Oops on global warming

JoSixChip said:

??? Please provide link where "they were exonerated"

Click to expand...

even fox news ran the story. however, for some odd reason, they ran it exceedingly less than the original (and false) controversy.

must be that damn liberal media, eh?

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

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0707/Climate-scientists-exonerated-in-climategate-but-public-trust-damaged

JoSixChip said:

I would say that every conservative I know is a environmentalist, you can tell by the way they act and live. I also know a lot of liberals who claim to be environmentalist and demand that we change our way of life to protect the environment. But I would sugest you watch their actions rather then listen to their reteric. For example, take a look at what the capital in Wisconsin looked like after the Union protest and compaire that with the grounds after a TEA Party event.

Click to expand...

while false, your comments also miss the mark completely.

your point has nothign to do with the well-established scientific thesis that climate is changing at an abnormal pace, and that humans are at least partially responsible for this.

way to be a partisan hack, however.

jeff f said:

wow, nice emotion...

Click to expand...

cool substantive rebuttal, bro.

i bet you are oozing with gray matter, eh?

UncleBuck said:

while false, your comments also miss the mark completely.

your point has nothign to do with the well-established scientific thesis that climate is changing at an abnormal pace, and that humans are at least partially responsible for this.

way to be a partisan hack, however.

Click to expand...

I'm reviewing you links now.

But as to your assertion that the climate is changing at an abnormal pace, based on what, relative to what? What is normal? This is a ridiculous assertion, even for you. There have been times in the earth's history where the climate has changed at rates far exceeding the current rate. Take a look at the dark ages. Better yet take a look at the change in seasons.

UncleBuck said:

even fox news ran the story. however, for some odd reason, they ran it exceedingly less than the original (and false) controversy.

must be that damn liberal media, eh?

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

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0707/Climate-scientists-exonerated-in-climategate-but-public-trust-damaged

Click to expand...

This was the case of the professors that were involved with the deception and manipulation of the data investigating them selves. If you whant to see a blow by blow account of what they did I sugest you go to youtube and search for "Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller". This is the whole problem with the BS, there is no credibility, and honest evaluation of the data results in totally inconclusive findings one way or the other. The earths climate hase been in a constant state of change for over 4.5 billion years and to claim that man is causing any change based on a 1% change over a few decades is ludicrous in it's self. Looking at data that represents less then a micro fraction of earths history and claiming you can isolate the cause of any change is insane. They cannot predict the weather next week but you beileve they can predict it 10 years from now. Your belief in this garbage makes no sense.

I know you are beyond reasoning with but here are a couple of links:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/24/the-telegraph-gets-it-about-climatgate-inestigations-and-the-conflict-of-interest-of-publicly-funded-media/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

JoSixChip said:

This global warming stuff has me concerned, it's like a 2 degree average change over 100 years. If you project that out over the next 1,000 years that's like a 20 degree average temperature increase. That got me thinking that maybe it was being caused by something else, like the earth's rotation. So as of last December I have been measuring the length of a day and comparing that with the length of nights. What I have found over the last four months is quite startling, the days are getting longer and the nights are getting shorter. I can definitively say that by the end of the next decade we will be in constant daylight. My measurements are completely accurate so my conclusion must be as well, right?

Click to expand...

Omg I totally thought you were serious there for awhile for the whole first half, than I got through and I was like WHOA didn't see that coming hahahaha. Sorry little medicated

UncleBuck said:

you may want to check the temperature record. you only have it 100% completely backwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

take a look and notice that each of the last 10 years, each and every one, has been among the hottest ever recorded.

derp dee der.

you're funny.

Click to expand...

You can always tell when Buck is rolling out debunked progressive data that supports his laughable position by the addition of his little "derp dee der". Almost every time I've read it, it has followed some statement that makes him look like a complete idiot. Keep it up, we find you amusing, just like a monkey flinging poo.

You see there's a big difference when you don't use data gathered by sensors placed next to asphalt parking lots and machinery giving off exhaust.

I won't list the first 5,000 articles that show you're an idiot (there are far, far more), it's as pointless as you listing ANYTHING by wiki (lol). For EVERY site you
can show "proving" your position I can show you just as many "proving" yours are full of shit.

UncleBuck said:

are you still bringing up 'climategate'? they were exonerated, ya know.

as far as the intentions of climatologists, let's look at the most prominent ones advocating that climate change is not at least partially man made. they are bought and paid for by oil companies, just the same way scientists who contested the danger of cigarettes decades ago.

there is vast agreement between scientists that yes, the climate is changing at an accelerated rate, and that yes, man is behind it to at least some degree.

Click to expand...

I already acknowledged that both sets of scientists are bought and paid for. Do I think personally that "man made" global warming is real? No. Is smog real?...sure. Fly into LAX. I don't think anyone is advocating polution. However, industrialized nations like China don't give a shit...not to mention these 3rd world countries we are supposed to be redistributing western wealth to. The whole thing stinks like a scam under the guise of morality. The bottom line is two fold:
1) We are not melting
2) The "science" is not conclusive enough to justify this issue's political consequences

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

we need to exploit the idea of cheap, renewable, sustainable energy and profit from it (oil won't last forever).

no matter your position on man made climate change, you need to concede the need to move away from finite (and often foreign) oil and towards sustainable energy.

Click to expand...

So, it would seem the "problem" is poised to correct itself then. We will most likely run out of fossil fuels before anything substantial were to happen (if it were indeed to happen). Rather than focusing on treaties and loss of autonomy perhaps they should incentivize more engineering.

nope. we are quite solid, i agree.
likewise science has no place in political arenas since it tends to deal only with solid facts

saying man made made global warming isn't real is absurd though....
seriously....just feel your own arm....is it warm?
yep.
it radiates the heat to the environment?
yep...you felt it
would that heat have radiated out if you didn't exist?

you claim yes.
and i don't see how.

thermal pollution is only now beginning to be poked at anyways
plus thermodynamics kind of insists our activities tend to raise the temp of our local systems
from mere breathing and digesting food all the way up to our highest tech....we add heat to everything

stick your hand on an engine block after mowing the lawn....

go ahead, tell me it ain't hot and/or the heat somehow bypasses being captured in some part by the atmosphere raising the local temps ever so slightly

let's make it easy...something we can all do to see for our very selves
something tangible...the common jane/joe understands not the complexities of invisible undetectable (to them anyways) gasses

go stand in a small cramped closet (this will represent your environment) and see how long it takes for it to get uncomfortably warm

now try the experiment again but stuff 3 friends in there with you (increase the population)...dutifully record the time difference from the first experiment

there's a pattern i assure you...bear with me.

try the experiment AGAIN but this time have one of your friends light a hand full of paper on fire (representing the activities of progress)...again due diligence is important
it is critical you remain unbiased and record the time it takes to reach a level of discomfort

at this time one may wish to test a wider range of environmental factors such as age/health of populations, other toxins, humidity, jumping jacks, starting temps and so on

allow others to run their own experiments to verify your own results.
it's all very simple in the end....we add heat to our environment by just BEING there, never mind when we start to do stuff

we live on the globe....global warming is very real

EDIT:
the only thing at odds are how fast/slow and/or detrimental it is
that depends on the person talking

you don't give a shit about anything past your own limited future then yeah, it'd be easy to say, "hey that's a load of horse shit"
cause you'd be right.
those of us who want us to outlast our solar system though are not going to agree
and we'd be right too.

Very interesting and thoughtful example, Chubby. However, I don't think it is an accurate comparison to how man can affect the climate.

I think a more appropriate experiment would be:

Fill a large cast iron bathtub with room temperature water. Place 999 lit Bunsen burners under said tub and record the temperature data over a set time frame.

Now repeat the experiment with one additional Bunsen burner and record the temperature data for the same amount of time. Do you think there will be a measurable difference? I don't.

An even more accurate experiment might be to take a tub of water and fling a lit match into it and record the change in temperature of the water. No one can argue that the lit match wasn't hot and it probably did change the temperature of the water, but was it enough of a change to ban the production of matches? That is exactly how ludicrous the arguments of MMGW sound.

MrDank007 said:

Follow the money

Click to expand...

And the prize goes to MrDank, follow follow follow the money. Climates scientists and governments interested in changing everything for their socialist purposes = a couple of billion
Energy companies, auto companies, transportation companies, pipleline companies interested in keeping things as the status quo = ten or twelve trillion.

the biggest controller of climate is the rainforest. Save the rainforest save the world

canndo said:

And the prize goes to MrDank, follow follow follow the money. Climates scientists and governments interested in changing everything for their socialist purposes = a couple of billion
Energy companies, auto companies, transportation companies, pipleline companies interested in keeping things as the status quo = ten or twelve trillion.

Click to expand...

the above is true, always follow the money

I gave my official "this is why you believe what you believe" speech in some other thread. I'll shorten it up a bit here. Those who, are not scientists but lay people who believe that there just can't be any global warming believe the way they do due to the efforts of an organization called the Global Climate Coalition. Look it up, they too their playbook from the Tobacco industry because it worked then and it works now.

Indeed...this is a more accurate example...however, you have forgotten "something we can all do to see for our very selves"

ordinary people simply can't fathom such large numbers nor possess instruments sensitive enough to record anything of value
we must regrettably roughen up our cherished ways and rise to their level of the world at large...

allow our dear friend to explain it better for us..
[video=youtube;Y0Z0raWIHXk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Z0raWIHXk[/video]

while not everyone may have a cramped closet in which to experiment with, many other small areas may be substituted....in fact the whole global warming experiment can be carried out by imagination alone using objects and numbers we deal with in real life

empirical data? nope.
i'm afraid fancy shit like that is just gibberish to folks like me....i believe what i experience first and fore most...flawed as it may be
pretty sure we outnumber the rest of you too....


global warming is a real deal...heat moves...we make tons of it
how important the matter really is.just depends how far down the road you look

Three years after former Vice President Gore won a Nobel Prize for sounding the alarm on climate change and GE joined a coalition of companies pushing for a cap on greenhouse gases. Public concern is flagging, along with U.S. and global efforts to mount government responses. The UN panel, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore, has been faulted for exaggerating the pace at which Himalayan glaciers are melting and for using reports by environmental advocacy groups as a basis for some findings.

Polls find more Americans questioning whether human activity is leading to climate change, or whether the trend is so dire as to justify reshaping U.S. energy use during an economic slump. The consensus of anybody who studies American opinion has to be that there’s less concern, rather than more, on global warming.

But apparently we need highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, a new class of experts, and more buearucrats. Not regarding everything that has ever happened on this earth results in the conditions of today. The question is whether man made global warming of late "caused" a noteworthy increase. Precursors are often sought out by the advocates of irresponsible management.

MrDank007 said:

Three years after former Vice President Gore won a Nobel Prize for sounding the alarm on climate change and GE joined a coalition of companies pushing for a cap on greenhouse gases. Public concern is flagging, along with U.S. and global efforts to mount government responses. The UN panel, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore, has been faulted for exaggerating the pace at which Himalayan glaciers are melting and for using reports by environmental advocacy groups as a basis for some findings.

Polls find more Americans questioning whether human activity is leading to climate change, or whether the trend is so dire as to justify reshaping U.S. energy use during an economic slump. The consensus of anybody who studies American opinion has to be that there’s less concern, rather than more, on global warming.

But apparently we need highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, a new class of experts, and more buearucrats. Not regarding everything that has ever happened on this earth results in the conditions of today. The question is whether man made global warming of late "caused" a noteworthy increase. Precursors are often sought out by the advocates of irresponsible management.

Click to expand...

Again, look into a now defunct PR group called the Global Climate Coalition. There you will find how a group of people cast doubt among the lay about global warming, for their own sake and not for the sake of truth. This is the core of why you believe what you believe and why those uninformed in the population believe as they do. Polls only tend to prove what I say.

luckandleather said:

the biggest controller of climate is the rainforest. Save the rainforest save the world

Click to expand...

BZZT... WRONGO!!!

The biggest controller of the climate is the .... SUN!!! OMFG WHAT A CONCEPT!!!

The 2nd biggest controller of the climate is the ... OCEANS!!! The oceans cover 80% of the planet and the plankton living on the surface of the oceans have a huge effect on the intake of CO2 and emission of Oxygen.

I am gonna guess the rainforest comes in about 20th except to those environmental wacko's that like to romanticize about it.