Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 08-21-2010, 07:36 PM   #51
marcop
Content Producer
 
marcop's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderBalls View Post
Their leader, Sarah Palin, told them not to worry about such silly things, anything that happens Jesus will fix.
marcop is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 07:36 PM   #52
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
again, these are not science, this is news at best, altho arguably it's mostly not news, its editorial opinion. It's certainly not nat geo, but nat geo is not science either.

However, I'll ask you the same thing, since you want to use the antarctic measurements in your rhetoric.

What part of the global warming model explains why this happens? And why is more ice and snow in the antarctic probably caused by global warming? Why, logically, can it not be caused in this case by global cooling?

I know you are posting on antartica because your political opinion sources have told you to do so, but there actually is a science behind it, beyond the opinion. What is the current most common scientific explanation?
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 08:10 PM   #53
Ethersync
Confirmed User
 
Ethersync's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London, Saint-Tropez, Bermuda, Moscow
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8 View Post
presumably then you also know the part of the global warming model that explains why this happens? and why more ice and snow in the antarctic is probably caused by global warming?

a news magazine like nat geo is not science, its news, but there does seem to be a slight increase in snow deposit in antartica, and the northern hemisphere, especially the northern arctic, does seem to be warming faster than the southern hemisphere and antarctic.
A lot of pro-AGW scientists don't do science either. Their specialty is propaganda.

I just grabbed the first link I found. There are thousands about this.

Yes, I read the theory about how global warming is leading to more ice in Antarctica. I do not think it will hold up under scrutiny.
Ethersync is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 08:14 PM   #54
stickyfingerz
Doin fine
 
stickyfingerz's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8 View Post
again, these are not science, this is news at best, altho arguably it's mostly not news, its editorial opinion. It's certainly not nat geo, but nat geo is not science either.

However, I'll ask you the same thing, since you want to use the antarctic measurements in your rhetoric.

What part of the global warming model explains why this happens? And why is more ice and snow in the antarctic probably caused by global warming? Why, logically, can it not be caused in this case by global cooling?

I know you are posting on antartica because your political opinion sources have told you to do so, but there actually is a science behind it, beyond the opinion. What is the current most common scientific explanation?
"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007"

These things called "articles" quote things called "sources" said sources are listed in the articles....

Has nothing to do with any political afflictions sorry. Has to do with watching these scientific prophets over and over again just during my lifespan being ridiculously off. Always a new "threat" always a new "scare" its ridiculous.
stickyfingerz is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 08:22 PM   #55
Ethersync
Confirmed User
 
Ethersync's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London, Saint-Tropez, Bermuda, Moscow
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz View Post
These things called "articles" quote things called "sources" said sources are listed in the articles....
If you link to a news story and the conclusion is different than his own he says it is not science and if you quote a study he says it was funded by the oil industry as if they are the only ones with an agenda.
Ethersync is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 09:36 PM   #56
american pervert
Confirmed User
 
american pervert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,830
the reason freon is now bad is that dupont's patent on it was about to expire so they wanted it off the market.
__________________
I can resist everything except temptation
american pervert is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 09:43 PM   #57
stickyfingerz
Doin fine
 
stickyfingerz's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by american pervert View Post
the reason freon is now bad is that dupont's patent on it was about to expire so they wanted it off the market.
If I recall their patent was on R-12 and maybe R-22 Lucky for them I bet they have the new patent on R-134

Btw though the newer stuff is more "ozone friendly" overall its much more toxic.
stickyfingerz is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 12:42 AM   #58
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethersync View Post
A lot of pro-AGW scientists don't do science either. Their specialty is propaganda.

I just grabbed the first link I found. There are thousands about this.

Yes, I read the theory about how global warming is leading to more ice in Antarctica. I do not think it will hold up under scrutiny.
Do you have some aversion to stating the most common explanation? It only requires one sentence, maybe two.
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 12:46 AM   #59
Sausage
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,012
So let me get this right ... if i pay extra tax on ... well ... everything, ... it will cure the climate change that has been happening the last few billion years.

Cool.
__________________
IW
Skype : blance8888
Icq : 15567120
Sausage is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 12:49 AM   #60
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz View Post
"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007"

These things called "articles" quote things called "sources" said sources are listed in the articles....

Has nothing to do with any political afflictions sorry. Has to do with watching these scientific prophets over and over again just during my lifespan being ridiculously off. Always a new "threat" always a new "scare" its ridiculous.
So, you're argument is, the arctic measurements are flawed? And that one source of measurements is superior to others?

So, then, the disagreement in this case can be resolved by examining the sources of arctic measurements. I dont have time now, but might give it a shot sometime soon.

I dont recognize the measurement you quote - what's your source?

What about the argument that the US is falling behind technologically? Does that carry any weight with you and your side?

What about oil security? Does that concern you and your side?
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 01:03 AM   #61
stickyfingerz
Doin fine
 
stickyfingerz's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8 View Post
So, you're argument is, the arctic measurements are flawed? And that one source of measurements is superior to others?

So, then, the disagreement in this case can be resolved by examining the sources of arctic measurements. I dont have time now, but might give it a shot sometime soon.

I dont recognize the measurement you quote - what's your source?

What about the argument that the US is falling behind technologically? Does that carry any weight with you and your side?

What about oil security? Does that concern you and your side?
READING COMPREHENSION
you don't have it..
stickyfingerz is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 01:06 AM   #62
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sausage View Post
So let me get this right ... if i pay extra tax on ... well ... everything, ... it will cure the climate change that has been happening the last few billion years.

Cool.
Making a false but foolish looking caricature and then claiming it represents your opponents argument is called "straw man" - and its a typical form of false logic rhetoric.

do you have enough self-awareness and knowledge to actually state the argument that you are straw-manning?

and, nothing can cure global warming. nor will we actually do anything effective to stop it.

it's the american descendents that will be dealing with most of the problems, if they happen. thats why it's inevitable that your side will win politically in the short term.

even tho it means falling behind technologically for the US - the US is fucked anyway, our prosperity is already sold off, we pretty much gave up on the ideal of technological supremacy.
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 01:36 AM   #63
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaDalton View Post
one day i will find out what some people make so hysterically opposed to work on a cleaner environment. i shit on "global warming" and other scare tatics, but what is so bad about less pollution? i don't get it.
Is the earth warming? Yes. Is it man made, natural or man assisted?

The problem is to stop it or slow it down will mean people have to give up consuming the earths resources faster than the earth can replace them. It will mean a major cut in the earths population, people will have to stop churning out shit into the atmosphere and they will definitely have to stop driving SUVs and fuel prices will rocket.

The cost of protecting most of us from the consequences will be enormous and people will not pay that bill. Until the hit hits the fan and they start screaming why nothing was done.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 01:49 AM   #64
grumpy
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
grumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overload View Post
i have really had it with you ignorants ... there are TWO astronomical FACTS that will defuse all your gabbing ...

#1 - the earths orbit around the sun changes a bit every about 100k years ... right now we are in a HIGHER orbit which SHOULD cause a declination of temperatures - and yet the earth warms up!

#2 - we are currently undergoing a "mounder period" of solar spots which means less activity and SHOULD cause a declination of temperatures - and yet the earth warms up!

so, stop your ignorant rants plz

also, the artic ice shield, formerly covering the equal of the USA in size has shrunk by the states east of mississippi (22 states) and lost 1/3 of its thickness so plz do your homework NOW!

geez

i guess you will wake up when the methane hydrid in alaska combusts and is ignited by a lightning ... it will BLOW your ass outta the water

do you watch the news????????
__________________
Don't let greediness blur your vision | You gotta let some shit slide
icq - 441-456-888
grumpy is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 02:13 AM   #65
GrouchyAdmin
Now choke yourself!
 
GrouchyAdmin's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 12,085
Put these magnets on your head and chill the fuck out, dumbass.
__________________
GrouchyAdmin is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 03:14 AM   #66
scarlettcontent
www.scarlettcontent.net
 
scarlettcontent's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pleiades
Posts: 6,031
thats why there is a population control agenda in place
__________________


Scarlett Content - Adult Content Provider - High Quality Adult Stock Content for your Websites, Mobile Media and Print.

Over 3 Million Images (14,000 photo sets) over 5000 Videos - Many Niches, US-2257, Awesome Prices.
Over 40 years in the adult industry.

[email protected] Follow us on twitter.
scarlettcontent is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 04:50 AM   #67
ottopottomouse
She is ugly, bad luck.
 
ottopottomouse's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,177
It's August. I'm wearing a jumper.

Global warming can fuck off.
__________________
↑ see post ↑
13101
ottopottomouse is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 05:26 AM   #68
Quagmire
Confirmed User
 
Quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Stinkin' up your bathroom
Posts: 6,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overload View Post
i have really had it with you ignorants ... there are TWO astronomical FACTS that will defuse all your gabbing ...

#1 - the earths orbit around the sun changes a bit every about 100k years ... right now we are in a HIGHER orbit which SHOULD cause a declination of temperatures - and yet the earth warms up!

#2 - we are currently undergoing a "mounder period" of solar spots which means less activity and SHOULD cause a declination of temperatures - and yet the earth warms up!

so, stop your ignorant rants plz

also, the artic ice shield, formerly covering the equal of the USA in size has shrunk by the states east of mississippi (22 states) and lost 1/3 of its thickness so plz do your homework NOW!

geez

i guess you will wake up when the methane hydrid in alaska combusts and is ignited by a lightning ... it will BLOW your ass outta the water
1> It is called a Maunder Minimum, not a 'mounder period' and it is in reference to the 1650s through the early 1700s.

2> We are currently on the cusp of a Solar Max which is the 50 year high point of solar flare and sunspot activity. They are projecting it to be anywhere from 30% to 50% stronger than the last one.

3> To think we as humans have even have a basic understanding of how the earth 'works' is just... plain stupid. If a earthquake or the building of large dams in China can shift the planet on its axis, how can we possibly understand the intricate details of the weather systems, ecosystems, etc?

4> You should be embarrassed by how ignorant you are. Please put down your keyboard and walk away for a while before your retardation infects the rest of teh interwebz.
__________________
Quagmire is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 06:32 AM   #69
Dvae
Confirmed User
 
Dvae's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: US
Posts: 5,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overload View Post
you ... what?! serious, you claim antarctic ice has BUILD UP!? OMFG! i cant believe it ... you skipped ALL the the latest docus and sciene reports bout that didnt ya? ppl like YOU are bringing it down to a total disaster
Yes you are the only smart one here. Only you have the rock solid data to prove your point I pull mine out of thin air.

This is on the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice

It sites the source as National Snow and Ice Data Center which as a part of Univ. of Colorado which I'm sure you will say is not a credible source.
Dvae is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 08:17 AM   #70
Rochard
Jägermeister Test Pilot
 
Rochard's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 73,016
There are a billion things that effect the planet's weather. We don't know one tenth of them, nor can we predict how one issue affects another issue. You might be naive and believe what you read in the papers, but some of us have been around long enough to remember when they were telling us all signs were pointing towards us entering an ice age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overload View Post
#1 - the earths orbit around the sun changes a bit every about 100k years ... right now we are in a HIGHER orbit which SHOULD cause a declination of temperatures - and yet the earth warms up!
If we are in a higher orbit, we are closer to the sun - and thus should be getting warmer. Fuck, my college degree isn't in this area and I can tell you that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overload View Post
#2 - we are currently undergoing a "mounder period" of solar spots which means less activity and SHOULD cause a declination of temperatures - and yet the earth warms up!
Yes, but because of ten thousand other things - and the fact we are closer to the sun - we are getting warmer. Just because "one thing" is happening doesn't mean "we should be getting colder" when there are ten thousand other things causing the direct opposite. Top taking one thing and blowing it out of context and telling us we are all going to die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overload View Post
also, the artic ice shield, formerly covering the equal of the USA in size has shrunk by the states east of mississippi (22 states) and lost 1/3 of its thickness so plz do your homework NOW!
And exactly how often does this happen? Doesn't this happen like once every thirty years for as long as we've been tracking it?

Are we getting warmer? Maybe, perhaps. I live in California and it's fucking sixty degrees outside. In fact, it's been a cool summer here.

Or maybe this is just part of a much larger cycle that we have no control over. I mean, tens of thousands of years all of the land mass was in one great lump and since then everything has drifted apart. Maybe this is all just weather patterns changing, a cycle that's been going on since the earth was created.

Maybe instead of bitching about the causes, maybe you and your friends should figure out how we are going to move all of our shit underground and live there.
__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION
Rochard is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 08:22 AM   #71
Ethersync
Confirmed User
 
Ethersync's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London, Saint-Tropez, Bermuda, Moscow
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overload View Post
also, the artic ice shield, formerly covering the equal of the USA in size has shrunk by the states east of mississippi (22 states) and lost 1/3 of its thickness so plz do your homework NOW!
Let's say that is true, and maybe it is. Why is that bad?
Ethersync is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 09:39 AM   #72
american pervert
Confirmed User
 
american pervert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,830
so when it gets too hot it's global warming/climate change

and when it gets too cold it's global warming/climate change

just making sure
__________________
I can resist everything except temptation
american pervert is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 10:01 AM   #73
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopottomouse View Post
It's August. I'm wearing a jumper.

Global warming can fuck off.
Yes it's all an illusion.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=hotte...da7e67d4bf69d3
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 10:07 AM   #74
DaddyHalbucks
A freakin' legend!
 
DaddyHalbucks's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA
Posts: 18,975
If Global Warming, and now "Climate Change," is on the up and up, what is with all the scientific fraud and why are the scientist critics being demonized and ignored?

Why can't there be a straight up debate?

How come Al Gore's massive investment in the business is not a red flag for his possible bias?
__________________
Boner Money
DaddyHalbucks is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 10:24 AM   #75
trevesty
Confirmed User
 
trevesty's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 3,802
I usually don't post in threads like this, but TS... the 2 points you've made are both wrong according to everything I've heard/read. In fact, they're the complete opposite of what I have read. Admittedly, I'm rather ignorant on this topic, but when I've read in 15+ scientific journals(peer-reviewed) the exact opposite... leads me to believe them over you.

And I'm not a denier. I'm well aware that global warming is "real" - the humans causing it BS is what I don't buy(because there's no proof yet). If someone provides empirical evidence for humans causing it, I'll bite. Who caused it really doesn't matter though.. it's a reality, we should deal with it.
trevesty is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 10:32 AM   #76
directfiesta
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
directfiesta's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Punta Cana, DR
Posts: 29,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla View Post
Al Gore just bought ocean front property, guess he thinks the ocean levels are going to be ok?
ocean-view is not necessarely beach front .... but, if you can twist and spin, why not ...

Quote:
Montecito, located in Santa Barbara County about 100 miles north of Los Angeles, offers stunning hilltop views of the Pacific Ocean.
__________________
I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !

But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....
directfiesta is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 10:34 AM   #77
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks View Post
If Global Warming, and now "Climate Change," is on the up and up, what is with all the scientific fraud and why are the scientist critics being demonized and ignored?
Do you expect people paid to monitor it are going to say "No worries it's nothing to bother about"?

My fear is, if they're wrong we're in the clear. If they're right and we wait for undeniable proof we're fucked.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 01:57 PM   #78
xmas13
Confirmed User
 
xmas13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: GFY
Posts: 5,176
https://youtube.com/results?searc...mentary&aq =f
xmas13 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 03:16 PM   #79
Quagmire
Confirmed User
 
Quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Stinkin' up your bathroom
Posts: 6,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by trevesty View Post
I usually don't post in threads like this, but TS... the 2 points you've made are both wrong according to everything I've heard/read. In fact, they're the complete opposite of what I have read. Admittedly, I'm rather ignorant on this topic, but when I've read in 15+ scientific journals(peer-reviewed) the exact opposite... leads me to believe them over you.

And I'm not a denier. I'm well aware that global warming is "real" - the humans causing it BS is what I don't buy(because there's no proof yet). If someone provides empirical evidence for humans causing it, I'll bite. Who caused it really doesn't matter though.. it's a reality, we should deal with it.
The thing is, there is no 'global warming' as they're trying to sell it. Is there climate change? Of course! The global climates have been changing from day one and will continue to change until the planet dies.

People like Al Gore will sell you doom and dismay to make a profit, not because they actually think there is a problem.
__________________
Quagmire is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 03:20 PM   #80
Ethersync
Confirmed User
 
Ethersync's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London, Saint-Tropez, Bermuda, Moscow
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by xmas13 View Post
I'll see you your BBC and raise you my Channel 4.



Entire documentary here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0191369613647#
Ethersync is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 03:44 PM   #81
Darth_Porn
Confirmed User
 
Darth_Porn's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Don't ask ....
Posts: 210
Who gives a shit? We will all be long gone when (IF) it happens ... let your kids worry about it.

Fucking tree hugging hippies ...

__________________
SUCK MY BALLS
Darth_Porn is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 04:12 PM   #82
V_RocKs
Damn Right I Kiss Ass!
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cowtown, USA
Posts: 32,391
Did you know that I fucked your mother?
V_RocKs is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 05:15 PM   #83
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz View Post
READING COMPREHENSION
you don't have it..
Really? What didn't I comprehend?

Are you saying you dont want to discuss this calmly and reasonably?

I would like to see your side fund and organize real scientific method research to demonstrate your case. That's how science works, thru the shared collecting of measurements and peer review of theories, models, experiments, and measurements.

When I drop your quoted sentence in google, I get no scientific sources for the first few pages, all i get is opinion.

So I look for actual science websites referring to the source, the "US National Snow and Ice Data Centre"

The first approximately scientific page I come across is from nasa:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...s_feature.html

Which comfirms the measurement, and says the following below:

( Summary in advance - yes the past few winters have been colder than average, leading to an increase in the growth of a thin surface ice, but this growth is a temporary winter phenomenon, and is considerably offset by a decline in the thicker permanent ice.

Colder winters, by the way, are included and predicted in the global warming models. This is caused by two major forces. The first is the increase in wator vapor that the on-average warmer global air can contain - this leads to increases in snow and cloud cover over cooler areas, producing unusually cold and snowy winters, like last winter. The second force has been called the "bathtub effect", that is, as the air on the summer hemisphere warms, its expansion forces the cold air collecting on the winter side of the globe to move in unusual patterns, which can also increase snow and clouds. )

Quote:
Using the latest satellite observations, NASA researchers and others report that the Arctic is still on “thin ice” when it comes to the condition of sea ice cover in the region. A colder-than-average winter in some regions of the Arctic this year has yielded an increase in the area of new sea ice, while the older sea ice that lasts for several years has continued to decline.

This ice concentration map dated March 9, 2008, indicates maximum ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere. The contour of the ice edge in 2006 is shown in red, while that for the 28-year average is shown in gold. Click image to enlarge. Credit: NASA On March 18 the scientists said they believe that the increased area of sea ice this winter is due to recent weather conditions, while the decline in perennial ice reflects the longer-term warming climate trend and is a result of increased melting during summer and greater movement of the older ice out of the Arctic.

Perennial sea ice is the long-lived, year-round layer of ice that remains even when the surrounding short-lived seasonal sea ice melts away in summer to its minimum extent. It is this perennial sea ice, left over from the summer melt period, that has been rapidly declining from year to year, and that has gained the attention and research focus of scientists. According to NASA-processed microwave data, whereas perennial ice used to cover 50-60 percent of the Arctic, this year it covers less than 30 percent. Very old ice that remains in the Arctic for at least six years comprised over 20 percent of the Arctic area in the mid to late 1980s, but this winter it decreased to just six percent.

According to Walt Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder, as ice ages it continues to grow and thicken, so that older ice is generally also thicker ice. This winter the ice cover is much thinner overall and thus in a more vulnerable state heading into the summer melt season. NASA’s ICESat satellite has contributed to understanding of the changes in ice thickness. To get a better understanding of the behavior of sea ice, NASA is planning a follow-on satellite mission, ICESat II, to launch in 2015.

Arctic sea ice grows and declines seasonally, ranging from an average minimum extent in September of 2.5 million square miles to an average winter maximum extent of 5.9 million square miles in March. This March, instruments on NASA’s Aqua satellite and NOAA and U.S. Defense Department satellites showed the maximum sea ice extent slightly increased by 3.9 percent over that of the previous three years, but it is still below the long-term average by 2.2 percent. Increases in ice extent occurred in areas where surface temperatures were colder than the historical averages. At the same time, as a result of the export of ice from the Arctic, the area of perennial ice decreased to an all-time minimum.
Now, just because this opinion is from NASA does not make it science - but now that I do this little bit of research I recall other debates I've read about the question of thin surface ice, even tho I did not at first recognize your quote, which it looks like you took from some opinion page; and all of the conclusions I recall took this form - yes, cold winters caused more thin surface ice, but the thin surface ice melted unusually quickly in the summer, leading to an overall net loss of surface ice.

Last edited by Bill8; 08-22-2010 at 05:17 PM..
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 05:24 PM   #84
stickyfingerz
Doin fine
 
stickyfingerz's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8 View Post
Really? What didn't I comprehend?

Are you saying you dont want to discuss this calmly and reasonably?

I would like to see your side fund and organize real scientific method research to demonstrate your case. That's how science works, thru the shared collecting of measurements and peer review of theories, models, experiments, and measurements.

When I drop your quoted sentence in google, I get no scientific sources for the first few pages, all i get is opinion.

So I look for actual science websites referring to the source, the "US National Snow and Ice Data Centre"

The first approximately scientific page I come across is from nasa:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...s_feature.html

Which comfirms the measurement, and says the following below:

( Summary in advance - yes the past few winters have been colder than average, leading to an increase in the growth of a thin surface ice, but this growth is a temporary winter phenomenon, and is considerably offset by a decline in the thicker permanent ice.

Colder winters, by the way, are included and predicted in the global warming models. This is caused by two major forces. The first is the increase in wator vapor that the on-average warmer global air can contain - this leads to increases in snow and cloud cover over cooler areas, producing unusually cold and snowy winters, like last winter. The second force has been called the "bathtub effect", that is, as the air on the summer hemisphere warms, its expansion forces the cold air collecting on the winter side of the globe to move in unusual patterns, which can also increase snow and clouds. )



Now, just because this opinion is from NASA does not make it science - but now that I do this little bit of research I recall other debates I've read about the question of thin surface ice, even tho I did not at first recognize your quote, which it looks like you took from some opinion page; and all of the conclusions I recall took this form - yes, cold winters caused more thin surface ice, but the thin surface ice melted unusually quickly in the summer, leading to an overall net loss of surface ice.
We get it. More ice, and colder temps ALSO means that there is Global warm... err umm climate change. Its all "science"... Its all VERY impressive....

Thankfully the poor Polar bears won't have to swim as far to get to a new chunk of ice now. I remember how they were all drowning from the lack of ice, and that was our "motivation" to get moving forward on "fixing the problem". Luckily Al Gore and his Ilk were all more than happy to start selling everyone "carbon offsets" while at the same time Al had one of the highest non commercial property electric bills in the state of TN. Obviously he takes this all VERY seriously and and is more motivated than ever to keep all those poor polar bears from drowning.

I still get tears in my eyes thinking of those purty white bears that can only swim 100 miles non stop, so I can see why everyone was so concerned.... DAMN YOU GLOBAL WARMING!!
stickyfingerz is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 05:34 PM   #85
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks View Post
If Global Warming, and now "Climate Change," is on the up and up, what is with all the scientific fraud and why are the scientist critics being demonized and ignored?

Why can't there be a straight up debate?

How come Al Gore's massive investment in the business is not a red flag for his possible bias?
There should be a straight up debate - the problem so far is that very few actual climate scientists have been willing to take your side of the debate.

So, it behooves your side to find and bring to the table climatologists to argue your position and submit real peer-reviewable science articles to that real science journals.

This is what your side should be concentrating on.

---

Now, which science frauds are you referring too specifically, so we can analyse their truth and the peer judgements of the frauds in question?

The only claimed fraud I know about is the scottish stolen emails thing, and this has been investigated close to ten times, and in none of the investigations has an allegation of fraud been supported.

So, the claim of fraud in the anglia emails is itself a fraud, or so the investigations so far have said.

I am still waiting for your side to present an investogation that argues that any actual fraud was committed.

If your side wants to suggest other frauds, I say, put them on the table and lets examine them. Science is not immune from fraud, but science, unlike politics and business, has a very good record of investiogating fraud and destroying the careers of scientists who commit fraud.

---

Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician, and nothing gore says or does has any relevance to the science of climate study. Your sides references to him only demonstrate your political rather than scientific bias.
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 05:42 PM   #86
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz View Post
We get it. More ice, and colder temps ALSO means that there is Global warm... err umm climate change. Its all "science"... Its all VERY impressive....

Thankfully the poor Polar bears won't have to swim as far to get to a new chunk of ice now. I remember how they were all drowning from the lack of ice, and that was our "motivation" to get moving forward on "fixing the problem". Luckily Al Gore and his Ilk were all more than happy to start selling everyone "carbon offsets" while at the same time Al had one of the highest non commercial property electric bills in the state of TN. Obviously he takes this all VERY seriously and and is more motivated than ever to keep all those poor polar bears from drowning.

I still get tears in my eyes thinking of those purty white bears that can only swim 100 miles non stop, so I can see why everyone was so concerned.... DAMN YOU GLOBAL WARMING!!
staw man is a weak technique. It means you have run out of bullets.

Part of your sides weakness is that you dont seem to grasp that "global warming" does not mean a quiet slow increase in average temperatures wherever you happen to live.

Global warming is a technical term, referring to the average amount of heat energy stored in the ocean and atmosphere and the top few meters of the earth's crust. It doesn't produce an gentle even warming - the climate is a giant heat engine, and the slow increae of heat energy in the atmosphere produces all kinds of effects, including colder winters.

Because your side intentionally misunderstands what global warming means (for political purposes), some people have argued it should be called climate change, describing the result, not the cause. I don't agree with this trend. The technically accurate term is and remains global warming, a slight increase in the average amount of heat energy, which produces a broad spectrum of inherently hard-to-predict climate changes.
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 06:18 PM   #87
NetHorse
Confirmed User
 
NetHorse's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,526
In 300 years, (when we are all dead, our children are dead and their children are dead) the temperature will be 15 degrees hotter on average.

Quick, lets push for a cap and trade tax right now. Force people and businesses to struggle in a time of economic crisis.

Until new technology is available to everyone taxing energy in the name of global warming is just a political agenda.
__________________
┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐
ICQ # 427013273
NetHorse is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 06:24 PM   #88
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
The august 2010 arctic sea ice chart from NSIDC - that is, the place used as the source for the opinion quote "According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007" :

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Quote:
Overview of conditions

As of August 16, 2010, Arctic ice extent was 5.95 million square kilometers (2.30 million square miles),1.68 million square kilometers (649,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

Figure 2. The graph above shows daily Arctic sea ice extent as of August 16, 2010. The solid light blue line indicates 2010; dashed green shows 2007; solid pink shows 2008; solid orange shows 2009; and solid gray indicates average extent from 1979 to 2000. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.
?Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

High-resolution image Conditions in context

As of August 16, only 2007 and 2008 had lower extent. Approximately one month remains in the melt season.
Summary and translation from science speak - arctic ice is on track to melt more in 2010 than in any previous year. With one month left in the melting season, only two years in recorded history had a smaller ice area for the year than we have right now, with part of the year left to go.

And, arctic ice is, if my math is correct, currently a bit less than a two/thirds what it was when measurements first started - so we have lost about a third of the arctic ice overall in the last ten years.

So, in fact, the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre is saying the exact opposite of what that quote, taken out of context, claims. The promoters of that quote are using a line that describes a temporary occurance and presumably misrepresenting it to suggest it refers to a permanent state, when the opposite information is available on the general sea ice page of that same website.

Now, I am not a scientist myself of course, just a curious layperson, so I might have misinterpreted or misunderstood what this page is saying. I welcome correction.
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 06:28 PM   #89
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetHorse View Post
In 300 years, (when we are all dead, our children are dead and their children are dead) the temperature will be 15 degrees hotter on average.

Quick, lets push for a cap and trade tax right now. Force people and businesses to struggle in a time of economic crisis.

Until new technology is available to everyone taxing energy in the name of global warming is just a political agenda.
While I am not a proponent of cap and trade, which is a corporate scheme, the logic behind it, to promote new technologies which produce energy from sources other than muslim oil, still seems like a good idea.

new technology doesn't magically appear*, and the lesson of this collapse is that times of economic ruin are not good times for inventing new technology.

other countries, especially china and the eu, are already well ahead of us in non muslim oil technology. Doing nothing allows them to get even further ahead of us.

*I should say "new conceptual technology" - for example, computers occured because of the huge amounts of money and manpower put into early computing technology during ww2 and teh cold war - many years of military spending eventually resulted in the spinoff of personal computing technology - after about 30 years.

We should take the billions per year we are spending to be ineffectual teamamerica worldpolice and instead spend it on inventing new energy technologies, so we can once again be the world leaders in a critical new technology revolution.

Last edited by Bill8; 08-22-2010 at 06:41 PM..
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 11:08 PM   #90
DaddyHalbucks
A freakin' legend!
 
DaddyHalbucks's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA
Posts: 18,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
Do you expect people paid to monitor it are going to say "No worries it's nothing to bother about"?

My fear is, if they're wrong we're in the clear. If they're right and we wait for undeniable proof we're fucked.
Science is about proof and the truth.

That is why it is important to have two sides discuss and compete to get there.

Right now, you just have a one sided, shove-down-the-throat format.
__________________
Boner Money
DaddyHalbucks is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 11:10 PM   #91
DaddyHalbucks
A freakin' legend!
 
DaddyHalbucks's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA
Posts: 18,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8 View Post
Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician, and nothing gore says or does has any relevance to the science of climate study. Your sides references to him only demonstrate your political rather than scientific bias.
The problem is Al Gore is holding himself out as a scientist.

How many major errors were in his movie? A dozen?
__________________
Boner Money
DaddyHalbucks is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 11:20 PM   #92
DaddyHalbucks
A freakin' legend!
 
DaddyHalbucks's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA
Posts: 18,975
In the 1970s, there was Global Cooling.

Where they wrong then, or are they wrong now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
__________________
Boner Money
DaddyHalbucks is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 11:21 PM   #93
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks View Post
The problem is Al Gore is holding himself out as a scientist.

How many major errors were in his movie? A dozen?
I couldn't tell you. I considered it popular tripe, and have never seen it.

I don't see any signs whatsoever that gore is claiming to be a scientist, but then, I know real scientists, so it's way harder to fool me than many people.

The fact that many people on the left side have just as bad a grasp of the science as many people on the right side does not make the science wrong - it requires a certain amount of experience and study to understand the complex picture that the science is modeling out, and debate skills to discuss the topic.

I'm just as dissatisfied with many on the left as on the right.

My dissatisfaction, however, doesn't change the science itself.
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 11:30 PM   #94
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks View Post
In the 1970s, there was Global Cooling.

Where they wrong then, or are they wrong now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
global cooling was never anything more than speculative commentary thrown around by commentators and editors. so invoking it as a comparison to global warming is arguably fraudulent. I dont think you intend to defraud, you just haven't studied the question, and are repeating rhetoric you've seen used politically.

You won't be able to show me a real paper submitted for peer review that seriously proposes that global cooling is happening or that any measurement supports it's recurrance.

again, thats not science, that's opinion and speculation and scientists throwing around ideas, which are picked up and exploited by a manipulative and science-illiterate media. there is a real and significant difference between global cooling and global warming as science.
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 11:33 PM   #95
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks View Post
Science is about proof and the truth.

That is why it is important to have two sides discuss and compete to get there.

Right now, you just have a one sided, shove-down-the-throat format.
whose fault is that? is there some force that is holding your side back from doing the science?

You guys have tons of money to spend educating ranks of climatologists. so go ahead and do it.

The current science teams studying this would welcome your money and the measuring tools it would add to the study.
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 11:48 PM   #96
DaddyHalbucks
A freakin' legend!
 
DaddyHalbucks's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA
Posts: 18,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8 View Post
whose fault is that? is there some force that is holding your side back from doing the science?

You guys have tons of money to spend educating ranks of climatologists. so go ahead and do it.

The current science teams studying this would welcome your money and the measuring tools it would add to the study.
The science has been done. Thousands of scientists question Global Warming. But, they are largely ignored.
__________________
Boner Money
DaddyHalbucks is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 12:15 AM   #97
Bill8
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks View Post
The science has been done. Thousands of scientists question Global Warming. But, they are largely ignored.
now you are being borderline fraudulent again. You are making a claim based on a particular event which is not technically science, therefore does not apply

tell you what - I know exactly what you are going to put up - so you go ahead and put up your source and I will demonstrate why it is commentary and not science.

you've made this statement before, and I have chosen not to debate it because it's technically advertising, not science, and does not really apply to my interests in the science itself.

---

you state the science "has been done". by DEFINITION, science is NEVER DONE. that's not how science works. if your side brings new replicable measurements to the scientific peer review process, they will be added to the general pool of measurements.

there is still plenty of time for your side to do your own science - and if you come up with measurements that differ from those of the current groups of researchers those measurements WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED, and the models improved to accounrt for the new measurements.

because that's how science works.
Bill8 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 03:07 AM   #98
ottopottomouse
She is ugly, bad luck.
 
ottopottomouse's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,177
It's still August. I'm wearing a different jumper.

Can everyone go out for a couple of hours drive please - obviously need some more CO₂ releasing.
__________________
↑ see post ↑
13101
ottopottomouse is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 08:32 AM   #99
DaddyHalbucks
A freakin' legend!
 
DaddyHalbucks's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA
Posts: 18,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8 View Post
global cooling was never anything more than speculative commentary thrown around by commentators and editors.
And global warming is so much better because Al Gore is on board?
__________________
Boner Money
DaddyHalbucks is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 08:44 AM   #100
Tom_PM
Porn Meister
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 16,443
Wait.. this is weird.. but it seems that the same folks who are staunch defenders of the republican party in america are those who speak the loudest against the proven science of global warming. That can't be, can it? My god, what does it mean? Double rainbow all the way across the sky.
__________________
43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.
Tom_PM is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.