|
Who gives a shit? We will all be long gone when (IF) it happens ... let your kids worry about it.
Fucking tree hugging hippies ... :321GFY |
Did you know that I fucked your mother?
|
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
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!! :1orglaugh |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
How many major errors were in his movie? A dozen? |
In the 1970s, there was Global Cooling.
Where they wrong then, or are they wrong now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
+ 100 Al Gore lovers |
Quote:
|
I didnt say all the people who dont believe in global warming are republicans. I chose my words carefully to avoid that. Those that ARE, seem to be the loudest (my interpretation) voices against the idea of global warming though. I just think it's telling that similar minds think similarly on completely divergent topics. Is there a common denominator?
|
Quote:
Me, I don't care one way or the other whether "it exists" or whether people believe in it or not. I've gone green in my lifestyle and continually watch for new ways of going greener. I find that doing that is more productive than just sitting around bitching on boards about whether or not there's proof or that the problem exists at all. |
Quote:
Global warming science is what it is, the measurements and models are what they are. I don't care for gore's presentation and grandstanding personally, but you know, he never fucking asked my opinion. Nobody knows what is going to happen - but nobody expected we'd lose a third of the arctic ice these last ten years either. Maybe increased water vapor will increase clouds which will help cool things down. But I will make my own prediction. You global warming deniers have ten years to make political hay out of this topic, because by the end of this decade the economic impact is going to be so severe that the question of what we are going to do to cope will be one of the dominant political issues of 2020. so put up your denial candidates now, make hay while the sun shines. Put up your candidates, put up your own scientists, lets see what the voters and the peer review process decides. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
but the short answer to why increased heat is worse for our civilization than increased cold is desertification of both the land and the sea. Colder sea water holds more oxygen, and is less acid, therefore the oceans create more life, more life at the bottom of the food chain. Hotter water is more acidic and holds less oxygen, leading to a type pf desert in the ocean. This is why the prime fishing areas are to the north and south, typically. Colder land also supports more life - once desertification starts it tends to be permanent. Permanent on human scales at least - it lasts thousands of years. Colder temperatures wouldn't force human migrations the way a band of desert girdling the equator will. The migrations have already begun, and they will get much worse as about 4 billion people are forced to try to reach parts of the earth that are less hot. I'm not talking about a return to an ice age, altho everyone should know that global warming could, perversely, cause a shift in the atlantic and pacific conveyor currents as fresh water from melting ice changes the salinity that drives the conveyors. And that such a change in the conveyors could cause a short ice age. really trying to explain the whole picture would take pages - one of the problems of the science and the models is that it's very complex. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Most good Republicans are against redistribution of wealth/ welfare/ globalism/ progressivism/ socialism/ communism. The Democrats are mostly for the above isms, in one form of another. Global Warming is a back door attempt at "redistributive change." Global Warming is not a proven science. Far from it. There are many many unanswered questions. At best it is a cockamamie theory. Look at the shaky left wing coalition behind Global Warming. Look at the outright fraud and the exclusion of critics. Those red flags alone tell you it is seriously flawed. Al Gore, GE, and many others in the political class have huge investments in it. Do you trust Van Jones? I don't. |
Quote:
find out for yourself - research isn't difficult. I'm just a curious layperson, i'm always ready to be corrected. |
Quote:
and there is no exclusion of critics. put up your examples and I will show you why each example does not constitute exclusion. there is one specific problem, which is sharing of unpublished data. the scientific community is aware of this problem and is developing new protocols to cope with this unprecedented political interest. science has never had to deal with non-scientists insisting on getting unpublished data before. put up examples of fraud and exclusion. lets look at these claims. |
Quote:
Yes, dems are part progressivism movement, that's what it takes to stop the damage Republicans do this nation. Calling a Dem or even a liberal, a socialist or communist is just stupid... about as stupid as calling Republicans - Christian Jew Killers. If you put any Republican in power, they're going to vote in this Climate crap the Dems are, but call it something else. Which you will then support. Man made global warming is "business" men (on both sides) trying to gather more wealth. And being that you support Capitalism, your party will makes sure it goes through - just like the Dems. P.S. "Man made or caused" global warming is fake, the science does not back that theory (that's Gore). However, the Earth is warming, which can easily be proven. Taxing us won't stop it from warming. |
Quote:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ound-media-mum http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...rming-CO2-link http://www.climatechangefraud.com/ http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/ :helpme |
Quote:
6,000 years ago it was around 4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it is now and, as a race, humans were reproducing rapidly. If you look at history humans have always done well during warm periods and there is not a single example of the "end of the world" type scenarios pro-AGW people say will happen. The predictions of violent storms, droughts and famine are not based on science. They are science fiction. |
Media ignore Climategate:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Xd_XssuWtyc 30,000 scientists want to sue Al Gore for fraud/ Global Warming as a religion/ Al Gore doesn't want any debate: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PIe2JCUc_pA |
Quote:
the first one refers to the stolen east anglia emails - and close to ten independent investigations have all concluded no fraud. the second doesn't even mention a specific case in the first 6 to 8 paragraphs, it was all editorial and innuendo, so I stopped reading. websites called climate change fraud and global warming skeptics are useless by definition - they are not legitimate sources. what I need is specific cases, reported in both legitimate national media AND the science literature, so we can examine real examples. the east anglia emails have ALREADY been investigated and declared nonfraudulent (altho they did raise this issue of sharing unpublished results), so it's borderline fraud on your part to put up the stolen private east anglia emails as an example. I understand your denial websites and commentators are telling you to keep repeating fraud, but unless you can show fraud, IT IS FRAUD TO KEEP CLAIMING FRAUD. I'm not saying there may not be any fraud - scientists are very competitive and science fraud occurs, such as the recent case of the evo psych guy and his monkey tests. But you are making a claim that I am saying you cannot support. Put up specific cases, and lets look at the evidence. |
Quote:
Part 1 Part 2: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-eyebK_mFkc Part 3: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Iww0a_eIYL8 Part 4: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZjfQS_qXWzg Part 5: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XJLpfI8cKFY Part 6: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SsX-z1XfU24 Part 7: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cf1A5eI3_og |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's not life that is at risk, short of a hydrogen sulfide event, which has happened in the past, it's civilization as we know it. but it's only civilization, we have already lost our best chance, so it doesn't really matter. Violent storms, droughts, and famines are already happening. The predictive models say they will get worse. we will see. 6000 years ago citystates lived and died constantly, and the civilizations of those days responded to resource depletion and local desertification, such as happened in saharan africa, with migration. But there were only millions of us on the planet at that time, and we had always lived a kind of nomadic lifestyle, even after the invention of agriculture and cities - cities were built, lived in until the surrounding land was desert, then the people moved on to a better area. There isn't anywhere to migrate now. anyway, the results aren't really my concern. I dont believe humans can do anything about global warming, if the models are correct and it is happening it won't be me that has to deal with the migrating hordes and the consequences. so like I said, put up your denial candidates, deny away. Nobody important is really paying attention to your denial, the insurers all know the costs of warming are going up, the corporations all know it, the military knows it, the rest of the world knows it, and the economies of our civilization are all reacting to it. You have a few years to try to make political power out of denial, so go for it. all your denials wont matter anyway - oil is a limited resource, and when the oil is gone we will burn every single piece of coal we can extract, then after that the lignite and the peat. nothing can stop what is going to happen. |
Quote:
You are now INTENTIONALLY commiting fraud. I am accusing you of intentionally commiting fraud, by continuing to claim that a fraud occured when close to ten investigations have said that none occured. I would like to see your side conduct it's own investigation - and then lets examine the reuslts of that investigation. I invite you to appeal to your side's politicians to conduct theor own independent investigation. But, you wont, because you are commiting fraud, and dont want to face the fact that you are commiting fraud. And if a group of scientists want to sue gore for fraud, why haven't they? Go ahead and sue. I totally support such a lawsuit. Or is the claim that 30k scientists want to sue also a fraudulent claim? I suspect it is, altho I haven't investigated, and you refuse to post real sources. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc