MetaMan

Global warming is a natural occurance there is nothing to discuss.

Kard63

Only scums watch fox news.

__________________

Libertine

Ehm... are you dumb?

Venus shows that CO2 has a large influence on temperatures, it shows the process. Now, on earth, one would assume that CO2 serves the same mechanism. Therefore, releasing additional CO2 into the atmosphere might affect global temperatures.

The question is to what extent the CO2 and other greenhouse gases we release into the atmosphere affect temperatures on earth, that is to say, whether it has a significant influence. Right now, science seems to indicate that indeed, it does.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

xxxdesign-net

Vaclav Klaus isnt a scientist? What the hell does that have to do with his commentary on the IPCC concensus myth?

And are you joking? First of, I dont see an effort in that Wikipedia entry to point to those who disagree.. They list some organizations.. which most points to the IPCC report as evidence... and even those who dont, ever thought that some of those scientific organizations might be corrupted at the top? But theres nothing to gain from pushing the man made global warning theory.. uh? And I am not telling they are.. but could they?

I find quite amazing that people dont get cynic and skeptical when a world elite are just about to introduce a Global tax on Carbon which ofcourse regular citizens will end up paying..

davidd

Here is a list of calamities that have been pimped since I have been alive:

1. Coming Ice Age
2. Hole in the ozone layer is going to kill us
3. Global warming is going to kill us
4. Quick Sand
5. Killer bees
6. AIDS
7. Nuclear War/Communism
8. Terrorism
9. DDT
10. Radon
11. Second Hand Smoke

The list is quite lengthy. What amazes me is that each new round of bullshit gets eaten up and fought over for years/decades until the next new fear tactic comes along. Each time more and more freedoms are lost.

A life without fear is a beautiful thing... Stop falling for the fear peddlers bullshit of the year/decade.

xxxdesign-net

you forgot y2k

D

Did you bother reading anything in my post but what you quoted? See, you're doing it again - picking a choosing what points you address while ignoring the big picture in the meantime... no progress is made in such a fashion - you simple run around in circles, dizzying yourself and those around you.

I never used the words you did at all. I never said it "proves" anything. You understand what the word "analogous" means, right?

In answering your questions... to restate another passage in the same message you just quoted from:

"I'm not using Venus as a case study for what will happen to the Earth here - merely as a pointer to the effects of atmospheric CO2.

Of course, it's all still debatable but when you take into account apt analogies such as this, I think it's easy to begin to connect the dots."

And that's pretty much my point in a nutshell.

__________________
-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31

Libertine

He's a politician. A politician who does not believe in global warming. A politician who does not trust the IPCC (which has the participation of thousands of actual scientists). A politician who likens environmentalism to communism.

His opinion is worth about as much as that of a politician who does believe in global warming, thinks the reports of the IPCC are way too conservative, and likens capitalism to fascism - absolutely nothing.

Yes, the IPCC has political influences. It also has thousands of scientists reviewing its reports. Scientists who would complain quite loudly if politics really distorted the scientific consensus.

If you live near a university, chances are you could quite easily visit some conferences on human influences on global warming (for free, most likely). There, you would find lots of climate and environmental scientists, most of whom do support the theory that emissions caused by humans are contributing to global warming.

Actually, they do point to those who disagree. The American Associan for Petroleum Geologists disagrees. They don't point to any others, because there are no other established scientific organizations that have issued statements of dissent. There are have been non-scientific groups (think tanks, etc), as well as small scientific groups, but _no_ large, established scientific organizations disagree.

Read the discussion page behind that link. Since it isn't censored, it contains both sides.

As for the whole conspiracy thing... get a grip.

Once again, get a grip.

Forget the politics behind it for a while, and just search through some open access journals. It should become abundantly clear to you what the scientific consensus on the matter is in no time at all.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

MetaMan

BINGO let the idiots eat it up. Sad thing is there are so many of them and it ends up affecting the rest of us.

Libertine

Ah yes, you are right. Things like HIV/AIDS are pure myths. AIDS killed nobody... well, only 25 million people, hardly worth counting at all.

And communism... heh, communism was little more than a minor occurrence in the 20th century. Sure, it was responsible for the deaths of some 100 million people, but hell, we've got enough people anyway.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

stickyfingerz

Lets think... is it possible...... just maybe..... possibly... that Co2 is a product of increased heat? JUST maybe? lmao Imma get my telescope tonight and see if I can spot all the suv's driving about on the surface of venus... weeee Wonder what is increasing the Co2 on Venus anyways...

Libertine

Thanks for answering my question.


http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html
Now, I realize that your knowledge of astronomy is on par with that of the entirety of NASA, but nevertheless, you might want to consider the possibility that your fellow astronomers may know a little something as well.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

Probono

I am amazed that so many people can be so ignorant. Time will tell who is correct but there is little question that there is a massive climate change in progress. The timeline is no geologic but in a human generation.

Most of you will be alive to see sea levels rise and the consequences of that occurring. It might be natural, it might be speeding up with human intervention but reality is that the medicine of reducing the combustion of fossil fuels and reforestation are positive for economic, political and economic reasons.

Regardless of your take on the problem the solutions proposed should be embraced.

xxxdesign-net

lol.. youre still missing the point... Can you dipsute his assertion that the IPCC isnt has objective, independent and intellectually honest has it claims to be.. and therefore, there consensus claim is bogus?

Really? How would they do that? With a bullhorn? Or you think the mainstream media would be all over it?

Heres an uncomplete list of those who disagree... I dont see Tim Ball being listed there...

Heres an aricle of his..
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm


Be reminded also that those who produce work backing the theory of man made global warming receive grants... and those who denounce that theory are called fringe and nuts..

established scientific organizations... haha What makes an organization more credible than individuals? Thats like saying, thats not true because no established News organization said so.. Those "established scientific organizations" are funded by who you think? Do a bit of research..
[/QUOTE]


Yeah.. youre right.. no such thing.. money doesnt rule the world.. corruption is only the thing of Republicans...

Libertine

Ehm, it doesn't claim to be entirely independent. It is quite open about the fact that there is also governmental review. Still, there are thousands of scientists working on it, who both compose and review the reports, based on the consensus in scientific journals. That means that governments can't just add unsupported claims (although they can, to a certain extent, censor conclusions that are particularly damaging to specific governments).

Ehm, yes? Scientists who dispute the claims get heaps of media attention, and show up time and time again. Just Google "Lindzen" and see the hundreds of thousands of hits you get. Hell, the Financial Times published the Vaclav Klaus dreg.

Ehm, those who denounce the theory get grants as well - check the other thread I linked to in my first post in this thread.

Organizations are composed of individuals. Obviously, an organization that represents several thousands of scientists carries slightly more weight than a single individual.

This would be a conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of people, a conspiracy including thousands of eminent scientists. Surely the rational first thought is that they, most likely, actually believe what they're saying?

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

stickyfingerz

So is that also your explanation for Mars, and Jupiter both rising in temperature in about the same manner as the earth has? Wonder if that huge ball of flaming gas has anything ta do with it?

The Sultan Of Smut

Why do you guys even care what the anti-Gores have to say? The world is moving more and more towards responsibility and there's nothing they can do about it. I guess maybe that's what makes them so uptight.

Libertine

Dude, you're not making any sense.

It seems to me, though, that you believe you know more about astronomy than NASA, and in my book, that makes you the type of lunatic I don't even want to waste time on

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

stickyfingerz

Maybe its YOU that needs to do some research. Both Mars, and Jupiter have seen temperature increase on the same scale as earth, and in the same time frame. If my house gets hotter the first thing I do is see if someone messed with the thermostat, not if someone snuck into the attic and added a new layer of insulation...

Libertine

Ah, now I see why I had no idea what the fuck you were talking about. You switched to an entirely different subject.

I'll indulge you, though:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...warming_2.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-sunspots.html

Obviously, things aren't quite as clear-cut as you seem to think they are.


But, once again, and for fuck's sake, TRY AND GET THE DAMN POINT THIS TIME (those caps indicate severe annoyance), you aren't an expert on this issue. Neither am I. The earth isn't a house, and we don't have a thermostat. The climate is an exceedingly complicated subject, and only an utter and complete idiot would believe that he could make sense of it without an extensive education and lots of research on the subject.

The real question here is a simple one: do you want to be that idiot? Do you want to be like the idiot who, without any relevant background, reads a handful of popular-scientific articles and immediately believes he can debunk quantum mechanics?

Seriously, you are not Einstein. Everyone else knows that, and you should start realizing it too. Leave it to the damn experts, and don't pick sides based on the combination of your political views and a few simplistic articles you happened to stumble upon.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

D

Of course, nearly _anything_ is possible. I've already decided this is more a political thing for you than scientific... sad really.

But let's try this once more from another angle:

Nothing has significantly increasing the levels of CO2 on Venus. The CO2 that's there has been there for a very long time - but nearly all of it's in the atmosphere.

Just like nothing's significantly increasing the levels of CO2 on Earth. Pretty much all of the CO2 that's on Earth has been here a very long time - but it's been in and under the Earth's crust. And now, us humans are shoveling it out by the megaton every year and dumping it in our atmosphere... the same spot it mostly exists on Venus.

Venus is 400 degrees warmer than it should be relative to the Sun's distance due to heat energy's reaction with the CO2 levels in Venus' atmosphere.

K, so add that 2 + 2, and put it aside a moment, and then consider this:

Sure, some of the current data seems to suggest that other planets are warming too, too... but there are a myriad other factors to work in there: Jupiter's massive internal radiation, the lack of a strong magnetic field around Mars, the lack of a thick atmosphere on one... the presence of the largest atmosphere in the Solar System in another... the list goes on...

It's the job of science to attempt to take everything into account - _all_ the data - and provide an answer that best fits the facts: Venus, Mars, Jupiter, experiments, fossil records, and the myriad of other bits of evidence left for us to examine.

Currently, the _vast_ majority (in the order of 99 out of a hundred, at least) people who base their day-to-day work in related fields - whose entire currency in their field (i.e.. credibility) is based on their adherence to scientific principals... believe that our actions impact our environment.

Can't you reason that (to use your words) "is it possible...... just maybe..... possibly... " there might be some merit to what they're saying?

And dependant on your response to that, I conclude that either you must see a reasonable point there, or you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

__________________
-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31

xxxdesign-net

again.. believe or not what Vaclav Klaus said about corrupted scientists..

"It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

But ofcourse.. you think the corrupted ones can only be on the other side..

Ok folks.. im out.. see ya later..

Libertine

That's what makes this whole discussion pointless. Most of the people disputing the point make this a political issue, rather than a scientific one. We can't win this discussion, simply because most of the people we are talking with seem to have the odd notion that the veracity of theories about human influence on global warming somehow depends on political preferences.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

D

Fear does suck. And people that twist facts to cause a reaction for one reason or another suck worse... but the simple science of things doesnt.

The study of Global Warming has been a central topic of scientific study for at least the last 25 years. It's nothing "new," per se.

And half of the stuff you mentioned on that list had or have real dire ramifications for a good number of people... not all things I'd classify as "bullshit." (though I'll give you that a few of what you listed might be)

id est

While I'm not prepared to argue the consequences, the depletion of the ozone layer (facilitated by CFC's) is pretty much a scientific fact. There's a big hole up there that wasn't there before... and CFC's do destroy O-3.

The ban on DDT has been credited with the comebacks of several species - including the American Bald Eagle.

Radon _is_ a poisonous gas that is easily generated by landfills and other human waste products.

Second Hand Smoke - does contain several hundred toxins and cancer-causing compounds. If people don't want them or their children to inhale them, I, for one feel it's within their rights.



I mean, is it really hard for you folks to realize that if you shit in a bucket of water - that bucket might not be so drinkable the next time you get thirsty?


I'm not saying peeps should be afraid... fear's the mind-killer, right? But we certainly should be aware.

__________________
-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31

D

Yeah.

Even the subject of this thread relates the issue to being political.

And I guess, to a lot of people - it is... and that's a shame.

I reckon it's the flip-side of having a prominent figure in politics try to increase awareness on a scientific issue.

__________________
-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31

Hollywood Horwitz

damn! this is the first thread in a long time in history of GFY where peeps are actually saying smart and important things. too bad peeps gotta get all aggro and start name calling,no need for drama all you haters!

__________________
Ross Horwitz
Skype: RossAngeles666
Online Ad Sales / Email / Display Ads / Mobile
Cell.323.949.4313
[email protected]

stickyfingerz

Man Made Global warming is POPPYCOCK....

D

Q. F. E.

There's no point in attempting reason with a drone, so I'll bow out.

__________________
-D.
ICQ: 202-96-31

GreyWolf

You think??

It's damned funny and ironic that this "documentary" was actually used as some kind of attack on Gore in the US

The guy who made it, Durkin, is well-known for his own biased opinions in almost everything he has produced and has had a number of complaints from interviewees about editing out what they were actually saying and Durkin producing "his version".

Almost every film he has made on any topic has generated complaints from professionals in the medical and scientific community and, yes, he did advocate breast implants for women with the suggestion this was healthy - tho he has no medical or scientific qualifications.

Durkin is a guy who has worked his way thru the communist party and still retains some weird ideas. He has now found a niche in "anti enviornment" and it's more than funny he now has friends in a brand of US politics. It's like surfing the net to find a view which fits personal views/agendas - irrespective of any sanity.

Durkin is not a documentary film maker - it's like that idiot on Foxnews forcing his views over every interview - ie trash.

Humpy Leftnut

It's a mark on the faces of all scientists for the general public to still be divided on this issue.

__________________
Humpy Leftnut - Pornsumer Reviews

CDSmith

I hear that if you lived on Venus and you stuck a pizza out your window it would cook in 9 seconds.

__________________
Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!

ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!!
Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

Troels

I'm in Europe so haven't been able to contribute.

But I read through all the posts, and I have to point out again that most of the pro-global warming people are resorting to the same accusation pointed out in the film (I won't call it documentary since you frown on that word):

You take the elitist condescending approach and call us skeptics less intelligent than you.

So at least the film was right about that claim...

Another claim from the film. Co2 is not causing global temperature rise, global temperature rise is causing co2 levels to rise. That's supported by IPCC which is the group of scientist everyone is quoting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle)

As far as I can tell pro-warming advocates are saying that the human caused extra co2 emissions MIGHT push the natural co2 balance into a snowball effect Earth can't recover from. Meaning that the higher co2 levels will cause the greenhouse effect and more water vapour will get into the atmosphere => more co2 leading to a unstoppable Venus scenario.

Again, the film and IPCC are both saying historically Co2 hasn't caused global temperature rise, it's the other way around probably because of increased water vapour. The film then says that human "contribution" is so small compared to natural effects that it's not nearly as dramatic as Al Gore etc is claiming, so a Venus-like effect is very very unlikely.

A lot of if's and maybe's for us skeptics I guess.

I still think the film was very interesting, and it seems a lot "facts" about global warming presented by the media today aren't that factual at all.

__________________
These guys steal your signups: Read here.
And sexsearch.com profit from it.
Check out which sponsors pay thieves here.
And here's a list of clean sponsors.

Troels

The media is presenting it as a fact that Co2 is causing global warming.

When I read that historically that has not been the case (which I didn't know at all), and even IPCC's own people are saying that's not necessarily true, well, that made me upset.

It makes you question everything that has previously been presented as facts.

It stinks of a fear campaign.

__________________
These guys steal your signups: Read here.
And sexsearch.com profit from it.
Check out which sponsors pay thieves here.
And here's a list of clean sponsors.

Libertine

What should we call you, then?

Imagine the following scenario: you and I go to a convention on nanobiology together. Neither of us understands the details of what is being said in the lectures, but most of the biologists seem to agree on a few points. Now, suddenly, I stand up, and say that I don't believe them, that I side with the small group of biologists who disagree on those points.

Would you think I was crazy? I know I would.

I'm not going to debate the details of global warming with you, since it would be pointless - neither of us is an expert in the matter.

You could try, though, to actually (carefully) read the reactions of the scientific community to that film. Clearly, the people who actually spend their days studying the matter weren't convinced by the documentary. In fact, many of them dismissed it as pure propaganda, filled with lies, misleading information and quotes taken out of context.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/