Skanky Vamp
Sniffin' the Slayer
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 26,460
'Climate Change' - what are your thoughts?
- Thread starter Edmund Blackadder
- Start date
vicious sid
hey pachuco!
it's a scam i tell's ya 😛 now seriously if we dont do anything i think its gonna get way to serious for we to ammend later
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]
its getting clearer by the day that if humanity someday ends it's gonna be because of itself, so relic that nightmare of yours, sadly, can become reality.
here's how i see it, people are trading earth's health for their own comfort, and truth is, most of us dont care! its amazing to see how people can't see whats rivht in front of their eyes!
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]
its getting clearer by the day that if humanity someday ends it's gonna be because of itself, so relic that nightmare of yours, sadly, can become reality.
here's how i see it, people are trading earth's health for their own comfort, and truth is, most of us dont care! its amazing to see how people can't see whats rivht in front of their eyes!
R
Relic
I have this nightmare, and in it they do something and make a carbon scrubber and it takes out too much c02, and we end ourselves because someone didn't carry the one with a formula! :o
nerd4hire
Certified Uncloneable
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Messages
- 9,102
Yes. In fact, there have been multiple media scares concerning both cooling an warming over the last 110 years or so. Here's a couple of links.
BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice
Is Global Warming on the Wane? - The Old Farmer's Almanac
BTW did you know there was a period where CO2 levels were 4,000 parts per million higher than today (we're currently 385ppm), and the world was in the middle of a mass extinction ice age?
Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
So what does that tell us about the warming effect of CO2 in the natural world?
Edmund Blackadder
Scooby
N4H - good stuff
Just an FYI - I think Global Warming is real, people adding to it to radically bad levels, just a way to earn a fortune.
Its all balderdash and chicanery
Just an FYI - I think Global Warming is real, people adding to it to radically bad levels, just a way to earn a fortune.
Its all balderdash and chicanery
V
vicious sid
global warming thing you said: ABSOLUTELY, i wouldnt put it any better way
T
T.I.P
Guest
I definetly think humans are speeding up the process big time. Its just logical that we would be.
But the cow farts thing aint about Co2, its beacause they release heavy amounts of methane into the atmosphere, add that to the heavy amounts of methane under the ice sheets and then human methane output and youve got methane city, which is more of a threat than Co2.
But the cow farts thing aint about Co2, its beacause they release heavy amounts of methane into the atmosphere, add that to the heavy amounts of methane under the ice sheets and then human methane output and youve got methane city, which is more of a threat than Co2.
Edmund Blackadder
Scooby
I just reread my comment and it could be misconstrued so I just want to be clear.
I think that there is global warming/climate change BUT I think that this is natural and NOT something we as humans have any control over.
The more extreme people suggest that we are heading towards an Ice Age, when in fact an Ice Age is when there is Ice on both the North and South Pole, which suggests a) we're still not completely out of the last one b) a natural cycle of the planet is to be without Ice on the Poles.
BUT then Gov't and private businesses know there is ALOT of money in Green Taxes - do NOT get me started on the UK Green taxes and such.
Schillaci
Scooby
This is.. inaccurate, to say the least.
At one point in 98 the planet was hotter than it has been since, but the average temperature of the planet has continually risen.
Seriously, if you're interested in global warming don't watch the 'great global warming swindle'. Its pretty much filled from start to finish with inaccurate information. Its not so much the other side of al gores movie as the same side of a double headed coin.
nerd4hire
Certified Uncloneable
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Messages
- 9,102
You surprise me Shillaci. I would have thought an old cynic like yourself would be all over the faux science of global warming alarmism. But apparently that's not so. Very well. Let's discuss it then.
Even the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pauchauri, talks of the temperature plateau after 1998 and says they have to look into it.
I think the problem here is you're basing your idea on old information from alarmist blogs.
When people first started talking about no temperature rise since 1998, the opposite side of the debate was quick to point out that was cherry picking of data. 1998 was an unusually warm, El Nino year. Some of the bloggers were even able to use magic graphing techniques to show a tiny warming trend from 1998 using the aberrant GISS temperature sets. Temperatures have cooled since then, and I doubt even that is any longer possible.
Temperatures cooled considerably this year.
From the other side graphs like the one from this blogger turned up showing you can even show a lack of warming from 1997, a year before the 1998 El Nino event.
But let's look at what the scientists say.
MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen says there's been no warming since 1997, and no statistical warming since 1995.
It's also worth mentioning although there's been no warming since 1998, there has been an actual cooling since 2002. It's so evident you can even see it (slightly) with the alarmist data from GISS. Here's a graph from meteorologist Joseph D'aleo showing the cooling trend since 2002 as taken from four different temperature sets, even including GISS.
Here's the trend since 2002 if you just look at satellite data.
Here's one from New Zealand scientist Bob Carter, showing the sloping trends since 1979.
Here's a clearer one with different, and more recent data
Speaking of trends, even alarmists have stopped arguing the lack of warming in the last ten years, and the cooling in the last 6. What they say now is it doesn't matter, because it's a short term trend. The long term trends show overall warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Trends are interesting though. Here's one, I believe from UAH scientist Dr. Roy Spencer breaking up the trends since 1850. Notice the cooling one from about 49 to about 78? This was a period when industrial activity really kicked into gear. Why does it trend down if CO2 is supposed to be driving temperature up?
It's happening again. CO2 rises, yet temperatures are starting to trend down.
Also, what you're really talking about in that long term trend since 1850 are two short term rising trends - one from 1910 to 1940, and the other from about 1978 to about 2001. That's about 53 years. Is that really a long term trend representing the last 168 years?
Here's another one. The warming trend probably didn't start in 1850. That's just where alarmists start their graphs. Some scientists say you can trace the warming trend back to at least the 1700s, a period long before the first SUV. It was a time we were coming out of a period called The Little Ice Age. The long term warming trend would therefore have natural causes.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a shockumentary. However so was An Inconvenient Truth. In fact An Inconvenient Truth was the flim flam which started the indoctrination of global warming ideology on the general public. They swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The Great Warming Swindle was a reaction to that. There is critique concerning what may, or may not be true in both. Personally, I think the critique on what may or may not be the facts in The Great Global Warming Swindle to be mild compared to the easy revelation of pretty much everything in An Inconvenient Truth, as pseudo-scientific, gobbledy gook.
Even the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pauchauri, talks of the temperature plateau after 1998 and says they have to look into it.
I think the problem here is you're basing your idea on old information from alarmist blogs.
When people first started talking about no temperature rise since 1998, the opposite side of the debate was quick to point out that was cherry picking of data. 1998 was an unusually warm, El Nino year. Some of the bloggers were even able to use magic graphing techniques to show a tiny warming trend from 1998 using the aberrant GISS temperature sets. Temperatures have cooled since then, and I doubt even that is any longer possible.
Temperatures cooled considerably this year.
From the other side graphs like the one from this blogger turned up showing you can even show a lack of warming from 1997, a year before the 1998 El Nino event.
But let's look at what the scientists say.
MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen says there's been no warming since 1997, and no statistical warming since 1995.
It's also worth mentioning although there's been no warming since 1998, there has been an actual cooling since 2002. It's so evident you can even see it (slightly) with the alarmist data from GISS. Here's a graph from meteorologist Joseph D'aleo showing the cooling trend since 2002 as taken from four different temperature sets, even including GISS.
Here's the trend since 2002 if you just look at satellite data.
Here's one from New Zealand scientist Bob Carter, showing the sloping trends since 1979.
Here's a clearer one with different, and more recent data
Speaking of trends, even alarmists have stopped arguing the lack of warming in the last ten years, and the cooling in the last 6. What they say now is it doesn't matter, because it's a short term trend. The long term trends show overall warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Trends are interesting though. Here's one, I believe from UAH scientist Dr. Roy Spencer breaking up the trends since 1850. Notice the cooling one from about 49 to about 78? This was a period when industrial activity really kicked into gear. Why does it trend down if CO2 is supposed to be driving temperature up?
It's happening again. CO2 rises, yet temperatures are starting to trend down.
Also, what you're really talking about in that long term trend since 1850 are two short term rising trends - one from 1910 to 1940, and the other from about 1978 to about 2001. That's about 53 years. Is that really a long term trend representing the last 168 years?
Here's another one. The warming trend probably didn't start in 1850. That's just where alarmists start their graphs. Some scientists say you can trace the warming trend back to at least the 1700s, a period long before the first SUV. It was a time we were coming out of a period called The Little Ice Age. The long term warming trend would therefore have natural causes.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a shockumentary. However so was An Inconvenient Truth. In fact An Inconvenient Truth was the flim flam which started the indoctrination of global warming ideology on the general public. They swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The Great Warming Swindle was a reaction to that. There is critique concerning what may, or may not be true in both. Personally, I think the critique on what may or may not be the facts in The Great Global Warming Swindle to be mild compared to the easy revelation of pretty much everything in An Inconvenient Truth, as pseudo-scientific, gobbledy gook.
Schillaci
Scooby
I think you need to back up your horse there, just a little bit.
First of all, I've got no idea where in my post you're reading the words 'I believe in global warming'. I mean its not even implied.
Secondly, and most importantly, I'm not particularly interested in discussing this topic. Call me a lazy tosser, but I just can't be bothered typing. Ok, maybe since this old cynic is already here I can indulge in a little typing. Bear in mind though, that whilst this topic is about global warming, which you don't believe, that I disagree with some things you are saying and have not at any point said that I believe in global warming.
In the immortal words of Buffy the Vampire slayer "could you vague that up for me?" Actually I'm not sure if she said that, I do know though, that I once said "with a 12 inch penis I will satisfy any woman", or did I?
I Don't know if there's any proof of me saying this(tickle tickle) however I'm fairly confident given your first quote in my post that you should now firmly believe that I have a 12 inch penis.
Is this some petty attempt at an insult, because it seems like it. Of the two of us, I have a tiny feeling that this statement, substituting the word alarmist for something just as silly, would be more suited to you.
I have done a mediocre amount of research on global warming. A lot of my knowledge on this subject is gleamed from an old professor of mine, who has been my friend for several years, and has a deep well of knowledge to share, which is generally a lot more interesting than this topic. He doesnt believe global warming, by the way. Not, however, for the reasons you don't believe it.
some scientists, not the. Also the some is actually very few. However that is not my issue, quantity doesn't prove anything. Which of course in this instance you will totally agree, of course when it comes to co2 suddenly the quantity of it is so vital. Which is a completely absurd idea.
My problem is your use of language. Its deliberately manipulative. Which is a typical sign when an argument is very weak. You see it in politics all the time. Another sign of a weak argument is when the same information is repeated over and over, but altered ever so slightly. Ok, that's a bit unfair..
Ok. I've noticed the global warming conspiracy theorists(looool) have a very difficult time when it comes to reading graphs, reading them accurately, and understanding the information being presented. So, lets do a little experiment in logic mr nerd4hire.
Midnight on saturday night we'll pour a glass of water, and put it on the kitchen counter. At 9am on sunday we'll check the waters temperature, again at 3pm, and again at 9pm. k?
At midnight sunday night, we'll take the glass of water and place it outside on the garden table. At 9am on monday morning we'll check the waters temperature, and at 3pm, and at 9pm.
There was glorious sunshine all through monday. The next day, however, it was cloudy. At 9am on Tuesday morning we'll check the waters temperature, and at 3pm, and at 9pm.
Pretty simple enough. We've got some information, we can do some basic stuff with it. Bear in mind, this exercise is about logic. I'm not suggesting in any way that this has anything to do with reading temperature, or global warming, or anything that is ultimately complex, this is an exercise in logic.
3pm on Monday, the water was at its hottest. 9 am on sunday, the water was at its coolest. The water had a hot peak, and it had a coldest point. If I was to follow the temperature of the water from start to finish, I could find the average temp for the water each day. This is a bit simpler. We've got 3 points each day, 3 temperatures. Put that into a graph and you can see, even though it peaked on monday, the average temperature for the water rises from sunday to tuesday.
God, I completely lost my way with this crap, but I've typed words and I can't be bothered deleting it, and finding a reasonable way to explain what I am saying. So let me end this little segment with, if you actually are smart you'll be able to figure out what I'm talking about.
Ok, shot two, a quickie.
Several billion years ago this planet hit a temperature high, using your reasoning, ever since then we have been in a cooling period, because the temperature never reached that height again, so the planet can't be warming.
Its very simple, look at any graph on global temperature for the past 20 years, that hasn't been grossly doctored, and you can clearly see that there is a steady rise. You can see it in Lindzens graph even though he desperately tries to mask it.
This is complete bullshit. The IPCC has continued to state that the temperature has risen.
To be honest, I fell asleep half way through Al Gore's movie. I found it overly sentimental.
The Great Global Warming Swindle, on the other hand, I watched from start to finish. It used old graphs and old information to fit in with their model, where more recent information contradicts what they're saying. At one point they actually took a graph and drew a fake line in it so it matched up with their suggestion about temperature and sunspots. The "documentary" was heavily critizised, and some of the scientists interviewed claimed that their interviews had been heavily edited to make their opinion look entirely different.
You know what, you're a smart guy, you must know all this.
First of all, I've got no idea where in my post you're reading the words 'I believe in global warming'. I mean its not even implied.
Secondly, and most importantly, I'm not particularly interested in discussing this topic. Call me a lazy tosser, but I just can't be bothered typing. Ok, maybe since this old cynic is already here I can indulge in a little typing. Bear in mind though, that whilst this topic is about global warming, which you don't believe, that I disagree with some things you are saying and have not at any point said that I believe in global warming.
In the immortal words of Buffy the Vampire slayer "could you vague that up for me?" Actually I'm not sure if she said that, I do know though, that I once said "with a 12 inch penis I will satisfy any woman", or did I?
I Don't know if there's any proof of me saying this(tickle tickle) however I'm fairly confident given your first quote in my post that you should now firmly believe that I have a 12 inch penis.
Is this some petty attempt at an insult, because it seems like it. Of the two of us, I have a tiny feeling that this statement, substituting the word alarmist for something just as silly, would be more suited to you.
I have done a mediocre amount of research on global warming. A lot of my knowledge on this subject is gleamed from an old professor of mine, who has been my friend for several years, and has a deep well of knowledge to share, which is generally a lot more interesting than this topic. He doesnt believe global warming, by the way. Not, however, for the reasons you don't believe it.
some scientists, not the. Also the some is actually very few. However that is not my issue, quantity doesn't prove anything. Which of course in this instance you will totally agree, of course when it comes to co2 suddenly the quantity of it is so vital. Which is a completely absurd idea.
My problem is your use of language. Its deliberately manipulative. Which is a typical sign when an argument is very weak. You see it in politics all the time. Another sign of a weak argument is when the same information is repeated over and over, but altered ever so slightly. Ok, that's a bit unfair..
Ok. I've noticed the global warming conspiracy theorists(looool) have a very difficult time when it comes to reading graphs, reading them accurately, and understanding the information being presented. So, lets do a little experiment in logic mr nerd4hire.
Midnight on saturday night we'll pour a glass of water, and put it on the kitchen counter. At 9am on sunday we'll check the waters temperature, again at 3pm, and again at 9pm. k?
At midnight sunday night, we'll take the glass of water and place it outside on the garden table. At 9am on monday morning we'll check the waters temperature, and at 3pm, and at 9pm.
There was glorious sunshine all through monday. The next day, however, it was cloudy. At 9am on Tuesday morning we'll check the waters temperature, and at 3pm, and at 9pm.
Pretty simple enough. We've got some information, we can do some basic stuff with it. Bear in mind, this exercise is about logic. I'm not suggesting in any way that this has anything to do with reading temperature, or global warming, or anything that is ultimately complex, this is an exercise in logic.
3pm on Monday, the water was at its hottest. 9 am on sunday, the water was at its coolest. The water had a hot peak, and it had a coldest point. If I was to follow the temperature of the water from start to finish, I could find the average temp for the water each day. This is a bit simpler. We've got 3 points each day, 3 temperatures. Put that into a graph and you can see, even though it peaked on monday, the average temperature for the water rises from sunday to tuesday.
God, I completely lost my way with this crap, but I've typed words and I can't be bothered deleting it, and finding a reasonable way to explain what I am saying. So let me end this little segment with, if you actually are smart you'll be able to figure out what I'm talking about.
Ok, shot two, a quickie.
Several billion years ago this planet hit a temperature high, using your reasoning, ever since then we have been in a cooling period, because the temperature never reached that height again, so the planet can't be warming.
Its very simple, look at any graph on global temperature for the past 20 years, that hasn't been grossly doctored, and you can clearly see that there is a steady rise. You can see it in Lindzens graph even though he desperately tries to mask it.
This is complete bullshit. The IPCC has continued to state that the temperature has risen.
To be honest, I fell asleep half way through Al Gore's movie. I found it overly sentimental.
The Great Global Warming Swindle, on the other hand, I watched from start to finish. It used old graphs and old information to fit in with their model, where more recent information contradicts what they're saying. At one point they actually took a graph and drew a fake line in it so it matched up with their suggestion about temperature and sunspots. The "documentary" was heavily critizised, and some of the scientists interviewed claimed that their interviews had been heavily edited to make their opinion look entirely different.
You know what, you're a smart guy, you must know all this.
nerd4hire
Certified Uncloneable
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Messages
- 9,102
I'm not sure I understand. Do you have a point, or are we just supposed to stand back, and be amazed by what you appear to be hoping is impressive rhetoric. I at least posted links to references. Try some of that. Something like a point might eventually surface.
The original point we were discussing was this one from you...
No, it hasn't. It hasn't by any standards you want to apply it. No, the IPCC has not said global temperatures have risen from 1998 to January through September 2008. Here's your chance to prove me wrong with an actual fact if you have one. Give me a link.
And on this one...
That was in reference to this link.
A note from Richard Lindzen on statistically significant warming Watts Up With That?
What are you talking about man? That's not a graph. It's an article concerning a world-renowned scientist with more staggering credentials than you, or your professor will ever hope to have saying there's been no warming since 97, and no statistical warming since 95. Now disagree with him if you like. By all means show me where his logic is flawed if that's what you believe, but don't tell me the article has something to do with my ability to read a graph, because although there is a graph in it, it's not a graph, it's an article. Geez, at least click the link if you want to critique it man.
The original point we were discussing was this one from you...
No, it hasn't. It hasn't by any standards you want to apply it. No, the IPCC has not said global temperatures have risen from 1998 to January through September 2008. Here's your chance to prove me wrong with an actual fact if you have one. Give me a link.
And on this one...
That was in reference to this link.
A note from Richard Lindzen on statistically significant warming Watts Up With That?
What are you talking about man? That's not a graph. It's an article concerning a world-renowned scientist with more staggering credentials than you, or your professor will ever hope to have saying there's been no warming since 97, and no statistical warming since 95. Now disagree with him if you like. By all means show me where his logic is flawed if that's what you believe, but don't tell me the article has something to do with my ability to read a graph, because although there is a graph in it, it's not a graph, it's an article. Geez, at least click the link if you want to critique it man.
Schillaci
Scooby
Try doing some actual research on the subject instead of reproducing tired old claims that have been rejected and disproved by experts around the world.
Lets put, into some perspective, what you are actually claiming. Global warming, and the theory that global warming is in some part contributed to, caused by human activity is a fraud. Its a bullshit claim specifically devised so that some scientists, and a lot of other people can make some cash...
Basically a LOT of experts, in LOTS of different fields are all LYING to essentially make themselves some extra dough. This makes global warming a conspiracy. Lots of people are involved, working together to convince the general public that we are contributing to the increase in tempertature of the earth...
Actually the original point we were discussing is your unsubstantiated claims that:
A: the global temperature is not increasing
You further added to this claim by saying that scientists know this and no longer contend that we is gettin' hotta.
Im not an idiot. I fully well know why you want me to post some links, or make specific claims, because you want something to attack. I tend not to do this. I tend to critizise the arguments put forward and not offer any of my own, because if Im not saying anything about my position, then you can't attack it, where I can sit back and nitpick at everything you say.
Ok, heres a link to the 'hockey stick'.. I'm just kidding, betya you'd love me to post that, gives you something to attack huh? ...
The truth is though, that I've seen what you have said on this subject, and you're using the same old tired arguments and false information that has been debunked and disproved so many times before. By experts in their field. If you would do a little research instead of just focusing, apparently, on websites, theories, and claims that are supposed only by the (few)people that think global warming is not contributed to by mankinds actions, you would come to realise how ludicrous your claims are.
Pretty much up there with 9/11 was an inside job, hiv doesnt cause aids, and that man has never set foot on the moon.
Since I'm being somewhat forced on my position, here is a link to the popular myths and misconceptions about global warming and climate change.
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - earth - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment
There's a lot of information on this, lots of links within each myth explored. Read it, all. and then get back to me.
If you want, ignore all the information gathered and skip to the current problem you seem to be having with the temperature.
Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998 - climate-change - 15 August 2008 - New Scientist Environment
What the **** are you talking about? I clicked on all your links, saw all the same old arguments that have been comprehensively proven to be groundless and absurd. I clicked the link you're talking about, there was short passgae by Richard Lindzen, offering his opinion, and beneath it there was a graph. BY the way, the is the same Richard Lindzen that smokes 50 fags a day and claims that smoking is not related to lung cancer.
Also, you have no idea what my education is, or what my credentials are. The fact of the matter is, that shouldn't even come into it. BUt if you want to weigh up all the credentials of all the experts, all the people that help these experts, and everyone associated with global warming, I think the education of one ludicrous little man pales in comparison. Please don't make any comparison with galileo. Its old and its stupid.
Same old arguments, seen them all before.
AvatarofTruth
Champion of the Semicolon
This is about Belief, and Playing Devil's Advocate to Win.
On an even lighter note, the last time the earth was heavily saturated in CO[sub]2[/sub], really big plants flourished, and so did really big dinosaurs.
Also, a nice little quote from my friend Steve the Engineer, PhD:
On an even lighter note, the last time the earth was heavily saturated in CO[sub]2[/sub], really big plants flourished, and so did really big dinosaurs.
Also, a nice little quote from my friend Steve the Engineer, PhD:
B
Blondie Bear
xkcd karma!
nerd4hire
Try this then. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hypothesis.
J
JenniferAlice
Guest
nerd4hire
Certified Uncloneable
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Messages
- 9,102
Schillaci, I could of course go through every line in your post, and address every misdirecting point, return each ad hominem in kind, and of course as you mentioned, pick apart those articles at the environmentalist ezine easy peasy. I've found that sort of stuff never works though. It simply allows the guy who made the original incorrect statement to misdirect away from responsibility for starting the argument with fallacious information.
So let's get back to that statement where you said global temperatures have risen since 1998. Not even the pro-warming side thinks so.
I already mentioned how IPCC chairman Rajendra Pauchauri admits to the temperature plateau this decade. Even the pro-AGW Reuters has reported him saying it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1171501720080111?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Speaking of pro-AGW media, you can't get anymore pro than the BBC. Even they were forced recently to admit global temperatures have not risen since 1998.
The World Meteorological Organisation serves under the UN. The same guys who oversee the IPCC.
I'll have to give you a link to something other than BBC for that one because the original was altered as a result of pressure from environmental activists. (Google Jo Abess BBC, you'll see what I mean). The statement from the WMO is still there in the now standing BBC article, but it's muddied down, and minimized with deceptive commentary. Anyway, here's the link where you can find the BBC original.
No rise in world temperatures for the past decade, UNs Weblog
I've got tons more. Seriously, you're about the only guy left who's kind of looked at the information, yet still believes temperatures have risen since 1998.
In fact, if you read the article you linked me too carefully you'll see not even they think temperatures have risen since 1998. What they give you is an explanation of why they don't think it matters.
Just admit you were wrong, and we can move on. I'd really like to get to this business of which scientists believe what, how many of them there are, and whether or not it matters.
BTW Lindzen never "claim(ed) that smoking is not related to lung cancer". He made a comment one time to effect the science; even that concerning red button issues such as passive smoking (second hand smoke) has to be credible in order to be accepted in the future.
Here's what we know about Richard Lindzen, for sure.
National Post Story
So let's get back to that statement where you said global temperatures have risen since 1998. Not even the pro-warming side thinks so.
I already mentioned how IPCC chairman Rajendra Pauchauri admits to the temperature plateau this decade. Even the pro-AGW Reuters has reported him saying it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1171501720080111?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Speaking of pro-AGW media, you can't get anymore pro than the BBC. Even they were forced recently to admit global temperatures have not risen since 1998.
The World Meteorological Organisation serves under the UN. The same guys who oversee the IPCC.
I'll have to give you a link to something other than BBC for that one because the original was altered as a result of pressure from environmental activists. (Google Jo Abess BBC, you'll see what I mean). The statement from the WMO is still there in the now standing BBC article, but it's muddied down, and minimized with deceptive commentary. Anyway, here's the link where you can find the BBC original.
No rise in world temperatures for the past decade, UNs Weblog
I've got tons more. Seriously, you're about the only guy left who's kind of looked at the information, yet still believes temperatures have risen since 1998.
In fact, if you read the article you linked me too carefully you'll see not even they think temperatures have risen since 1998. What they give you is an explanation of why they don't think it matters.
Just admit you were wrong, and we can move on. I'd really like to get to this business of which scientists believe what, how many of them there are, and whether or not it matters.
BTW Lindzen never "claim(ed) that smoking is not related to lung cancer". He made a comment one time to effect the science; even that concerning red button issues such as passive smoking (second hand smoke) has to be credible in order to be accepted in the future.
Here's what we know about Richard Lindzen, for sure.
National Post Story
AvatarofTruth
Champion of the Semicolon
Global warming or climate change has been politicized for decades. You can tell because in this entire thread no one has used any actual scientific data, presented anything other than opinion and conjecture. It reads like a political debate, because that's what it is.
Those of you, like me, who agree that climate change is a reality don't need to comfort yourselves by shouting ad nauseam at those who choose to ignore the evidence. They obviously haven't taken applied thermodynamics, wouldn't know a Dirac from a Gaussian equation, so how seriously can you really take their opinions?
Those of you, like me, who agree that climate change is a reality don't need to comfort yourselves by shouting ad nauseam at those who choose to ignore the evidence. They obviously haven't taken applied thermodynamics, wouldn't know a Dirac from a Gaussian equation, so how seriously can you really take their opinions?
nerd4hire
Yeah AGW has been politicized. That's why they try to call it climate change now.
nerd4hire
Certified Uncloneable
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Messages
- 9,102
Oh wow, really...are you him? Are you the guy who has actual real world science (not models) showing how CO2 is forcing climate in the real word to crisis levels? I've been looking for you. I've heard this stuff exists, but I can't find it.
Go ahead. I'm you're willing pupil. Show me.
I've had disappointments though. I've met false prophets. You're not one of those are you? The last "We are the science" guy I talked to just gave me a link to WG1 of the policy makers report. You're not going to do something lame like that are you? I mean, the IPCC report. Talk about politicized science.
Go ahead. I'm you're willing pupil. Show me.
I've had disappointments though. I've met false prophets. You're not one of those are you? The last "We are the science" guy I talked to just gave me a link to WG1 of the policy makers report. You're not going to do something lame like that are you? I mean, the IPCC report. Talk about politicized science.
Schillaci
Scooby
Dear god, I guess I have to look at this topic..
First of all, I am going to stress that I don't want to argue this, the fact of the matter is... well actually we will get to that later in my post. I just want to make it clear that I DO NOT want to 'debate' this topic.
Typing my response is going to take some time because my computer is running encredibley slow right now.
I should never have written what I did, because basically it gives you free reign to ignore everything I say and the links I post, and to carry on with your disinformation process, or your naivety. I'm not sure which is more true, I do know however that unlike me you are completely close minded and you're just not willing to consider a different point of view. THAT is, not only the fundamental difference in this argument, it is also the fundamental difference between us. I am willing to admit that I may be wrong about some things, you, on the other hand, are just way too arrogant to even consider such a possibility. Furthermore, if the members of this site had any integrity, decency, or penchant for the truth as I have, they would openly acknowledge this. As is always the case in modern society, the people on this site are ****ing cowards. YOU act, and react, the same way for every topic that you discuss, or deal with. You are right (whilst in this topic not submitting anything close to peer reviewed scientific reports), and no matter what, everybody else is wrong.
Wait a mintue here. This statement coming from someone who has claimed that global warming is a fraud without providing ONE shred of proof. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Thousands upon thousands of scientists in LOTS of different fields are all purposefully decieving the public, governments, media, etc to get more funding..
Jesus christ.. I mean I'm pretty imaginative, but I couldn't realistically make this up in a fantasy book and expect it to be published, or for people to buy it. How many peer reviewed anti global warming theories have there been? How many peer reviewed scientific reports on the effects of global warming has there been? By the way, contrary to popular opinion, 'global warming' and so much about it, is not a recent topic. It has been researched, essentially, for nearly a century. There are reports from the 1950's(and before) that suggest that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to increase in global temperatures.
For those of you that are too lazy to read, here is a video that touches on the extensive research that occured the last century. It also discusses the 'debate', the denial of AGW, where it originated from, etc..
YouTube - The American Denial of Global Warming
I can only apologise about the lady in this videos voice. It is really annoying, but please dont let that disuade you from watching the whole thing. If it gets too much, then pause it now and again, and go do something else. But do watch it.
This is a lie. Its not a clever lie, because if you do a meagre amount of research you will see that this fact is totally disputed to this day. In fact I have seen Bob Carter,(Robert Carter who denies Anthropogenic global warming. BTW, since I mentioned him, I would just like to say that I have a great deal of respect for Bob carter, and I think he is a highly intelligent man) state that it is nigh impossible to answer this question. Specifically "It depends", temperature on such a small scale is so difficult to use to any decent effect.
Ok, here is a link to global temperature:
NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data
If you read the previous link I posted, you will see that some temperature records, evidence, etc, is recorded while omitting the arctic ocean,(I think its the arctic, my computer is running so slowly, opening new pages is killing it. Im about 98% sure its the arctic) this accounts for a huge amount of surface temperature. These readings suggest that the surface temperature of the planet is in a stable period. It is not rising, it is not cooling. If you take 98 as you starting point, all the temperatures after it are lower. So it is easy to argue that temperature has decreased. If you take 91 as your starting point, all the temperatures after it are above. So you can easily say that the temperature has increased and is continuing to increase. The truth is, this is a tactic used by global warming denialists, and its pretty pathetic.
Ok, I'm will submit what I have written so far. I have a helluva lot more to write, and if certain people wait before responding I will finish what I have to submit.
First of all, I am going to stress that I don't want to argue this, the fact of the matter is... well actually we will get to that later in my post. I just want to make it clear that I DO NOT want to 'debate' this topic.
Typing my response is going to take some time because my computer is running encredibley slow right now.
I should never have written what I did, because basically it gives you free reign to ignore everything I say and the links I post, and to carry on with your disinformation process, or your naivety. I'm not sure which is more true, I do know however that unlike me you are completely close minded and you're just not willing to consider a different point of view. THAT is, not only the fundamental difference in this argument, it is also the fundamental difference between us. I am willing to admit that I may be wrong about some things, you, on the other hand, are just way too arrogant to even consider such a possibility. Furthermore, if the members of this site had any integrity, decency, or penchant for the truth as I have, they would openly acknowledge this. As is always the case in modern society, the people on this site are ****ing cowards. YOU act, and react, the same way for every topic that you discuss, or deal with. You are right (whilst in this topic not submitting anything close to peer reviewed scientific reports), and no matter what, everybody else is wrong.
Wait a mintue here. This statement coming from someone who has claimed that global warming is a fraud without providing ONE shred of proof. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Thousands upon thousands of scientists in LOTS of different fields are all purposefully decieving the public, governments, media, etc to get more funding..
Jesus christ.. I mean I'm pretty imaginative, but I couldn't realistically make this up in a fantasy book and expect it to be published, or for people to buy it. How many peer reviewed anti global warming theories have there been? How many peer reviewed scientific reports on the effects of global warming has there been? By the way, contrary to popular opinion, 'global warming' and so much about it, is not a recent topic. It has been researched, essentially, for nearly a century. There are reports from the 1950's(and before) that suggest that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to increase in global temperatures.
For those of you that are too lazy to read, here is a video that touches on the extensive research that occured the last century. It also discusses the 'debate', the denial of AGW, where it originated from, etc..
YouTube - The American Denial of Global Warming
I can only apologise about the lady in this videos voice. It is really annoying, but please dont let that disuade you from watching the whole thing. If it gets too much, then pause it now and again, and go do something else. But do watch it.
This is a lie. Its not a clever lie, because if you do a meagre amount of research you will see that this fact is totally disputed to this day. In fact I have seen Bob Carter,(Robert Carter who denies Anthropogenic global warming. BTW, since I mentioned him, I would just like to say that I have a great deal of respect for Bob carter, and I think he is a highly intelligent man) state that it is nigh impossible to answer this question. Specifically "It depends", temperature on such a small scale is so difficult to use to any decent effect.
Ok, here is a link to global temperature:
NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data
If you read the previous link I posted, you will see that some temperature records, evidence, etc, is recorded while omitting the arctic ocean,(I think its the arctic, my computer is running so slowly, opening new pages is killing it. Im about 98% sure its the arctic) this accounts for a huge amount of surface temperature. These readings suggest that the surface temperature of the planet is in a stable period. It is not rising, it is not cooling. If you take 98 as you starting point, all the temperatures after it are lower. So it is easy to argue that temperature has decreased. If you take 91 as your starting point, all the temperatures after it are above. So you can easily say that the temperature has increased and is continuing to increase. The truth is, this is a tactic used by global warming denialists, and its pretty pathetic.
Ok, I'm will submit what I have written so far. I have a helluva lot more to write, and if certain people wait before responding I will finish what I have to submit.
i dont no how true it is but i heard somewhere a few years back that the cows and volcanoes on the planet both singley produce more harmful gases that all of our cars anf factories put together.
as i said dont no how true it is....
i don't no where i stand on it really
as i said dont no how true it is....
i don't no where i stand on it really
Edmund Blackadder
Scooby
Oh my, do you guys want to know something?
I started this thread KNOWING N4H's position.
I didn't know Schillaci's BUT I was hoping, none the less, that I could somehow start this confrontation.
It has surpassed even my own expectations. Thank you SO much guys.
It was my little experiment to see if I could still start threads that would bring even the most respected members of the board down to a slagging match and again - surpassed my wildest.
N$H, some of your comments have been pretty close to the bone of an insult my friend.
Schillaci, always worth a read because not ONLY do you have the intelligence to attack people, you can do it on any level, using evidence or not.
Thank you guys so much.
I am happy again.
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]
Ohh and my actual stand - I don't actually care, if either side is correct then there really is a god damned thing we can do.
If the Anti-Warming group is indeed correct, they'll never sufficiently prove it so taxes will increase, prices will rise and I will STILL have to get out of my warm bed in the morning for work.
If the Activists are correct. well we're a planet with 6+ Billion people who need to live and will not give up creature comforts so easily. Thus temperatures will rise, animals will die out and I will STILL have to get out of my warm bed in the morning for work.
Worst case senario for me - I have another 40-60 years left on this planet. Not enough time for a real eco-shift AND as I don't plan to have children I don't have to save the planet for my descendants.
Either way - I am covered.
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]
Oh and yeah - the reason I don't want kids is evident in my last post...far too selfish to look after another human being, let alone a child
I started this thread KNOWING N4H's position.
I didn't know Schillaci's BUT I was hoping, none the less, that I could somehow start this confrontation.
It has surpassed even my own expectations. Thank you SO much guys.
It was my little experiment to see if I could still start threads that would bring even the most respected members of the board down to a slagging match and again - surpassed my wildest.
N$H, some of your comments have been pretty close to the bone of an insult my friend.
Schillaci, always worth a read because not ONLY do you have the intelligence to attack people, you can do it on any level, using evidence or not.
Thank you guys so much.
I am happy again.
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]
Ohh and my actual stand - I don't actually care, if either side is correct then there really is a god damned thing we can do.
If the Anti-Warming group is indeed correct, they'll never sufficiently prove it so taxes will increase, prices will rise and I will STILL have to get out of my warm bed in the morning for work.
If the Activists are correct. well we're a planet with 6+ Billion people who need to live and will not give up creature comforts so easily. Thus temperatures will rise, animals will die out and I will STILL have to get out of my warm bed in the morning for work.
Worst case senario for me - I have another 40-60 years left on this planet. Not enough time for a real eco-shift AND as I don't plan to have children I don't have to save the planet for my descendants.
Either way - I am covered.
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]
Oh and yeah - the reason I don't want kids is evident in my last post...far too selfish to look after another human being, let alone a child