and isn't seen as a volcano, since it's not a mountain. I think it was the place with all those geisers, and steaming pools and stuff..
Well anyway; scientists have shown that if that thing blows, we're all f*cked..
The 'smoke' of the volcano will cover up the skies over the entire world, taking away all sunlight. Not to mention all the gasses that would be released.
Don't you guys think that the 'we're only speeding things up a little bit' might actually be bad as well?
Anyway; the earth will probably survive; it 'll be us who 'll get f*cked.
By the way; isn't it kind of odd that Europe takes Global Warming way more serious than the US?
And you can't just say; in my region everything is fine, so f*ck the rest.
Since things will always start in one region (or more regions) and then spread?
Oh and just on a side note; There's also a threat that (a relative) few people know of that could destroy the world sooner than Global Warming. There's this huge volcano (I believe it was in America) that is currently inactive.
It covers a huge area, and isn't seen as a volcano, since it's not a mountain. I think it was the place with all those geisers, and steaming pools and stuff..
Well anyway; scientists have shown that if that thing blows, we're all f*cked..
The 'smoke' of the volcano will cover up the skies over the entire world, taking away all sunlight. Not to mention all the gasses that would be released.
Last edited by D34TH_D34L3R (2006-11-28 04:31:01)
I'm eagerly awaiting the Global Cooling (not something like Day After Tomorrow) scare flick that will inevitably appear within a few decades.
+1 to you!mcminty wrote:
Seriously if you can't see the proof, then you are plain blind.
Fuck the graphs, get off the computer and go outside. The environment ain't the same any more. IT IS CHANGING!
How much debate do we need?
Mcminty.
If you seriously think the enviornment is the same now as it was say...in the 1800's or even 1970's, you're off your rocker. We're getting hotter summers, leaves are changing later because of the rise in heat...etc etc. It's just about december and here on long island it's 60 something degrees! THAT'S NOT NORMAL!
Changing? Yes. Changing because of us? I doubt it, and most long term scientific studies support that.
If everyone would just shut up and hug a tree a day like the hippies teach us, then we wouldn't have global warming or any of these other environmental issues. Stoners have the right idea.
Oh my god, climb out of your cave dude.ATG wrote:
http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBHKNBE0VE.html
Further proof that the " Sky in falling global warming crowd" has it all wrong.
They can't predict next year, and they want you to change everything because of what they say?
The argument against global warming and the greenhouse affect is directly analogous to claiming that you wont be warmer under a blanket. This is an area of thermodynamics that is firmly established and at least hundreds of years old (lol, millions as in homo erectus adorned in hides?).
Greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and methane are less conductive to IR radiation (heat) than the rest of the atmosphere. If we have thick layers of this non-conductive gas, heat that is reflected off the surface of the earth will leave the atmosphere at a lower rate, causing the increasing global temperatures we see right now. Heating like this can result from non-anthropogenic sources like volcanic activity, meteor impacts, forest fires, and biological activity, however it is clear (because we can measure tail-pipe and smoke stack emissions) that we burn enough fossil fuels to account for the impacts of many volcaoes or meteor impacts. This heating is not altogether different from other heating that has occured in the past, however remember that the earth was frequently at temperatures completely inhospitable to humans in past ages of warmer climate.
The funny thing about a lot of smart people is how their entire intellect can be dedicated to rationalizing beliefs that are illogical and difficult to defend. Here I am telling you what you could have read anywhere if you had attemped a search for this topic while considering any academic source. Instead you dig up one article from a crappy news website to support your beliefs.
Oh and nobody ever said that global warming would cause more hurricanse every year. Many scientists have argued that increasing global temperature will result in an increasing range or variability in weather pattern extremes. This is because the concentration of heat and cold in the planet stabilizes weather and makes air move in smaller restricted patterns than it would if the air at the poles and equator exchanged freely.
I get my views from more than one source. Here is another;
"The average temperatures are nearly 2 degrees higher than they were 50 years ago (correct if wrong)
last 5 years all over the world the highest temperatues ever have been recorded. "
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.
Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.
The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.
"The average temperatures are nearly 2 degrees higher than they were 50 years ago (correct if wrong)
last 5 years all over the world the highest temperatues ever have been recorded. "
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.
Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.
The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.
And how about you go outside and actually feel the heat?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
u are so thickheaded it blows my mind.
there is clear evidence that the earth is accumulating greenhouse gasses at a higher rate than any other habitable period. The weather is even becoming slightly warmer as indicated by short term studies.
Its like you just moaned about how blankets don't do anything, and now that u are lying under one feeling a little warmer you still insist that blankets lack the ability to insulate you. When are u just going to admit that the theoretical framework is there right along with the practical evidence?
With the blanket matter, I guess you'd finally admit that blankets create warming when you are sweating under one. If we resolved the case of global warming this way, then we could be talking about rendering portions of the world uninhabitable. The process of discovery would be one of famine, drought or flood for many. Maybe the repercussions of your unintelligent problem solving strategy are acceptable in your bedroom, but it would probably be better to explore the issue without accidentally killing off enormous populations of people when dealing with the global level. And be aware that this is a likely occurrence. Much of the world is so impoverished that they barely survive as is, if certain crops failed in different regions, large groups of people would die without any question. In other words, to ignore the pattern of global warming is potentially genocidal negligence. Are you one of those nazi neo-cons or just really traditional dude?
You act like people are afraid to speak out against global warming now. Maybe its because every scientist that has taken the stance that global warming lacks evidence has been completely discredited? COMPLETELY DISCREDITED. Believe me, I talk to these scientists every day. Even the ones with right wing economic slants (like at claremont mckenna college) have come around to accept the global warming issue as reality.
People have tried for so long to sweep global warming under the rug because it means curbing big industries like auto and oil. The amount of money spent on attempting to discredit global warming pales in comparison to the amount invested in its study because few large industries stand to gain immediately from the discovery that Western culture has to change its behavior. Its hilarious to hear how there are people like you that then claim the opposite the moment there is any momentum for addressing the problem of global warming. You actually manage to spin the issue so it sounds like there are all these powerful people whose lives and fortunes depend on the truth of global warming. Actually global warming is considered a problem by almost all parties so people have always done what little they can to deny its existence or importance.
Just go back to school dude. Seriously. Get out of this little ring of circlejerkers that are blowing big business so that things like global warming and large scale violence remain part of the status quo. Thankfully more and more people are learning every day about why you dont want everything about the world determined by the evolutionary processes of completely free markets. When large scale issues are only regulated at the lowest level (the consumer at the gas pump) then nothing is in place to prevent these small individual decisions from accumulating gigantic results.
Right now we have a culture that uses oil like a crackhead on rocks. We are so fixated on the short term gains we get from lighting up some oil, that there are people like you who would go to any length to rationalize the fact that we are also ravaging the world with pollution. Its time to look in the mirror, Tyrone Biggums. Your lips are cracked and white, youre shaking and scratching your arms perpetually, and telling children about where they can go to pick up some rocks and how they taste like eggs and cinnamon. Crackhead shit, man. Maybe you are too far gone for anyone's help but you dont have to troll forums trying to give everyone else your sad white man disease.
there is clear evidence that the earth is accumulating greenhouse gasses at a higher rate than any other habitable period. The weather is even becoming slightly warmer as indicated by short term studies.
Its like you just moaned about how blankets don't do anything, and now that u are lying under one feeling a little warmer you still insist that blankets lack the ability to insulate you. When are u just going to admit that the theoretical framework is there right along with the practical evidence?
With the blanket matter, I guess you'd finally admit that blankets create warming when you are sweating under one. If we resolved the case of global warming this way, then we could be talking about rendering portions of the world uninhabitable. The process of discovery would be one of famine, drought or flood for many. Maybe the repercussions of your unintelligent problem solving strategy are acceptable in your bedroom, but it would probably be better to explore the issue without accidentally killing off enormous populations of people when dealing with the global level. And be aware that this is a likely occurrence. Much of the world is so impoverished that they barely survive as is, if certain crops failed in different regions, large groups of people would die without any question. In other words, to ignore the pattern of global warming is potentially genocidal negligence. Are you one of those nazi neo-cons or just really traditional dude?
You act like people are afraid to speak out against global warming now. Maybe its because every scientist that has taken the stance that global warming lacks evidence has been completely discredited? COMPLETELY DISCREDITED. Believe me, I talk to these scientists every day. Even the ones with right wing economic slants (like at claremont mckenna college) have come around to accept the global warming issue as reality.
People have tried for so long to sweep global warming under the rug because it means curbing big industries like auto and oil. The amount of money spent on attempting to discredit global warming pales in comparison to the amount invested in its study because few large industries stand to gain immediately from the discovery that Western culture has to change its behavior. Its hilarious to hear how there are people like you that then claim the opposite the moment there is any momentum for addressing the problem of global warming. You actually manage to spin the issue so it sounds like there are all these powerful people whose lives and fortunes depend on the truth of global warming. Actually global warming is considered a problem by almost all parties so people have always done what little they can to deny its existence or importance.
Just go back to school dude. Seriously. Get out of this little ring of circlejerkers that are blowing big business so that things like global warming and large scale violence remain part of the status quo. Thankfully more and more people are learning every day about why you dont want everything about the world determined by the evolutionary processes of completely free markets. When large scale issues are only regulated at the lowest level (the consumer at the gas pump) then nothing is in place to prevent these small individual decisions from accumulating gigantic results.
Right now we have a culture that uses oil like a crackhead on rocks. We are so fixated on the short term gains we get from lighting up some oil, that there are people like you who would go to any length to rationalize the fact that we are also ravaging the world with pollution. Its time to look in the mirror, Tyrone Biggums. Your lips are cracked and white, youre shaking and scratching your arms perpetually, and telling children about where they can go to pick up some rocks and how they taste like eggs and cinnamon. Crackhead shit, man. Maybe you are too far gone for anyone's help but you dont have to troll forums trying to give everyone else your sad white man disease.
Interesting to throw into this arguement is the narrowness of the green left's approach and the dual-sourced (and completely ridiculous) counter-arguements spewed forth as talking points from the right.
First off, it was never contended by the green/left that man was the sole source of all climate woes in the world, but it is undeniable that we are contributing in a very marked way...how marked? 5%? 15%? 50%? How much is too much? It's like asking how many people you need to kill to go from serial murderer to genocidal mad man. I'm sure there's a magical number somewhere but for any sane person if it is at all preventable at a reasonable cost, we should maybe try to be a little more concerned eh?
But my attack on the left for this issue is that they're trying to focus too narrowly or are being interpretted too narrowly on their environmental focus. The same fuels that produce the carbon emissions they dislike also contribute to huge environmental consequences at a local level. Try living in any major city, I feel like a smoked an extra pack of cigarettes when I go to sleep at night. Its not JUST the global warming effect, its the other 100's of toxins that are being dumped by the same processes at the same time as well that are slowly poisoning people, with expensive medications able to thwart it (see, every industry wins!). Then you get into the wildlife, agriculture, and natural resource impacts (including our food supply), well, this is a much bigger problem than needing a bigger air conditioner.
Now, on the right you have your talking heads with their two key arguements. First up is the corporate shills (sic) passing themselves off as scientists. Even though their counter-arguements to the global warming alarmists account for about 5% of the scientific community, to be fair and balanced the corporate media moguls need to use them as a basis for the professional wrestling tabloid circus that is our mainstream media. Never forget who signs their paychecks. Environmentalism wasn't the only casualty when they let 80% of what you hear, read, and see on TV go to just 5 major corporations with the de-regulation of the media monopolies in the early 90's. Fair and balanced and all that, you know?
The second one, laugh if you want, that even I had a hard time believing today was the religious wingnuts on the right also have their own "ideas" about this global warming thing and environmentalism in general. Basically, the rapture IS coming soon so who cares what happens here? Related to this is "Jesus didn't make an Earth that can't provide for everyone, so keep using and abusing like there's no tomorrow". The funny thing was that about 50 million Americans actually subscribe to this seemingly goofy ideology, making them a massive voting block as well as a solid target market for a media that makes its money telling people what they want to hear.
Now here is my final arguement for the greenies, the cost. You know how much it cost us and is going to cost us to stabilize Iraq and then move on to Iran? In terms of human life AND money, just to secure a resource. It's absolutely ridiculous, when for a fraction of that cost we could render that whole area of the world irrelevant. Of course, there would be a few losers in this brave new world...like our current administration (all paid oil people), and those oil conglomerates making record profits...but if they can't "get with the program" and switch to renewable energy for their own good, well, the rapture will come and I won't miss them.
First off, it was never contended by the green/left that man was the sole source of all climate woes in the world, but it is undeniable that we are contributing in a very marked way...how marked? 5%? 15%? 50%? How much is too much? It's like asking how many people you need to kill to go from serial murderer to genocidal mad man. I'm sure there's a magical number somewhere but for any sane person if it is at all preventable at a reasonable cost, we should maybe try to be a little more concerned eh?
But my attack on the left for this issue is that they're trying to focus too narrowly or are being interpretted too narrowly on their environmental focus. The same fuels that produce the carbon emissions they dislike also contribute to huge environmental consequences at a local level. Try living in any major city, I feel like a smoked an extra pack of cigarettes when I go to sleep at night. Its not JUST the global warming effect, its the other 100's of toxins that are being dumped by the same processes at the same time as well that are slowly poisoning people, with expensive medications able to thwart it (see, every industry wins!). Then you get into the wildlife, agriculture, and natural resource impacts (including our food supply), well, this is a much bigger problem than needing a bigger air conditioner.
Now, on the right you have your talking heads with their two key arguements. First up is the corporate shills (sic) passing themselves off as scientists. Even though their counter-arguements to the global warming alarmists account for about 5% of the scientific community, to be fair and balanced the corporate media moguls need to use them as a basis for the professional wrestling tabloid circus that is our mainstream media. Never forget who signs their paychecks. Environmentalism wasn't the only casualty when they let 80% of what you hear, read, and see on TV go to just 5 major corporations with the de-regulation of the media monopolies in the early 90's. Fair and balanced and all that, you know?
The second one, laugh if you want, that even I had a hard time believing today was the religious wingnuts on the right also have their own "ideas" about this global warming thing and environmentalism in general. Basically, the rapture IS coming soon so who cares what happens here? Related to this is "Jesus didn't make an Earth that can't provide for everyone, so keep using and abusing like there's no tomorrow". The funny thing was that about 50 million Americans actually subscribe to this seemingly goofy ideology, making them a massive voting block as well as a solid target market for a media that makes its money telling people what they want to hear.
Now here is my final arguement for the greenies, the cost. You know how much it cost us and is going to cost us to stabilize Iraq and then move on to Iran? In terms of human life AND money, just to secure a resource. It's absolutely ridiculous, when for a fraction of that cost we could render that whole area of the world irrelevant. Of course, there would be a few losers in this brave new world...like our current administration (all paid oil people), and those oil conglomerates making record profits...but if they can't "get with the program" and switch to renewable energy for their own good, well, the rapture will come and I won't miss them.
Yellowstone caldera.D34TH_D34L3R wrote:
. . . There's also a threat that (a relative) few people know of that could destroy the world sooner than Global Warming. There's this huge volcano (I believe it was in America) that is currently inactive.
It covers a huge area, and isn't seen as a volcano, since it's not a mountain. I think it was the place with all those geisers, and steaming pools and stuff..
Well anyway; scientists have shown that if that thing blows, we're all f*cked..
The 'smoke' of the volcano will cover up the skies over the entire world, taking away all sunlight. Not to mention all the gasses that would be released.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/images/20 … arge2a.jpg
National Geographic channel or History Channel had a special about it.
"Al Gore IV said today at a press conference that Humans inability to produce green house gasses due to EPA regulations is causing global cooling. He was quoted as saying "Republicans in control of the EPA are refusing to let people emit the green house gasses necessary to stabilize our planet. It is sssstaggering that bipartisan politics get in the way of helping to save our planet from the next Fire Age".TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Summers will get hotter Winters will get colder, it'll get more and more irratic with a wider gap between the two each year and then it'll begin settling again, like it has done for centuries. In 90 years or so it'll be "Global Cooling the Great Threat to Humanity" on the headlines lol.
president Bush Iv was unavailable for comment."
Nice. Thx:) .. I really really couldn't remember where it was!Stingray24 wrote:
Yellowstone caldera.D34TH_D34L3R wrote:
. . . There's also a threat that (a relative) few people know of that could destroy the world sooner than Global Warming. There's this huge volcano (I believe it was in America) that is currently inactive.
It covers a huge area, and isn't seen as a volcano, since it's not a mountain. I think it was the place with all those geisers, and steaming pools and stuff..
Well anyway; scientists have shown that if that thing blows, we're all f*cked..
The 'smoke' of the volcano will cover up the skies over the entire world, taking away all sunlight. Not to mention all the gasses that would be released.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/images/20 … arge2a.jpg
National Geographic channel or History Channel had a special about it.
Hopefully this time I will.
+1 Back in the 70s scientists were howling about global cooling. Now we're back to warming. So in about 2030 they should be yelling about cooling again.Erkut.hv wrote:
"Al Gore IV said today at a press conference that Humans inability to produce green house gasses due to EPA regulations is causing global cooling. He was quoted as saying "Republicans in control of the EPA are refusing to let people emit the green house gasses necessary to stabilize our planet. It is sssstaggering that bipartisan politics get in the way of helping to save our planet from the next Fire Age".TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Summers will get hotter Winters will get colder, it'll get more and more irratic with a wider gap between the two each year and then it'll begin settling again, like it has done for centuries. In 90 years or so it'll be "Global Cooling the Great Threat to Humanity" on the headlines lol.
president Bush Iv was unavailable for comment."
If we all stopped exhaling and farting, the problem would go away.
Stopped in 1998. lolATG wrote:
I get my views from more than one source. Here is another;
"The average temperatures are nearly 2 degrees higher than they were 50 years ago (correct if wrong)
last 5 years all over the world the highest temperatues ever have been recorded. "
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
Well, that's not true.ATG wrote:
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
There has not been a slight decrease in averages at all. In fact here you can find the actual data from the University of East Anglia. Notice the fact that whilst 1998 is the warmest year on record, 2002, 2003 and 2004 take spots 2,3 and 4.
For those that can't be bothered to read through the data, here's the graph from the University of East Anglia showing global temperatures.
So..... your entire previous statement is untrue.
Not silly at all. What is silly is misrepresenting the data and claiming it fits in with your agenda, when it doesn't.ATG wrote:
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Except that is totally the oppostite of what the studies of research papers compared to media articles have shown. I can't remember the exact figures, but from the random samples in the study something like 30% (that could easily be wrong) of media articles questioned whether global warming was real, whereas NONE of the sampled scientific papers did.ATG wrote:
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
Why is it that despite the fact that a small minority of scientists deny global warming is occuring, very few of those who claim that to be the case actually publish research papers on it?
If you can point me in the direction of any of these definative research publications that prove global warming is not happening (despite the vast quantites of evidence to the contrary), I would be very interested in reading them. I hope they are nothing like the OISM petition/report which was a joke of a scientific document. There is only one scientist opposing global warming who strikes me as being in the least bit credible and that is Prof. Linzen, whose arguments against global warming are not very persuassive.ATG wrote:
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
Of course global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism. Terrorism is minor, hardly anyone dies as a result of terrorism. Billions could easily die from the consequences of global warming.ATG wrote:
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.
"The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice."? The US government advisors hold the same stance on global warming as the UK government advisors. Try reading the reports from the NAS.ATG wrote:
Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.
The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.
*edit*
I did have a good laugh at the temperature graph you posted earlier. Only Northern hemisphere, why? Beacuse the global charts show a very different story.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-11-29 10:21:26)
you fuckwit alex!!!!ATG wrote:
http://wwwa.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp
didn't you see the day after tomorrow?
if it gets hot, it's because of global warming, if it gets cold, it's because of global warming, if it's a drought, it's due to global warming, it it floods, it's because of global warming, and all because dick cheney gives a speech at the beginning of the movie. WE GON DIE!!!
For frame of reference I am about 335.34 miles from Havana .kr@cker wrote:
for a frame of reference for those not in the america's, florida is about 90 miles away from cuba
It's been a verrrrry long time since I have seen snow around these parts...lol
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-11-30 20:36:54)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Okay, And I'm Going To Believe You About Global Warming?