No, actually the sun is.ELITE-UK wrote:
If your on about global WARMING, then humans are the No 1 climate changing factor, and how can you not see that?ReDevilJR wrote:
What are you talking about? Would you like the sun to be closer to make it hotter for you? Would that make it more feasible to make it seem as if it really is a climate factor? Or would you like us to plunge further out in the solar system to make it cooler? THE SUN IS THE #1 Climate changing factor.ELITE-UK wrote:
NO SHIT sherlock, but the sun is millions of miles away, of course it affects our climate but man made global warming is the main factor in all of this. You cant find a way to blame something else when most of it is due to man made activities.
And what are your sources besides Al Gore or the UN paid scientists?topal63 wrote:
You're arguments and information sources suck beyond belief.
ahem ahem graphs page 2 please
I have never seen Al Gores' movie and never will...usmarine2007 wrote:
And what are your sources besides Al Gore or the UN paid scientists?topal63 wrote:
You're arguments and information sources suck beyond belief.
Your kidding me right? Humans are the main cause of global warming. Can i see proof of your claims?ReDevilJR wrote:
No, actually the sun is.ELITE-UK wrote:
If your on about global WARMING, then humans are the No 1 climate changing factor, and how can you not see that?ReDevilJR wrote:
What are you talking about? Would you like the sun to be closer to make it hotter for you? Would that make it more feasible to make it seem as if it really is a climate factor? Or would you like us to plunge further out in the solar system to make it cooler? THE SUN IS THE #1 Climate changing factor.
Research scientists don't get their money by proving a particular conclusion. They get their grants regardless of what their findings are. On the other hand, the "scientists" that work for companies like Exxon/Mobil or any of the think tank organizations specifically formed to oppose climate change research ONLY get paid when they come to the right conclusion. They do not get paid to do research; they get paid to tailor the scientific process to fit a specific end, that being that humans have no or negligable effect on global climate so they have to cast around for alternate theories to fill the gap. Fuck Ted Danson. Fuck Al Gore. Try listening to the people who've actually been involved with the research for decades now. Or you can listen to guys who repeat Reagan-brain-damage nonsense like how trees and volcanoes produce more pollution than industry.ReDevilJR wrote:
lol, you give anyone money to say shit like that, and they'll do it. Which goes along with scientists, they get paid money to make it sound flawless, so they they will make you think it's all your fault. It's the liberals in the media fucking with you.
HereELITE-UK wrote:
Your kidding me right? Humans are the main cause of global warming. Can i see proof of your claims?ReDevilJR wrote:
No, actually the sun is.ELITE-UK wrote:
If your on about global WARMING, then humans are the No 1 climate changing factor, and how can you not see that?
Who cares, fuck snow. Let's heat this ball up so I can wear flip-flops in the winter.
Yes, however, who do you think is going to get paid more (After they find their "Facts"), people who "prove" global warming, or those who prove it's false.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
Research scientists don't get their money by proving a particular conclusion. They get their grants regardless of what their findings are. On the other hand, the "scientists" that work for companies like Exxon/Mobil or any of the think tank organizations specifically formed to oppose climate change research ONLY get paid when they come to the right conclusion. They do not get paid to do research; they get paid to tailor the scientific process to fit a specific end, that being that humans have no or negligable effect on global climate so they have to cast around for alternate theories to fill the gap. Fuck Ted Danson. Fuck Al Gore. Try listening to the people who've actually been involved with the research for decades now. Or you can listen to guys who repeat Reagan-brain-damage nonsense like how trees and volcanoes produce more pollution than industry.ReDevilJR wrote:
lol, you give anyone money to say shit like that, and they'll do it. Which goes along with scientists, they get paid money to make it sound flawless, so they they will make you think it's all your fault. It's the liberals in the media fucking with you.
Keep in mind, the media (liberals) have a great talent of screwing around with stories.
Fuckin hell ya. Took me 2 hours to get to and from work a few weeks ago because of snow.HaywoodJablowme wrote:
Who cares, fuck snow. Let's heat this ball up so I can wear flip-flops in the winter.
Al gore and his ilk only sqwok about the weather to take your mind off the real issues such as the failure of social security, lack of border policy and general thievery that defines Washington.
Fuck global warming lets lynch some politians. [ metaphorical lynching of course ( )]
Fuck global warming lets lynch some politians. [ metaphorical lynching of course ( )]
Yes yes, the liberal media, owned by big liberal corporations like Westinghouse and GE and told what they can report by big liberal corporations like Monsanto Inc.. The same liberal media that necklaced Dan Rather for reporting on Bush's service record. I apologize, I forgot myself for a moment and went against my stricture about engaging in debate with the wildly delusional.ReDevilJR wrote:
Yes, however, who do you think is going to get paid more (After they find their "Facts"), people who "prove" global warming, or those who prove it's false.
Keep in mind, the media (liberals) have a great talent of screwing around with stories.
actually it is easy to fradulate data, (and make up words like i do) this can be seen with the hockey stick graph as well as some other graphs
Another global warming denial thread.
Not of denial. If i were to see suffieciant proof of the global warming therom, then and only then would I beleive that global warming is real. As it stands i see global warming as ballox. When there is sufficent proof then perhaps ALL compitent observes can agree and it can become a fact.sergeriver wrote:
Another global warming denial thread.
There is always more to it than a simple YES or NO.ReDevilJR wrote:
I'm not talking about the sun exploding, the fact that like Earth, the sun is constantly changing too.
But "Global Warming" is a few things...
a.) It is something positively correlated in many ways to fossil-fuel emissions.
b.) It is something politicized into a DOOMSDAY scenario... this is an overstatement, and an overreach that science cannot really make and should not.
c.) The Global Warming issue is politicized to make a point - to scare people into action - about the environment (this is wrong).
But it is politicized both ways.
Exxon-Mobil Disinformation Campaign On Global Warming Science:
http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Exx … e_999.html
d.) Acceleration of CO2 emissions by human populations as the world population increases (CO2 emissions will increase).
e.) Nobody is discounting the impact the Sun could have (or has) - its power output could decrease - increase. Nigel Calder is a reputable scientist, not like that other loose cannon Dr. Spencer. BUT Calder would admit that his conclusions have not been tested to the rigor of scientific scrutiny or volume of other sciences related to greenhouse gases.
Nigel Calder:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u … 363818.ece
f.) The power output scenario is not a stupid idea - but it is also not conclusive, also the (2) could be co-contributing factors. And then there is the issue of Global Dimming (without-it, the temp increases might be greater).
g.) There will be future environmental impact (there are already is) due to fossil-fuel use; irregardless of Global Warming.
It is a debatable issue... my mind is never made up; and I never succumb to “belief.”
But CO2 emissions, fossil-fuel burning, increases in the Global Population will spell an increased assault on the environment; a natural world we should wish to leave intact to future generations.
Which essentially amounts to "This water in the bottom of the boat is not proof that we're sinking, so I'm going to continue merrily shooting holes in it until I start aspirating water, which would then be sufficient proof that we are, in fact, sinking." You're waiting for something that is just flat out not going to happen, a universal agreement of all scientists, and you know it. Your main problem is, you don't like the messenger so you discount the message, despite the fact that behind the despised celebrity and political figureheads are thousands of reputable scientists willing and able to back this up with more than Oscar Night soundbytes and catchy ad campaigns. So while you wait for an acceptable messenger, you set up future generations to suffer for your obstinance.Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
Not of denial. If i were to see suffieciant proof of the global warming therom, then and only then would I beleive that global warming is real. As it stands i see global warming as ballox. When there is sufficent proof then perhaps ALL compitent observes can agree and it can become a fact.
My actual problem is, I would like a name of all these scientists so I could see what other findings /theories they have come up with. I would also like to see who they have(are) worked(ing) for.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
Your main problem is, you don't like the messenger so you discount the message
Now you sound like Al Gore with his whole deal about saving a frog before it heats up and dies... [An Inconvenient Truth]HunterOfSkulls wrote:
Which essentially amounts to "This water in the bottom of the boat is not proof that we're sinking, so I'm going to continue merrily shooting holes in it until I start aspirating water, which would then be sufficient proof that we are, in fact, sinking."Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
Not of denial. If i were to see suffieciant proof of the global warming therom, then and only then would I beleive that global warming is real. As it stands i see global warming as ballox. When there is sufficent proof then perhaps ALL compitent observes can agree and it can become a fact.
haha!!!chittydog wrote:
We should ban the sun now!
Well, I suppose you could start at the IPCC's own site and work from there.usmarine2007 wrote:
My actual problem is, I would like a name of all these scientists so I could see what other findings /theories they have come up with. I would also like to see who they have(are) worked(ing) for.
http://www.ipcc.ch
Realclimate.org also has a good deal of info on the scientific community involved in climate research.
So I expect after you've personally researched a few thousand or more scientists, their backgrounds, qualifications and work history, we should expect your results in say, 30 years?
I'm sure that you're absolutely serious about this though, and that it's not yet another "we don't have all the facts in yet" stonewalling job.
I see... you think im on the side of a political agenda. You are sadly mistaken. Using the laws of physics which have been unanimously agreed to by the scientific community you can disprove the theorem of global warming from the evidence that is presented to you. The temperature graphs shown on page 2 are that take from official, i repeat official, weather stations of the scientific community. Now unless i see a change towards global warming from a scientific source that has been checked for data errors, peer reviewed, and checked for correct equation usage, as all scientific papers should be, then i will accept the data as relevant and accept the fact that there is a usable and feasible proof for the theorem of global warming.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
Which essentially amounts to "This water in the bottom of the boat is not proof that we're sinking, so I'm going to continue merrily shooting holes in it until I start aspirating water, which would then be sufficient proof that we are, in fact, sinking." You're waiting for something that is just flat out not going to happen, a universal agreement of all scientists, and you know it. Your main problem is, you don't like the messenger so you discount the message, despite the fact that behind the despised celebrity and political figureheads are thousands of reputable scientists willing and able to back this up with more than Oscar Night soundbytes and catchy ad campaigns. So while you wait for an acceptable messenger, you set up future generations to suffer for your obstinance.Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
Not of denial. If i were to see sufficient proof of the global warming theorem, then and only then would I believe that global warming is real. As it stands i see global warming as ballox. When there is sufficient proof then perhaps ALL competent observes can agree and it can become a fact.
I will look at a handful dude. Relax.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
Well, I suppose you could start at the IPCC's own site and work from there.usmarine2007 wrote:
My actual problem is, I would like a name of all these scientists so I could see what other findings /theories they have come up with. I would also like to see who they have(are) worked(ing) for.
http://www.ipcc.ch
Realclimate.org also has a good deal of info on the scientific community involved in climate research.
So I expect after you've personally researched a few thousand or more scientists, their backgrounds, qualifications and work history, we should expect your results in say, 30 years?
I'm sure that you're absolutely serious about this though, and that it's not yet another "we don't have all the facts in yet" stonewalling job.
so tell me, you believe that the tons of co2 emissions that is pumped into the sky on a daily basis as absolutely no affect or makes no difference in our environment or our lives for that matter?
let me bring you back to grade 5
every action has a reaction
its stupid to think that the emissions that is being pumped into our environment as no side effects or consequences, cause well that would mean the tons of co2 emissions that pumped into our atmosphere is well, an exception to physics?
let me bring you back to grade 5
every action has a reaction
its stupid to think that the emissions that is being pumped into our environment as no side effects or consequences, cause well that would mean the tons of co2 emissions that pumped into our atmosphere is well, an exception to physics?
And do you not think of the CO2 given off by these fossil fuels while there are in the ground? Fossil Fules give off carbon dioxide no matter what state they are in. The remaining Fossil Fuels in teh ground do account for some of the CO2 given off by the soil in the carbon cycle.Robbie77 wrote:
so tell me, you believe that the tons of co2 emissions that is pumped into the sky on a daily basis as absolutely no affect or makes no difference in our environment or our lives for that matter?
let me bring you back to grade 5
every action has a reaction
its stupid to think that the emissions that is being pumped into our environment as no side effects or consequences, cause well that would mean the tons of co2 emissions that pumped into our atmosphere is well, an exception to physics?