News for the global warming weinnies > - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

Robbie · 07-27-2014, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alesulx

Carl Sagan said it`s real

Carl Sagan was a brilliant guy. Just like the scientists of today are as well.

Mr. Sagan passed away in 1996 looking at static data that doesn't apply to today. It was the same thing I've been saying: the data didn't take into account the Earth's ability to adapt. So scientists created computer models that extrapolated into the future with data that isn't correct.

Sagan theorized in the 1970's that CO2 could possibly cause global warming. Keep in mind that Carl Sagan was a professor of astronomy. Doesn't mean he wasn't plenty smart and able to look at something like CO2 and the atmosphere and make credible statements.

But he did have a habit of kind of over-dramatizing things. For instance, he famously predicted during the first gulf war that if Sadaam Hussein set the oil on fire it would put so much soot into the air that the earth would enter a "Nuclear Winter".

Obviously...that did not happen.

Just like when scientists predicted both an Ice Age AND global warming that would have the coastal cities underwater by the year 2000.
Didn't happen.

EonBlue · 07-27-2014, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alesulx

Carl Sagan said it`s real, his wife, Seth MacFarlane and Neil deGrasse Tyson made Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey witch even talks about Global warming. These are all brilliant people, if you know how to recognize the potential in people.

Carl Sagan was obviously a smart guy. Even smart people can be wrong sometimes.

Quote:

October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: ?The planet could face an ?ecological and agricultural catastrophe? by the next decade if global warming trends continue.?

Seth MacFarlane? Seriously? So what if he put up the money to produce Cosmos. He is an entertainer. Just because his name is attached to a science show doesn't make him brilliant.

Alesulx · 07-27-2014, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Carl Sagan was a brilliant guy. Just like the scientists of today are as well.

Mr. Sagan passed away in 1996 looking at static data that doesn't apply to today. It was the same thing I've been saying: the data didn't take into account the Earth's ability to adapt. So scientists created computer models that extrapolated into the future with data that isn't correct.

Sagan theorized in the 1970's that CO2 could possibly cause global warming. Keep in mind that Carl Sagan was a professor of astronomy. Doesn't mean he wasn't plenty smart and able to look at something like CO2 and the atmosphere and make credible statements.

But he did have a habit of kind of over-dramatizing things. For instance, he famously predicted during the first gulf war that if Sadaam Hussein set the oil on fire it would put so much soot into the air that the earth would enter a "Nuclear Winter".

Obviously...that did not happen.

Just like when scientists predicted both an Ice Age AND global warming that would have the coastal cities underwater by the year 2000.
Didn't happen.

evolution.about. com/od/Cosmos/fl/Cosmos-A-Spacetime-Odyssey-Recap-Episode-112.htm

So you`re saying that the Global Warming process is just a money scheme? Just think at all those floods across the world, not just in the U.S, Europe to. What if it`s really to late to change something, and they began the denial process so that people don`t panic?

mopek1 · 07-27-2014, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

As I understand it (I first heard this from a scientist who was a guest on Bill Maher's show on HBO)...the Earth is adapting in several ways (as it always has). The way I've been talking about is the fact that the ocean is now absorbing CO2 at a higher rate.

That...all by itself makes the data that global warming scientists created their computer models and projections on...WRONG.

Another tidbit from the ocean...plankton are apparently taking care of a big amount of CO2 as well.

There's several other smaller things happening too.

But obviously if you thought that there was going to be "X" amount of CO2...and nature has changed that by a pretty measurable percentage...then all of the computer models will be thrown off.

It's pretty interesting and of course makes perfect sense.

As they say: G.I.G.O. "Garbage In, Garbage Out"

And no, I don't mean that the original data was really "garbage". But it is wrong.

I believe this is the same thing that has made all the climate projections over the last 50 years keep coming out wrong.

The Earth is fluid. And it changes. The data they use is static and can't compensate for the Earth adapting.

I think that's also the point of the emails. The scientists who are funded by companies with major interest in there BEING global warming can't risk losing their money.
The emails suggest that they might not be shouting to the world about the changes that the new data makes to the OLD computer models from over a decade ago.

If plankton and the algae in the oceans are absorbing more CO2 without consequence then that would be great! Like I said I would love to have my belief be wrong.

It would also mean that we need to take better care of our forests since they too absorb CO2.

I like Bill Maher since he criticizes everyone and pulls no punches and 'usually' has good guests on.

That is one piece of data I will have to take into consideration but it's not enough to completely make me do an abrupt face just yet.

But even if it is proven to be true, that the models are wrong and global warming is not caused by our use of oil, then I still believe we need to use other energy sources anyway, and move away from oil for the following reasons.

1- Non reliance on foreign countries for energy (especially the gulf states)
2- To reduce pollution from burning fossil fuels (not CO2 but the other byproducts)
3- To keep up with demand.
4- To be free from the big oil monopoly.

...

mopek1 · 07-27-2014, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

The models are faulty because they all failed to predict the current 17+ years of no warming despite increasing CO2 levels.

I have heard over and over that scientists have declared that the earth has warmed by a degree or two.

Robbie · 07-27-2014, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alesulx

So you`re saying that the Global Warming process is just a money scheme? Just think at all those floods across the world, not just in the U.S, Europe to. What if it`s really to late to change something, and they began the denial process so that people don`t panic?

No, I'm saying that the actions of our govt. lead me to believe it's just a money scam.

As for "the denial process"...nope. You've got an entire political party going full steam ahead as far as promoting "global warming" (because they are funneling money that comes back to them through "green energy" companies and "carbon credits").
You have countries holding big summits on global warming.

And then...they do NOTHING.

If you look back at U.S. history, when we finally entered WW2, the govt. mobilized the entire country. Car companies made tanks, tire companies only made tires for the military, etc, etc.

That's what happens when a govt. sees a REAL threat.

I don't see anything like that happening with our federal govt.

As I said earlier...why did the Feds just GIVE the company Solyndra a half billion dollars? Why didn't they HIRE them to put up solar panels with all that money instead of "research"?
That would have been a win/win. Solar panels would have been installed & people would have gotten jobs doing the installation.

It's shit like that that makes me question things.

The govt. jumps quickly to bail out banks with a couple of trillion dollar bailouts...but doesn't seem to think that putting that trillion dollars into putting solar panels on every home and business in the U.S. wouldn't have been a better investment.

You see why I am cynical about this?

Robbie · 07-27-2014, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mopek1

If plankton and the algae in the oceans are absorbing more CO2 without consequence

That's the thing with nature. There are ALWAYS consequences. Some good, some bad.

And that's why all the predictions over the last 50 years have been WRONG. Things change constantly. And then those changes cause other changes.

In the end...the Earth moves on. Human beings might not make it...but the Earth most assuredly will.

EonBlue · 07-27-2014, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mopek1

I have heard over and over that scientists have declared that the earth has warmed by a degree or two.

So is it one degree or is it two? And warmed from what temperature and what year? And which of these scientists decided what the "normal" temperature of the earth is supposed to be?

So suppose that the earth has warmed by two degrees like they say - what of it? Are we all dead yet? Have the ice caps melted yet? Has the world turned to desert yet? Are all the coastal cities under water yet? What exactly are the consequences of this warming that has supposedly happened?

We've spent trillions of dollars combating a problem that may or may not exist and if it does exist it may or not be harmful to us. Brilliant.

If you want to see what real problems would be look up the consequences of the earth cooling by two degrees.

Warmer is better than colder.

Robbie · 07-27-2014, 11:37 AM

EonBlue, the alarmists will say this to you:
"But what if you are wrong? Don't you want to take action now?"

They just don't realize that taking action now means we have no viable energy source. Solar and wind will never, ever be enough to run our society. And they've taken nuclear off the table.

There is no solar or wind that can power a plane. Or a rocket into space. Or run a factory.

Until we have a quantum leap in technology that discovers some new source of energy as yet unknown...fossil fuel is the immediate future.

crockett · 07-27-2014, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

The problem we have today is climatologists trying to predict the future based on faulty data and faulty models. We should listen to paleoclimatologists who specialize in the climate of the past. For example:

Prepare for new Ice Age now says Top Paleoclimatologist

During the last interglacial, the Eemian, it was warmer than it is today and sea level was far higher than now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

So everything that alarmists are crying about now has happened before, to greater extremes than now, without human influence yet we are are supposed to kneecap civilization and spend trillions of dollars trying to stop something that is going to occur naturally anyways?

It just doesn't make any sense.

.

Ok. I will try to explain.. I think the problem is you don't see is the time scale in which these events took place. No one disputes that the earth has cooled / warmed or that the oceans have risen / lowered or that the ice sheets have melted or refrozen in the past. There is no argument about these things, just as there is no argument that CO2 levels have been very high in the past (due to volcanic eruptions).

What you seem to not see in your argument, is in the past those changes in tempeture, rising and lowering of the oceans and melting and refreshing of the ice caps, took thousands of years to happen. Meanwhile what we see today caused by the co2 created by man has happened in roughly 100 years.

This is why it's called man made global warming. Yes the same thing might happen over the course of a few thousand years, but the difference is we have drastically increased the process by the co2 gasses humans have put into the air due to the burning of fossil fuels. Also there is no scientific proof to support your theory that the sun or earth has shifted to cause this effect.

The only thing major that is changing at this moment is the magnetic poles and there is no evidence which shows that could be the cause.. All evidence points to the excess co2 gas that humans are producing.

crockett · 07-27-2014, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

As I understand it (I first heard this from a scientist who was a guest on Bill Maher's show on HBO)...the Earth is adapting in several ways (as it always has). The way I've been talking about is the fact that the ocean is now absorbing CO2 at a higher rate.

That...all by itself makes the data that global warming scientists created their computer models and projections on...WRONG.

Another tidbit from the ocean...plankton are apparently taking care of a big amount of CO2 as well.

There's several other smaller things happening too.

But obviously if you thought that there was going to be "X" amount of CO2...and nature has changed that by a pretty measurable percentage...then all of the computer models will be thrown off.

It's pretty interesting and of course makes perfect sense.

As they say: G.I.G.O. "Garbage In, Garbage Out"

And no, I don't mean that the original data was really "garbage". But it is wrong.

I believe this is the same thing that has made all the climate projections over the last 50 years keep coming out wrong.

The Earth is fluid. And it changes. The data they use is static and can't compensate for the Earth adapting.

I think that's also the point of the emails. The scientists who are funded by companies with major interest in there BEING global warming can't risk losing their money.
The emails suggest that they might not be shouting to the world about the changes that the new data makes to the OLD computer models from over a decade ago.

Robbie, you are missing what I said..

The plankton that is eating the CO2 is not the beneficial type. The extra C02 is causing this bad plankton to thrive and not only does this bad plankton like the CO2 but it also like the other resources that the good plankton like. Meaning the bad plankton is winning the war of survival of the fittest and throwing this out of balance.

This has a lot of drastic effects down the food chain considering plankton is among the lowest level of that chain..

Also the allege you speak of.. Just as.i mentioned before the allege is blooming at a drastic rate due to the extra CO2 In the ocean.. The allege is not a good thing Robbie, because it's killing everything else. From sea grass to coral reefs, they are all dying due to the excess allege.

Perhaps you should go for a dive sometime and see how badly the allege blooms are affecting the oceans.. Hell you can even go to a local river or lake and see a very similar effect. Allege is taking over lakes and rivers all over this country much the same as it's happening in the oceans and I've seen it first hand. The biggest difference, is that the allege in the lakes and rivers is coming from man made pollution, mostly fertilizers while in the oceans it's due to the acidification from the co2.

This is the problem, is you are latching on to one little pice of the puzzle and trying to fit that little piece and failing to look at the entire picture. You don't look past the single issue you talk about. This is what I've tried showing you each time. This ocean and CO2 thing are a very small part of a very big picture and you are ignoring the cause and effect of what happens due to the co2 the ocean is sucking up.

Robbie · 07-27-2014, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

What you seem to not see in your argument, is in the past those changes in tempeture, rising and lowering of the oceans and melting and refreshing of the ice caps, took thousands of years to happen. Meanwhile what we see today caused by the co2 created by man has happened in roughly 100 years.

How much has the temperature risen over the past 100 years. And what was it 500 years ago?

That's an interesting question if you ask me. As was brought up by someone else...the Vikings went to Vinland ("Wine Land") and they called it "Wine Land" because it was so nice and warm that grapes grew everywhere by themselves and made terrific wine.
That was around the year 1000 AD
And keep in mind they sailed there from Greenland.

All that was frozen within a couple of hundred years.

Didn't take thousands of years to do it. The Earth abruptly changed during that period as it was coming out of a "hot" period" and going into a "mini Ice Age".

So anyway...the statement you made about the past 100 years: What temperature are you starting with and from what YEAR.

The Earth isn't warmer than it was when Leif Ericson sailed from Greenland to Vinland for damn sure. It's COLDER.

So when does this temperature "rise" start? And how did the Earth get so warm back then without any "help" from mankind? And how did it cool back down to where we are today?

And don't start insulting people. Just look at my questions. I think they are very reasonable to ask.

Alesulx · 07-27-2014, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

How much has the temperature risen over the past 100 years. And what was it 500 years ago?

That's an interesting question if you ask me. As was brought up by someone else...the Vikings went to Vinland ("Wine Land") and they called it "Wine Land" because it was so nice and warm that grapes grew everywhere by themselves and made terrific wine.
That was around the year 1000 AD
And keep in mind they sailed there from Greenland.

All that was frozen within a couple of hundred years.

Didn't take thousands of years to do it. The Earth abruptly changed during that period as it was coming out of a "hot" period" and going into a "mini Ice Age".

So anyway...the statement you made about the past 100 years: What temperature are you starting with and from what YEAR.

The Earth isn't warmer than it was when Leif Ericson sailed from Greenland to Vinland for damn sure. It's COLDER.

So when does this temperature "rise" start? And how did the Earth get so warm back then without any "help" from mankind? And how did it cool back down to where we are today?

And don't start insulting people. Just look at my questions. I think they are very reasonable to ask.

Earth will find a solution to to his problems but we won`t like it. "Better be safe than sorry"

crockett · 07-27-2014, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

How much has the temperature risen over the past 100 years. And what was it 500 years ago?

That's an interesting question if you ask me. As was brought up by someone else...the Vikings went to Vinland ("Wine Land") and they called it "Wine Land" because it was so nice and warm that grapes grew everywhere by themselves and made terrific wine.
That was around the year 1000 AD
And keep in mind they sailed there from Greenland.

All that was frozen within a couple of hundred years.

Didn't take thousands of years to do it. The Earth abruptly changed during that period as it was coming out of a "hot" period" and going into a "mini Ice Age".

So anyway...the statement you made about the past 100 years: What temperature are you starting with and from what YEAR.

The Earth isn't warmer than it was when Leif Ericson sailed from Greenland to Vinland for damn sure. It's COLDER.

So when does this temperature "rise" start? And how did the Earth get so warm back then without any "help" from mankind? And how did it cool back down to where we are today?

And don't start insulting people. Just look at my questions. I think they are very reasonable to ask.

Robbie, I don't know anything about wine land, but Greenland was named Greenland by Eric the Great to make it sound more appealing..

Quote:

He named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name."

It's kind of like those bills congress loves to pass.. "jobs bill", "child safety act"," patriot act" ect..ect.. They choose appealing names but the reality of the bills is usually nothing close to the names.

As for insults.. I started dishing them back to you when you got so big on calling everything Crockett science.

johnny o · 07-27-2014, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Current climatology can't even get the local weather right 10 days from now but they are 100% right, don't ask any questions, about the entire global climate 10 years from now.

Right.

careful, you're confusing weather with climate.

DamianJ · 07-27-2014, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny o

here's one that was published in Perfection magazine. the editor's didn't think it was too blown out, they loved it actually. post your tear sheets.

Blown out and out of focus.

Sure the magazine wasn't called "blind editors"?

Robbie · 07-27-2014, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

As for insults.. I started dishing them back to you when you got so big on calling everything Crockett science.

What are you talking about? I've NEVER typed the words "Crockett Science"

~giggle~

EonBlue · 07-27-2014, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Ok. I will try to explain.. I think the problem is you don't see is the time scale in which these events took place. No one disputes that the earth has cooled / warmed or that the oceans have risen / lowered or that the ice sheets have melted or refrozen in the past. There is no argument about these things, just as there is no argument that CO2 levels have been very high in the past (due to volcanic eruptions).

What you seem to not see in your argument, is in the past those changes in tempeture, rising and lowering of the oceans and melting and refreshing of the ice caps, took thousands of years to happen. Meanwhile what we see today caused by the co2 created by man has happened in roughly 100 years.

This is why it's called man made global warming. Yes the same thing might happen over the course of a few thousand years, but the difference is we have drastically increased the process by the co2 gasses humans have put into the air due to the burning of fossil fuels. Also there is no scientific proof to support your theory that the sun or earth has shifted to cause this effect.

The only thing major that is changing at this moment is the magnetic poles and there is no evidence which shows that could be the cause.. All evidence points to the excess co2 gas that humans are producing.

Please explain all-knowing and almighty great one. FFS!

What exactly is it you think we see today "caused by the CO2 created by man"? A 0.6 degree rise in temperature in 100 years? Oh the heavens, please save us from near certain an imminent incineration.

0.6 degrees is barely outside of the margin of error for most data collection methods. Over 50% of the surface temperature stations in the US are sited improperly causing temperature readings up to 5 degrees warmer than a properly sited station. On top of that the alarmists have been adjusting the data to make current temperatures look warmer and older temperatures look colder.

Anyways, go back and read the article I posted about a paleoclimatologist who sees conditions now similar to those before the start of the last glaciation and the timeframe:

Quote:

Although criticized in the past for his views on global cooling in the face of political moves to support the opposite, Kukla feels he's vindicated. "None of us expected uninterrupted continuation of the trend." On the contrary, Kukla and his colleagues expected a warming blip and it occurred like clockwork. He knows that global warming always precedes an Ice Age. The history of that is in the ice core records repeating itself every 100,000 years or so over millions of years.

Generations ago, scientists believed Ice Ages advanced slowly taking tens of thousands of years. Now some researchers have revealed startling evidence that an Ice Age can be triggered in under 10 years.

There is no scientific proof that humans are to blame for all of the rise in CO2.

There is no scientific proof that we are anywhere near having "excess" CO2.

There is no scientific proof that the little bit of warming we have supposedly had is having any adverse effects.

There is no scientific proof that the earth is going to warm uncontrollably and catastrophically.

There is no scientific proof that the warming would stop if mankind vanished from the earth today.

There is no scientific proof to any of this bullshit. Scientific proof requires an experiment that can be duplicated and we can't experiment on the atmosphere. Computer models and simulations do not count as valid experiments and they sure as hell don't prove anything.

.

Grapesoda · 07-27-2014, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

What you seem to not see in your argument, is in the past those changes in tempeture, rising and lowering of the oceans and melting and refreshing of the ice caps, took thousands of years to happen. Meanwhile what we see today caused by the co2 created by man has happened in roughly 100 years.

pretty sure this can be disproved just be the changes taken place while 'men' have keep records.... in the last 1000 years there have been drastic changes.. people didn't cause any of this

'During a period from about 750 BC to 200 BC, before the founding of Rome, temperatures dropped and European glaciers advanced. Then the climate warmed again, and by 150 BC grapes and olives were first recorded to be cultivated in northern Italy. As recently as 1,000 years ago (during the “Medieval Warm Period”), Icelandic Vikings were raising cattle, sheep and goats in grasslands on Greenland’s southwestern coast. Then, around 1200, temperatures began to drop, and Norse settlements were abandoned by about 1350. Atlantic pack ice began to grow around 1250, and shortened growing seasons and unreliable weather patterns, including torrential rains in Northern Europe led to the “Great Famine” of 1315-1317.'

-ended the crusades, precipitated the 100 years war

'Temperatures dropped dramatically in the middle of the 16th century, and although there were notable year year-to-year fluctuations, the coldest regime since the last Ice Age (a period termed the “Little Ice Age”) dominated the next hundred and fifty years or more. Food shortages killed millions in Europe between 1690 and 1700, followed by more famines in 1725 and 1816.

-brought on the French Revolution - the famous phrase 'let them eat cake' refers to a shortage of flour, except for the higher grade 'cake flour'

The end of this time witnessed brutal winter temperatures suffered by Washington’s troops at Valley Forge in 1777, and Napoleon’s bitterly cold retreat from Russia in 1812.'

'Although temperatures have been generally mild over the past 500 years, we should remember that significant fluctuations are normal. The past century has witnessed two distinct periods of warming. The first occurred between 1900 and 1945, and the second, following a slight cool-down began quite abruptly in 1975. That second period rose at quite a constant rate until 1998, and then stopped and began falling again after reaching a high of 1.16 degrees above the average global mean.

About half of all estimated warming since 1900 occurred before the mid-1940s despite continuously rising CO2 levels. Even U.K. East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) Director Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming for at least a decade. He has also admitted that temperatures during the Middle Ages may have been higher than today.

So perhaps you’ll wish to ponder this question; Given that over most of the Earth’s known climate history, the atmospheric CO2 levels have been between four and eighteen times higher than now – throughout many times when life not only survived but also flourished; times that preceded humans; times when CO2 levels and temperatures moved in different directions – how much difference will putting caps on emissions accomplish? Consider also that about 97% of all current atmospheric CO2 derives from natural sources.

--- so very many human events are tied to the climat changes if you would only look

'

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...ually-changes/

EonBlue · 07-27-2014, 03:44 PM

Some failed predictions and ridiculius observations by some of the "brilliant" people leading us down the "man-made global warming" rabbit hole:

Quote:

May 15, 1989, Associated Press: ?Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.?

June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): ?Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ?which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.??

2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: ?The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.?
[Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]

2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: ?Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.?

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, adviser to President Nixon: ?It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth?s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.?

March 29, 2001, CNN: ?In ten year?s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu?s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.?

October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: ?The planet could face an ?ecological and agricultural catastrophe? by the next decade if global warming trends continue.?

July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: ?Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.?

Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: ?New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.?

June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP?entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ?eco-refugees,? threatening political chaos,? said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.

?The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won?t be there. The trees in the median strip will change?.There will be more police cars?.[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.?
Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen?s office in NYC in the next 20 years.

?Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.?
Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000

?Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. ? Children just aren?t going to know what snow is.?
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

Robbie · 07-27-2014, 03:50 PM

Wow...look at that list of shit that has been forecast but turned out to be WRONG.

That is why I am incredulous at people who believe the whole "global warming caused by man" story.

For some reason they think that NOW the green energy funded scientists are suddenly going to be 100% right when they have been WRONG for 50 years.

But now? Suddenly they are the gospel. And anyone who says otherwise is a "denier"

Unreal...

Grapesoda · 07-27-2014, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Some failed predictions and ridiculius observations by some of the "brilliant" people leading us down the "man-made global warming" rabbit hole:

in all fairness the media only selects these 'types 'to 'interview and quote' most scientist scoff at this crap

2MuchMark · 07-27-2014, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

...It was the same thing I've been saying: the data didn't take into account the Earth's ability to adapt.

Hi Robby,

Your fallback argument against climate change is that the earth can adapt. As a basic concept, yes "the earth" can adapt, but you are missing the bigger picture.

"The Earth" is made up of various gasses in the air, plant life, animal life, ground, and radiation from the sun. All of these together in the past have done ok for themselves in the past. The very best example of this are places like the amazon and other forests, where animals co exist in harmony with plant life.

What Carl Sagan and climate scientists are saying, is that not only are we polluting the earth at an alarming rate, but we are also taking away "The Earth"'s ability to heal the damage.

First, We are dumping more crap into the air and water than ever before, and number 2, we are cutting down more and more rainforest, and 3, we are polluting the ocean more and more. You should consider the Air, land and water to be "The Earth".

By taking away the trees, you disrupt the exchange of gases such as carbon between the air and the earth. By polluting the oceans you disrupt the exchange of gasses between the water and air, and also disrupt the natural temperature difference between the two.

By polluting the air, you disrupt all kinds of things of course, but one of the "hidden" problems is the amount of soot in the air from cars, factories, oil disasters and forest fires which are now being deposited on Ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. The soot is black, and it is darkening the color of the ice. Darker ice absorbs more sunlight than lighter ice, which means it melt faster.

"The Earth" used to be able to heal itself as you put it, but we are taking that ability away from it.

dyna mo · 07-27-2014, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny o

careful, you're confusing weather with climate.

No. Actually what just happened is you just proved you have no idea what you are talking about in this thread. The only diferrence between weather and climate is time sequence.

In fact, the definition of climate is what the weather does over an Extended length of time

Thus the relation and comparison i made makes perfect sense to those of us open to trying to understand the reality of what is actually happening and not closed-minded about it.

johnny o · 07-27-2014, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Blown out and out of focus.

Sure the magazine wasn't called "blind editors"?

damian, where are you tearsheets? or are you gonna stick your head in the sand just like brian (grapesoda) did. he sure stopped talking shit here.

johnny o · 07-27-2014, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

No. Actually what just happened is you just proved you have no idea what you are talking about in this thread. The only diferrence between weather and climate is time sequence.

In fact, the definition of climate is what the weather does over an Extended length of time

Thus the relation and comparison i made makes perfect sense to those of us open to trying to understand the reality of what is actually happening and not closed-minded about it.

are you the same guy who points to snow in denver in may and says "see, global warming is a hoax".

dyna mo · 07-27-2014, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny o

are you the same guy who points to snow in denver in may and says "see, global warming is a hoax".

No. But you are the same guy who points his finger at others and wants them to die simply because they disagree with him and his version of climate.

dyna mo · 07-27-2014, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny o

keep second guessing the basic laws of science. you're not even on the payroll of any of the energy companies who have a vested interest in keeping people in the dark and/or confused. i hope all the climate change deniers get fucking lynched once all the beach cities are underwater worldwide.

Pardon. I meant lynch much worse than just dying. Good job fostering the change you so desperately wish.

johnny o · 07-27-2014, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

No. But you are the same guy who points his finger at others and wants them to die simply because they disagree with him and his version of climate.

if there's no threat then people who don't believe in climate change should move to coastal cities. it just makes sense.

dyna mo · 07-27-2014, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny o

if there's no threat then people who don't believe in climate change should move to coastal cities. it just makes sense.

I am enjoying a wonderful sunset from Huntington beach at this very moment.

dyna mo · 07-27-2014, 07:55 PM

And feel free to look for any postsof mine where I've said I don't believe in global warming.

Also please let me know the time the big wave gets here sinking the city so I can grab my board and paddle out.

johnny o · 07-27-2014, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I am enjoying a wonderful sunset from Huntington beach at this very moment.

and all was well with the world. wacky lightning strike on venice today. did you see that? one of my buddy's g/f's was one of the victims, she's ok.

2MuchMark · 07-27-2014, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny o

are you the same guy who points to snow in denver in may and says "see, global warming is a hoax".

It may sound crazy, but Dynamo is right... mostly....

Click here for the full explanation of the difference between Weather and Climate:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/no...e_weather.html

johnny o · 07-27-2014, 08:07 PM

yes mark, i get that. but many people point to a freak snow storm in May disputing global warming.

Alesulx · 07-28-2014, 04:59 AM

Some people don`t see the forest because of the trees. We have so many fuckin anomalies all over the world, but we NEED to "dispute". It`s getting ridiculous...

07-27-2014, 11:37 AM	#159
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	EonBlue, the alarmists will say this to you: "But what if you are wrong? Don't you want to take action now?" They just don't realize that taking action now means we have no viable energy source. Solar and wind will never, ever be enough to run our society. And they've taken nuclear off the table. There is no solar or wind that can power a plane. Or a rocket into space. Or run a factory. Until we have a quantum leap in technology that discovers some new source of energy as yet unknown...fossil fuel is the immediate future. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

07-27-2014, 03:50 PM	#171
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	Wow...look at that list of shit that has been forecast but turned out to be WRONG. That is why I am incredulous at people who believe the whole "global warming caused by man" story. For some reason they think that NOW the green energy funded scientists are suddenly going to be 100% right when they have been WRONG for 50 years. But now? Suddenly they are the gospel. And anyone who says otherwise is a "denier" Unreal... __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

07-27-2014, 08:07 PM	#184
johnny o Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: los angeles Posts: 825	yes mark, i get that. but many people point to a freak snow storm in May disputing global warming. __________________ http://candydreams.com info[at]candydreams[dot]com

07-27-2014, 07:55 PM	#181
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,347	And feel free to look for any postsof mine where I've said I don't believe in global warming. Also please let me know the time the big wave gets here sinking the city so I can grab my board and paddle out.

07-28-2014, 04:59 AM	#185
Alesulx Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 27	Some people don`t see the forest because of the trees. We have so many fuckin anomalies all over the world, but we NEED to "dispute". It`s getting ridiculous...