i got a gold star once in skewlklassekock wrote:
Santa Claus DO exist in the northern parts of Finland/Rovaniemi. And global warming also exists.Chappy556 wrote:
i'm not going to pick through another thread and try and defend anyone but here ya go boss
http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8177
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm (a uk website)
its junk science only perpituated by pony-tailed "scientists" wanting to keep their jobs ie take away global warming and government takes away grants to study global warming
its like trying to prove that Santa Clause exists or he doesn't
One thing that doesn't exists though is a shred of intelligence in you, you fooooool !!!!!
lol i love the first sentence. "anti-Americanism" just goes to prove your a paranoid ignorant naive fool.
"Satellite data taken over the past 25 years indicate no surface or atmospheric warming. If anything there has been a very slight cooling, on the order of 0.01 degree Centigrade." Complete and utter lie. How about you actually watch the video posted in this then l2stfu.
"Satellite data taken over the past 25 years indicate no surface or atmospheric warming. If anything there has been a very slight cooling, on the order of 0.01 degree Centigrade." Complete and utter lie. How about you actually watch the video posted in this then l2stfu.
yeah but we aint sposed to be warming up, the climate temperature was stable until the industrial revolution, a coincidence? NO! ever since we started pumping out carbon we have been steadily warming our planet and you guys think all of the carbon and other polutants are NOT causing the climate to change, fuck sake you arrogant people, you have gotta wake up and realise we are fucking in 30-50 years unless pollution stops.Chappy556 wrote:
there was a mini ice age in the 1700's...i bet all of our factories and SUV's caused that one
the world was pretty warm 2 million years ago...damn ozone screwing dinosaurs
once again, prove to me that global warming actually exists beyond "i know its there, just feel how warm it is in winter" and you'll have me on your side
another reason why americans (most) deny global warming is happening is...the USA is responsible for 25% of global emmisions, so that means you guys have to make sacrifices to your lives in order to help save our planet, BUT you guys seem to be so arrogant and intent of living your lives polluting this world to expense of the planet is just fucking selfish, and its about time you fuck faces decided to change your goddam attitudes!
First off, check the source. NOT ME.Vilham wrote:
lol i love the first sentence. "anti-Americanism" just goes to prove your a paranoid ignorant naive fool.
"Satellite data taken over the past 25 years indicate no surface or atmospheric warming. If anything there has been a very slight cooling, on the order of 0.01 degree Centigrade." Complete and utter lie. How about you actually watch the video posted in this then l2stfu.
Second, yea, I think it's definitely possible that the Global Warming theory is anti-American.
Ya'll busta's are just jealous cuz' we hustle harder than ya'll.
America is THE World Super Power. I can see how it'd be hard to accept but knowing that my country could destroy other countries and send the world into an infertile state makes me feel all warm inside.
Oh, and damn ozone screwing dinosaurs.
You're a bitch, you know that?ELITE-UK wrote:
yeah but we aint sposed to be warming up, the climate temperature was stable until the industrial revolution, a coincidence? NO! ever since we started pumping out carbon we have been steadily warming our planet and you guys think all of the carbon and other polutants are NOT causing the climate to change, fuck sake you arrogant people, you have gotta wake up and realise we are fucking in 30-50 years unless pollution stops.Chappy556 wrote:
there was a mini ice age in the 1700's...i bet all of our factories and SUV's caused that one
the world was pretty warm 2 million years ago...damn ozone screwing dinosaurs
once again, prove to me that global warming actually exists beyond "i know its there, just feel how warm it is in winter" and you'll have me on your side
another reason why americans (most) deny global warming is happening is...the USA is responsible for 25% of global emmisions, so that means you guys have to make sacrifices to your lives in order to help save our planet, BUT you guys seem to be so arrogant and intent of living your lives polluting this world to expense of the planet is just fucking selfish, and its about time you fuck faces decided to change your goddam attitudes!
We could be getting closer to the sun. The Earth's orbital pattern, much like the Earth, is not round.
Wait, you're telling me this when other parts of the world aren't even using unleaded fuel? Psssch, yea, j00 need to stfu n00b.
You're getting all huffy and puffy about your facts you don't even understand. Pumping out carbon?
Okay, let me explain this.
Everything is made of matter.
Matter never leaves the Earth (with the exception of space travel).
Everything breaks down, most is made of carbon (if not all, can't remember). So all we really are doing is just scattering matter.
Just to make sure your tiny mind can comprehend, that means that you have a cupcake, if you smash that cupcake in a box, you still have all the cupcake in there, it's just in smaller pieces spread out.
Fucking dinosaurs.
Last edited by DarkObsidian (2007-01-31 08:56:40)
ELITE-UK wrote:
yeah but we aint sposed to be warming up yet, this is man made, climate temperature was stable until the industrial revolution, a coincidence? NO! ever since we started pumping out carbon we have been steadily warming our planet and you guys think all of the carbon and other polutants are NOT causing the climate to change, fuck sake you arrogant people, you have gotta wake up and realise we are fucking in 30-50 years unless pollution stops.Chappy556 wrote:
there was a mini ice age in the 1700's...i bet all of our factories and SUV's caused that one
the world was pretty warm 2 million years ago...damn ozone screwing dinosaurs
once again, prove to me that global warming actually exists beyond "i know its there, just feel how warm it is in winter" and you'll have me on your side
another reason why americans (most) deny global warming is happening is...the USA is responsible for 25% of global emmisions, so that means you guys have to make sacrifices to your lives in order to help save our planet, BUT you guys seem to be so arrogant and intent of living your lives polluting this world to expense of the planet is just fucking selfish, and its about time you fuck faces decided to change your goddam attitudes!
Nothing humanity is capable of, other than maybe drilling a big ass hole into the mantle of this planets core and dumping every nuclear device we have into it.....simultaniously, have even the remotest chance of destroying the planet. Sure, we may thrash the enviroment and make it uninhabitable....But even that is unlikely. You people attribute ridiculous amounts of destructive power to a species that, all told, has effected less than 15% of this planet. Use the past to learn about the future, children. Study geological and climatilogocal history, go back thousands, even millions of years. You will find a very stable and predictable series of events, that, over time repeat each other time and again. Such as both warming and cooling of the planet, and even the regular, complete reversal of this worlds magnetic poles. If you seriously think humanity can even remotely approach the level of destruction a NATURAL pole reversal unleashes, you need to get back on your meds. Our entire species is, as a whole, an insignificant little blotch on exsistence, that could be annihiliated by nothing more siginificant than a cosmic hiccup.
one last time, personal attacks don't further your argument. and since when is an ice age proof of a "stable" climate temperature?ELITE-UK wrote:
yeah but we aint sposed to be warming up, the climate temperature was stable until the industrial revolution, a coincidence? NO! ever since we started pumping out carbon we have been steadily warming our planet and you guys think all of the carbon and other polutants are NOT causing the climate to change, fuck sake you arrogant people, you have gotta wake up and realise we are fucking in 30-50 years unless pollution stops.Chappy556 wrote:
there was a mini ice age in the 1700's...i bet all of our factories and SUV's caused that one
the world was pretty warm 2 million years ago...damn ozone screwing dinosaurs
once again, prove to me that global warming actually exists beyond "i know its there, just feel how warm it is in winter" and you'll have me on your side
another reason why americans (most) deny global warming is happening is...the USA is responsible for 25% of global emmisions, so that means you guys have to make sacrifices to your lives in order to help save our planet, BUT you guys seem to be so arrogant and intent of living your lives polluting this world to expense of the planet is just fucking selfish, and its about time you fuck faces decided to change your goddam attitudes!
as far as the US being one of the biggest offenders, you believe that because we haven't signed the Kyoto treaty. Acutally, the biggest offender by far is China, followed by Russia...countries where they aren't legislated to death to clean up their factories
have any of you guys actually watched the video, if not then i suggest you do so.
NO WHERE HAS ANYONE SAID "destroying the planet" and if they have they are talking about the enviroment you moron. You know that its something like Humanity wipes out 2 species every day. As to your stable thing, your right it was stable, in the last hundred years it has spiked to 3x its previous height for the last thousands of years. A change that normally happens in a million years took 100 years, now dont give me bullshit that we didnt cause that. Seriously just go read the other thread i posted earlier.=JoD=Corithus wrote:
Nothing humanity is capable of, other than maybe drilling a big ass hole into the mantle of this planets core and dumping every nuclear device we have into it.....simultaniously, have even the remotest chance of destroying the planet. Sure, we may thrash the enviroment and make it uninhabitable....But even that is unlikely. You people attribute ridiculous amounts of destructive power to a species that, all told, has effected less than 15% of this planet. Use the past to learn about the future, children. Study geological and climatilogocal history, go back thousands, even millions of years. You will find a very stable and predictable series of events, that, over time repeat each other time and again. Such as both warming and cooling of the planet, and even the regular, complete reversal of this worlds magnetic poles. If you seriously think humanity can even remotely approach the level of destruction a NATURAL pole reversal unleashes, you need to get back on your meds. Our entire species is, as a whole, an insignificant little blotch on exsistence, that could be annihiliated by nothing more siginificant than a cosmic hiccup.
You claim that there has been changes in the climate in the past. Yes, I can accept that. But when you say that what is happening today also are normal changes I think you should use some common sense.
Did they have cars in the 1700? Hell no!
Today we use so much fossile fuel that there is no way the earth can cope with the pollution. You will see in 50years that the environmentalists were correct, but by then it may be to late.
So don't you agree that it would be wise to stay on the safe side and try to reduce the pollution?
Did they have cars in the 1700? Hell no!
Today we use so much fossile fuel that there is no way the earth can cope with the pollution. You will see in 50years that the environmentalists were correct, but by then it may be to late.
So don't you agree that it would be wise to stay on the safe side and try to reduce the pollution?
Ok, America produces the most polution FACT! To even say that isnt true instantly makes everyone know not to take you seriously, which is what im going to do from now on.Chappy556 wrote:
one last time, personal attacks don't further your argument. and since when is an ice age proof of a "stable" climate temperature?ELITE-UK wrote:
yeah but we aint sposed to be warming up, the climate temperature was stable until the industrial revolution, a coincidence? NO! ever since we started pumping out carbon we have been steadily warming our planet and you guys think all of the carbon and other polutants are NOT causing the climate to change, fuck sake you arrogant people, you have gotta wake up and realise we are fucking in 30-50 years unless pollution stops.Chappy556 wrote:
there was a mini ice age in the 1700's...i bet all of our factories and SUV's caused that one
the world was pretty warm 2 million years ago...damn ozone screwing dinosaurs
once again, prove to me that global warming actually exists beyond "i know its there, just feel how warm it is in winter" and you'll have me on your side
another reason why americans (most) deny global warming is happening is...the USA is responsible for 25% of global emmisions, so that means you guys have to make sacrifices to your lives in order to help save our planet, BUT you guys seem to be so arrogant and intent of living your lives polluting this world to expense of the planet is just fucking selfish, and its about time you fuck faces decided to change your goddam attitudes!
as far as the US being one of the biggest offenders, you believe that because we haven't signed the Kyoto treaty. Acutally, the biggest offender by far is China, followed by Russia...countries where they aren't legislated to death to clean up their factories
i could care less if you take me seriously, we obviously are not going to change each other's minds but the only way you debate is by personally attacking the ones you don't agree with...
at the end of the day, you have to live with you. i sleep pretty well at night.
at the end of the day, you have to live with you. i sleep pretty well at night.
WHAT has spiked to "3x its previous height for the last thousands of years", you fail to even mention what "it" is. And I love it when silly little children like you have to resort to name calling, it just means that you can no longer function in this debate in a muture, logical fashion, go to sleep little felllow, I think you're up past you're bed time.Vilham wrote:
NO WHERE HAS ANYONE SAID "destroying the planet" and if they have they are talking about the enviroment you moron. You know that its something like Humanity wipes out 2 species every day. As to your stable thing, your right it was stable, in the last hundred years it has spiked to 3x its previous height for the last thousands of years. A change that normally happens in a million years took 100 years, now dont give me bullshit that we didnt cause that. Seriously just go read the other thread i posted earlier.=JoD=Corithus wrote:
Nothing humanity is capable of, other than maybe drilling a big ass hole into the mantle of this planets core and dumping every nuclear device we have into it.....simultaniously, have even the remotest chance of destroying the planet. Sure, we may thrash the enviroment and make it uninhabitable....But even that is unlikely. You people attribute ridiculous amounts of destructive power to a species that, all told, has effected less than 15% of this planet. Use the past to learn about the future, children. Study geological and climatilogocal history, go back thousands, even millions of years. You will find a very stable and predictable series of events, that, over time repeat each other time and again. Such as both warming and cooling of the planet, and even the regular, complete reversal of this worlds magnetic poles. If you seriously think humanity can even remotely approach the level of destruction a NATURAL pole reversal unleashes, you need to get back on your meds. Our entire species is, as a whole, an insignificant little blotch on exsistence, that could be annihiliated by nothing more siginificant than a cosmic hiccup.
Let's all sacrifice ourselves to Ra too, kay?klassekock wrote:
You claim that there has been changes in the climate in the past. Yes, I can accept that. But when you say that what is happening today also are normal changes I think you should use some common sense.
Did they have cars in the 1700? Hell no!
Today we use so much fossile fuel that there is no way the earth can cope with the pollution. You will see in 50years that the environmentalists were correct, but by then it may be to late.
So don't you agree that it would be wise to stay on the safe side and try to reduce the pollution?
Think about it. They say the Earth is mimicking a green house, correct?
Greenhouses are usually sealed entirely. The Earth has openings on the top (and I think) the bottom polar caps.
The can escape? Heat rises man, it'll be pulled towards outer space and the energy will be neutralized.
Calling someone ignorant, naive or a fool, is not name calling it is stating an opinion about someone without being offensive. Saying "silly little children" is. I think you are infact being a hypocrite. You are the one name calling.
Fine, fuck you, I'm telling the teacher.Vilham wrote:
Calling someone ignorant, naive or a fool, is not name calling it is stating an opinion about someone without being offensive. Saying "silly little children" is. I think you are infact being a hypocrite. You are the one name calling.
I still see no further argument from you on the topic, are you burnt out?
And with that kind of logic we might as well give all the chinese a car of their own!DarkObsidian wrote:
Let's all sacrifice ourselves to Ra too, kay?klassekock wrote:
You claim that there has been changes in the climate in the past. Yes, I can accept that. But when you say that what is happening today also are normal changes I think you should use some common sense.
Did they have cars in the 1700? Hell no!
Today we use so much fossile fuel that there is no way the earth can cope with the pollution. You will see in 50years that the environmentalists were correct, but by then it may be to late.
So don't you agree that it would be wise to stay on the safe side and try to reduce the pollution?
Think about it. They say the Earth is mimicking a green house, correct?
Greenhouses are usually sealed entirely. The Earth has openings on the top (and I think) the bottom polar caps.
The can escape? Heat rises man, it'll be pulled towards outer space and the energy will be neutralized.
How can you contradict the fact that pollution is bad for our planet and that we should change our ways?
Checking the thread...congrats on firing the first shot Vilham.Vilham wrote:
Calling someone ignorant, naive or a fool, is not name calling it is stating an opinion about someone without being offensive. Saying "silly little children" is. I think you are infact being a hypocrite. You are the one name calling.
Good work as usual Vils - personally attacking someone and then claiming it wasn't you who started it...
Lol, your lack of physics knowledge is amazing, space is filled with mostly NOTHING, You will find that NOTHING does not absorb heat. Until you guys have read http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=31479&p=13 thread i am going to stop responding.DarkObsidian wrote:
Let's all sacrifice ourselves to Ra too, kay?klassekock wrote:
You claim that there has been changes in the climate in the past. Yes, I can accept that. But when you say that what is happening today also are normal changes I think you should use some common sense.
Did they have cars in the 1700? Hell no!
Today we use so much fossile fuel that there is no way the earth can cope with the pollution. You will see in 50years that the environmentalists were correct, but by then it may be to late.
So don't you agree that it would be wise to stay on the safe side and try to reduce the pollution?
Think about it. They say the Earth is mimicking a green house, correct?
Greenhouses are usually sealed entirely. The Earth has openings on the top (and I think) the bottom polar caps.
The can escape? Heat rises man, it'll be pulled towards outer space and the energy will be neutralized.
having the opinion of someone being ignorant is not a personal attack. Its an opinion, if you cant take opinion you probably should live in a sealed box without any contact with the rest of the world for the rest of your life.Pug wrote:
Checking the thread...congrats on firing the first shot Vilham.Vilham wrote:
Calling someone ignorant, naive or a fool, is not name calling it is stating an opinion about someone without being offensive. Saying "silly little children" is. I think you are infact being a hypocrite. You are the one name calling.
Good work as usual Vils - personally attacking someone and then claiming it wasn't you who started it...
bertster7 wrote:
Global warming is REAL. Global warming IS caused by carbon emissions, mostly from using coal power, car emissions are not the big problem here, it is power generation - which I why I back using nuclear power totally.
The papers that people should be reading, but they are not, because I doubt any of those who do not believe in global warming have any scientific background whatsoever, are the reports from the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) all available here, the Royal Society papers, available here. Or the combined reports of all of the global academies of science which concur that global warming is real and caused by carbon emissions. That includes the National Academy of Sciences in the US (who have published their own report which states global warming is a real and serious threat), which are supposed to advise congress on scientific matters - although when the White House doesn't like what it hears, it ignores it and comissions reports from other sources that will be less economically restictive. The Joint Academies of Sciences report can be found here.
These are reports from all of the foremost authorities in science, which unambiguously conclude that global warming is real and caused by carbon emissions. The IPCC are the real experts and have global support from the international scientific community (well, these countries; Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden and the UK) who issued this statement in 2001 : “We recognize the IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving consensus.”.
The report conducted by Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has been widely discredited. Most other research papers on the topic that discount global warming are conducted by research groups funded by the US oil industry and all have been discredited by the international scientific community.
Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming and the dangers it presents is just ignorant of it and probably an idiot.
Nobel laureates who believe global warming is a serious risk caused by carbon emissions (and brought about the signing of the Kyoto agreement):
* Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
* Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
* Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
* David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
* Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
* J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
* James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
* Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
* Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
* Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
* John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
* James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
* Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
* Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
* Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
* Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
* Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
* Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
* Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
* Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
* Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
* Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
* Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
* Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
* Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
* Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
* Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
* Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
* David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
* John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
* Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
* Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
* Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
* Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
* Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
* David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
* Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
* Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
* Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
* Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
* Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
* Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
* R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
* Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
* Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
* Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
* Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
* Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
* Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
* Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
* George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
* John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
* Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
* Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
* Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
* Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
* Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
* Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
* Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
* F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
* Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
* Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
* Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
* Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
* Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
* Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
* Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
* Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
* E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
* James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
* Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
* Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
* Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
* John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
* Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
* Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996
CRAFOORD LAUREATES
* Vladimir I. Arnold, France. Mathematics 1982
* Paul R. Ehrlich, USA. Biosciences 1990
* Daniel H. Janzen, USA. Biosciences 1990
* Eugene P. Odum, USA. Biosciences 1987
* Edward O. Wilson, USA. Biosciences 1990
SELECTED OFFICERS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ACADEMIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
* Carlos Aguirre, President, Bolivian Academy of Sciences
* Jorge Eduardo Allende, Former President, Chilean Academy of Sciences
* A. Andreev, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Sir Michael Atiyah, Former President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Francisco J. Ayala, Former President, American Association for the Advancement of Science
* Carl Gustaf Bernhard, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Bert Bolin, Former Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Paulo C. Campos, Former President, Philippines National Academy of Science and Technology
* Carlos Chagas, Former President, Latin American Academy of Sciences
* Satish Dhawan, Former President, Indian Academy of Sciences
* Johanna Dobereiner, Vice-President, Brazilian Academy of Sciences
* Mahdi Elmandjra, Vice-President, African Academy of Sciences
* T. Geoffrey Flynn, Vice-President, Royal Society of Canada
* Fran?ois Gros, Permanent Secretary, French Academy of Sciences
* Lars Gyllensten, Former Chair, The Nobel Foundation
* Mohammed H. A. Hassan, Executive Director, Third World Academy of Sciences
* Robert Heap, Vice-President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Gunnar Hoppe, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Sir John Horlock, Vice-President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Carl-Olof Jacobsen, Former Secretary-General, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Alf Johnels, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Triloki Nath Khoshoo, Former President, Indian National Academy of Sciences
* Sir Aaron Klug, President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Gustavo Kouri, Vice-President, Cuban Academy of Sciences
* Torvard Laurent, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* N. P. Laverov, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Jane Lubchenco, Chair, American Association for the Advancement of Science
* Digby McLaren, Former President, Royal Society of Canada
* Hubert Markl, President, Max Planck Society
* M. G. K. Menon, Former President, International Council of Scientific Unions
* G. A. Mesiatz, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Harold A. Mooney, Secretary General, International Council of Scientific Unions
* Lawrence A. Mysak, Former President, Academy of Sciences of the Royal Society of Canada
* Jan S. Nilsson, President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Erling Norrby, Secretary General, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Thomas Odhiambo, President, African Academy of Sciences
* Gideon Okelo, Secretary General, African Academy of Sciences
* Cyril Agodi Onwumechili, Former President, Nigerian Academy of Sciences
* Yuri S. Osipov, President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Abed Peeraly, Vice-President, African Academy of Sciences
* Chintamani Rao, Vice-President, Third World Academy of Sciences
* Peter H. Raven, Home Secretary, US National Academy of Sciences
* R. S. Reneman, Chair, Science Division, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Igor Saavedra, Former President, Chilean Academy of Sciences
* Gian Tommaso Scarascia Mugnozza, Chair, Italian National Academy of Sciences
* Arun Kumar Sharma, Founding President, Federation of Asian Scientific Academies and Societies
* Jose Israel Vargas, President, Third World Academy of Sciences
* Henrik Wallgren, President, Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters
* Richard Willems, Vice-President, Estonian Academy of Sciences
* Dongsheng Yan, Senior Adviser, Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Guang-Zhao Zhou, President, Third World Academy of Sciences
Look up the word irony - you may find you're proof of it in this threadVilham wrote:
having the opinion of someone being ignorant is not a personal attack. Its an opinion, if you cant take opinion you probably should live in a sealed box without any contact with the rest of the world for the rest of your life.Pug wrote:
Checking the thread...congrats on firing the first shot Vilham.Vilham wrote:
Calling someone ignorant, naive or a fool, is not name calling it is stating an opinion about someone without being offensive. Saying "silly little children" is. I think you are infact being a hypocrite. You are the one name calling.
Good work as usual Vils - personally attacking someone and then claiming it wasn't you who started it...
cheekyninja06 wrote:
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=64 wrote:
A survey of state climatologists by Citizens for a Sound Economy found that there is little support for the global warming hypothesis. When asked if they agreed with the statement by President Clinton, "The overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory but now a fact, that global warming is for real. There is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the global climate." 36 percent agreed, while 58 percent disagreed.
Asked whether "recent global warming is largely a natural phenomenon," 44 percent said yes while 17 percent said no. Nine out of ten surveyed agreed that "scientific evidence indicates variations in global temperature are likely to be naturally-occurring and cyclical over very long periods of time." Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused only by man-made factors," and 61 percent said that the historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels." http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=64
S. Fred Singer wrote:
The ambiguous phrase "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" has been (mis)interpreted by policymakers to mean that a major global warming catastrophe will soon be upon us;
"the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" being the conclusion of the IPCC in their 1995 report.
wikipedia wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … umbers.png
This figure summarizes the 400 years of regular sunspot number observations. Since ~1749, continuous monthly averages of sunspot activity have been available and are shown here as reported by the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, World Data Center for the Sunspot Index, at the Royal Observatory of Belgium. These figure are based on an average of measurements from many different observatories around the world. Prior to 1749, sporadic observations of sunspots are available. These were compiled and placed on consistent monthly framework by Hoyt & Schatten (1998a, 1998b).
The most prominent feature of this graph is the ~11 year solar magnetic cycle which is associated with the natural waxing and waning of solar activity.
On longer time scales, the sun has shown considerable variability, including the long Maunder Minimum when almost no sunspots were observed, the less severe Dalton Minimum, and increased sunspot activity during the last fifty years, known as the Modern Maximum. The causes for these variations are not well understood, but because sunspots and associated faculae affect the brightness of the sun, solar luminosity is lower during periods of low sunspot activity. It is widely believed that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum and earlier periods may be among the principle causes of the Little Ice Age. Similarly, the Modern Maximum is partly responsible for global warming, especially the temperature increases between 1900 and 1950 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png
if you look at the solar activity chart, you can see that yes it does vary and yes it does effect global temperature. One of the most obvious correlations is between the "maunder minimum" and the "little ice age"
Little Ice Age From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wrote:
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling lasting approximately from the 14th to the mid-19th centuries (some say from 13th to 17th), although there is no generally agreed start or end date: some confine the period to 1550-1850.
ooh that fits pretty perfectly with the maunder minimum. notice how the solar activity was low and the global temperature was low? well i was thinking see how the solar activity is higher now, well i thought maybe that would mean a higher temp ATM? I mean it is at least logical.
SEPP - Science & Environmental Policy Project wrote:
Is the climate stable or is it changing?
The climate is never just "average"; it changes all the time, from season to season, year to year, and over the millennia. And that includes not only temperature, but rain, snow, droughts, storms, and every conceivable feature of the weather. So watch out when you read about the "hottest year", "longest drought", or "biggest hurricane".
But are there long-term climate trends? Is it getting warmer or is it getting colder?
The correct answer is: Yes. It all depends on the time scale you choose. The global climate has warmed over the last 100 years, but not appreciably over the last 50 years. And it is colder now than it was 1000 years ago. And did you know that over the last 50 years the frequency of hurricanes has been dropping?
Are human activities influencing climate?
Yes, of course. The rise of agriculture and the growth of cities have changed the local climate significantly. With rising populations and rising industrial activity there have also been some worldwide changes: Temperature extremes have softened, the stratosphere is cooling, the frequency of hurricanes has been diminishing--all of these are thought to be human influences on the atmosphere. But this does not mean that there will be a catastrophic or even a substantial warming of the climate in the next century.
But isn't there climate warming already because of the increased burning of fossil fuels--oil, gas, and coal--that creates more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
True, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are rising, but the climate seems not to be warming. It did warm greatly between 1880 and 1940--long before CO2 increased significantly. But since 1940, weather satellites, tree ring data, and corrected thermometer readings all agree that climate has not warmed--even though CO2 levels rose.
And why hasn't climate warmed, when theory clearly expects this to happen?
The answer must be that even our best current models of the atmosphere are incomplete and leave out important features. Only in the last few years have modelers started to include ocean currents, atmospheric aerosol particles and dust into climate models. Most now suspect that clouds are the reason why models and observations do not agree.
So, would a global warming be good or bad?
Probably both, but warming is definitely better than cooling. It is certainly better for agriculture and therefore for basic human existence. All historical evidence shows that during the warm periods of the Middle Ages people were better off than during the hard times of the "Little Ice Age" (1650-1850) when crops failed and people starved.
When it comes to it, what can we do about climate warming?
We can do little about the climate itself, but we could try to stop the increase of atmospheric CO2. Even that task is daunting; it requires that we cut emissions--worldwide--by 60 to 80 percent. In effect, this means cutting energy consumption by comparable amounts--including all transportation, heating, air conditioning, and electricity use. It would have an enormous negative impact on people's welfare--particularly for the poor and those in developing countries.
http://www.sepp.org/
So the models don't agree with the observations. Why do they think this is? because of clouds. hmm lets see what the IPCC say about the inclusion of clouds in their models?
IPCC wrote:
there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols.
wow they sound confident. Oh no wait they say something else on the matter:
IPCC (again) wrote:
Clouds and humidity remain sources of significant uncertainty but there have been incremental improvements in simulations of these quantities
But they also state that water vapor is "The main greenhouse gas," yet there is a significant lack of knowledge on water vapor, in fact it is not even represented on most models...how can they predict the global temperature without taking into account "The main greenhouse gas, water vapor."
IPCC wrote:
Confidence in the ability of models to project future climates is increased by the ability of several models to reproduce the warming trend in 20th century surface air temperature when driven by radiative forcing due to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. However, only idealized scenarios of only sulphate aerosols have been used.
so they get the right results if they use "idealized scenarios" e.g. if you leave a rabbit on a typewriter for long enough, eventually it will right Alice in wonderland. Doesn't mean that rabbits love to write Alice in wonderland, although this could be a logical conclusion, you could also conclude that it was one clever rabbit. however if you didn't put the rabbit on the typewriter and put it in the middle of the woods, i.e. how it really is, i don't think it would write Alice in wonderland.
Really now, who is it who lacks knowledge in physics?Vilham wrote:
Lol, your lack of physics knowledge is amazing, space is filled with mostly NOTHING, You will find that NOTHING does not absorb heat. Until you guys have read http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=31479&p=13 thread i am going to stop responding.DarkObsidian wrote:
Let's all sacrifice ourselves to Ra too, kay?klassekock wrote:
You claim that there has been changes in the climate in the past. Yes, I can accept that. But when you say that what is happening today also are normal changes I think you should use some common sense.
Did they have cars in the 1700? Hell no!
Today we use so much fossile fuel that there is no way the earth can cope with the pollution. You will see in 50years that the environmentalists were correct, but by then it may be to late.
So don't you agree that it would be wise to stay on the safe side and try to reduce the pollution?
Think about it. They say the Earth is mimicking a green house, correct?
Greenhouses are usually sealed entirely. The Earth has openings on the top (and I think) the bottom polar caps.
The can escape? Heat rises man, it'll be pulled towards outer space and the energy will be neutralized.
Well if you know anything about energy, it fills voids =]
Which space is definitely, it has no energy(for the most part).
Let me start by saying there is no such thing as "cold" it's only the lack of heat (energy), therefore, when you add heat to something that has negative energy, it, you guessed it! Consumes the energy.
Sure, it's not scientifically written, but it's so knuckle heads can understand it.
Fit the bill?
No, with that kind of logic, we'll give the Chinese H2's!And with that kind of logic we might as well give all the chinese a car of their own!
How can you contradict the fact that pollution is bad for our planet and that we should change our ways?
and in that whole lengthy post, i read absolutely NO Proof, only speculation
resume your namecalling
resume your namecalling