Global Warming: We just make the Numbers up!

[redsox39]

LMAO!!!!

[/URL]

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/graphics/2008/11/16/asnow.jpgA sudden cold snap brought snow to London in October
[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=6795&menuItemId=10317&view=PICHEADLINESUMMARY&grid=F7&targetRule=15"]Read more from Christopher Booker (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml) This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) and Climate Audit (http://www.climateaudit.org/), began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml)

And to Quote Simon "And why not? Everybody knows global warming is real, so why bother fiddling around with stupid facts and dumb evidence? If anybody questions you, just yell at them for killing the planet until they shut up. It’s been working great so far."

[redsox39]

Big Oil must have gotten to the London Telegraph too!! I can't believe it!

Does anyone really buy this crap any More? You know the "Globalwarmingcoolingclimate change"WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE" stuff?

[IdiotBrain]

Everyone with half a brain knows that global warming is complete bullshit.

For those with >half a brain go ahead and keep buying carbon credits. Then slip in a puddle of AIDS and die.

[Archangel]

You silly man.

"Global warming" can actually mean that temperatures can drop regionally! That's the beauty of it, that no matter what happens, you can say that it's a part of it!

Geez, some people...

[Jackcraver]

Fuck Global warming

I just love it when they have their meetings and an unexpected snow storm hits.

[Stax]

Seriously, do you understand why the proper term is "climate change" and not "global warming"? Because unexpected weather is the symptom, not unexpected weather of a certain variety.

[IdiotBrain]

Seriously, do you understand why the proper term is "weather" and "nature" not "global warming"? Because unexpected weather is the symptom, not unexpected weather of a certain variety.


edited for accuracy

[Archangel]

Then they should have named it correctly.

But I guess that then, they were too busy talking about how an additional .2°F would turn St Louis into an ocean resort.

[Jackcraver]

The climate of our world has changed drastically many different times. We have had 2 ace ages, and multiple hotter periods before, in between, and after. I understand that humans may be adding to the effects of whatever climate change the earth is transitioning to. However, I have to disagree with "global warming enthusiasts" that say we are to blame for our current temperature changes. The world will cool down and heat up in it's own cycles, and nothing we are doing is drastically helping or hindering that process.

[Yelram]

Seriously, do you understand why the proper term is "climate change" and not "global warming"? Because unexpected weather is the symptom, not unexpected weather of a certain variety.

Well they called in global warming until the evidence started piling up against them, then they called it "climate change", which is so ambiguous it could be referring to the change of the seasons.

[Stax]

The climate of our world has changed drastically many different times. We have had 2 ace ages, and multiple hotter periods before, in between, and after. I understand that humans may be adding to the effects of whatever climate change the earth is transitioning to. However, I have to disagree with "global warming enthusiasts" that say we are to blame for our current temperature changes. The world will cool down and heat up in it's own cycles, and nothing we are doing is drastically helping or hindering that process.

The world warms and cools over a cycle that lasts thousands of years. The rate at which temperature has shifted in the industrial age is unprecedented, and exactly one thing is different about that era to all others before it. Industrialized man.

[Yelram]

The world warms and cools over a cycle that lasts thousands of years. The rate at which temperature has shifted in the industrial age is unprecedented, and exactly one thing is different about that era to all others before it. Industrialized man.

According to what? Ice core samples and fucking tree rings? STFU. There are no temperature records that are even remotely accurate to compare against. Sun spot cycles arent exactly consistent you know.

[redsox39]

Seriously, do you understand why the proper term is "climate change" and not "global warming"? Because unexpected weather is the symptom, not unexpected weather of a certain variety.


So what is the name for people who claim a crisis, then fib to make the data work?

I don't know, but the even dumber people who keep believing it have to have a worse name.

[redsox39]

The world warms and cools over a cycle that lasts thousands of years. The rate at which temperature has shifted in the industrial age is unprecedented, and exactly one thing is different about that era to all others before it. Industrialized man.


Yeah, Ice core samples give you an accurate global tempurature reading down the tenth pf a degree.

That is like carbon dating something down the the Second is was created.

You really buy this crap Stax. We have our differences, but I always thought you were smarter than this.

They get busted lying and fibbing all the time, and you still take everything hook line and sinker.

"And why not? Everybody knows global warming is real, so why bother fiddling around with stupid facts and dumb evidence? If anybody questions you, just yell at them for killing the planet until they shut up. It’s been working great so far."

[redsox39]

I guess this was less controversial than I thought...

[riseabove!]

Climate changes take hundred (if not thousands) of years and a few degree (relatively) change in one month don't mean jack shit

[Feng]

Global Warming is real, Roland Emmerich says so... And the world will end in 2012.

[Da Raider]

once scientists realize that if they scream "the sky is falling!" enough, they will get more funding, thus they go from "open minded" to pushing agendas and policies. I find it comical that the scientific community claims to know every damn thing about Global Warming when, at best, it's a theory with gaping holes in it. Let's just call it like it really is. There are climate/global changes going on and we have unproven theories as to why. Man could have an effect on the environment, but what they refuse to even discuss is even more plausible, it's cyclical.

[Claydon]

Wait wait wait wait..........the government failed?

Inconceivable!

[mongo]

who fucking cares, it'll be our kids and our grandkids that have to deal w/ this shit anyway. won't bother us one tiny bit.

[Nosebuckle]

The sun has nothing to do with climate patterns....nothing.

[freegood]

The libruhl science media establishmint disagrees.
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=global-warming-data-blunder-worth-t-2008-11-18
Global warming data blunder: Worth the fuss?



Despite broad consensus (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-behind-climate-change) on the existence, origins and potentially catastrophic effects of global warming, a vocal minority continues to question the motives, methods and assumptions of climate scientists (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=updating-the-science-of-global-warming) sounding the alarm. So when temperature data released by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), one of the leading monitors of climate change, showed an unusually warm October, climate change skeptics cried foul.

As it turned out, the GISS data were flawed. The relatively minor glitch was fixed and the figures updated. End of story? Of course not. Climate change skeptic Anthony Watts called the mistake a "data train wreck" in his blog. Global warming denier Christopher Booker, in a column (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml) in the U.K.'s conservative Telegraph, called the error a "surreal scientific blunder."

Reality check: GISS climate modeler Gavin Schmidt notes (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/) on the blog RealClimate.org that the problem occurred because a small but significant percentage of the hundreds of weather stations scattered around the globe mistakenly reported September instead of October temps. Hence, the seeming but erroneously higher global average. In an attempt to highlight the gaffe, Booker declared: "Across the world there were reports of unseasonal [sic] snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its 'worst snowstorm ever.'"

What Booker fails to mention—apart from the folly of relying on anecdotal evidence—is that even the corrected figures show one of the hottest Octobers on record. (This fact, and many others pertaining to Booker's article, are neatly addressed by blogger Tim Lambert (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/mountains_out_of_molehills.php).) It's also worth noting that Booker was recently dubbed the "patron saint of charlatans" by the left-leaning Guardian newspaper for his views questioning both global warming and the documented health hazards of asbestos (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health), a known carcinogen.

Booker claims that the flub "raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming." Fact: The error was caught and fixed within a matter of days by eagle-eyed bloggers and commenters (Schmidt credits one of Watts's readers with alerting him to the problem) and supports long-published data suggesting that the globe is warming dramatically and will have consequences if it is not slowed or reversed. It's always distressing to discover an error in scientific data, and GISS may consider implementing stricter oversight. The bottom line: these figures were but a minor part of the climate change picture—and did little to change the equation.

The fact remains that October was significant for its high temperatures relative to the historical record. In other words, the example that climate skeptics seized upon to poke holes in the evidence of climate change served only to confirm that the world is warming because of humans' actions.

[Archangel]

So they're not liars, but just incompetent.


Yeah, I'd entrust the future of our industry to a bunch of people who cannot tell the difference between September and October.

[UNC]

Plus...who knows what other data is faulty.

[riseabove!]

turns out asbestos actually cures cancer, that would be a twist

[Archangel]

So if the creeps is rise_above, who the fuck are you?

[taters]

GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT SIMPLY MEAN ITS WARMER EVERYWHERE, IT MEANS THE ATMOSPHERE RETAINS MORE HEAT ON AVERAGE.

I cant believe the stupidity in america nowadays. Oh, the term given to it is
global warming', so it MUST mean that the globe is getting warmer! No, its FAR more complex than that.

And the second amendment gives us the right to the front legs of grizzly bears, and the german national socialist party were nationalist and socialists, and the holy roman empire was a sanctified imperial remnant of Rome.

Its just a fucking name people.

Seriously. HOW fucking stupid are people in this country??!

[IdiotBrain]

GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT SIMPLY MEAN ITS WARMER EVERYWHERE, IT MEANS THE ATMOSPHERE RETAINS MORE HEAT ON AVERAGE.

I cant believe the stupidity in america nowadays. Oh, the term given to it is
global warming', so it MUST mean that the globe is getting warmer! No, its FAR more complex than that.

And the second amendment gives us the right to the front legs of grizzly bears, and the german national socialist party were nationalist and socialists, and the holy roman empire was a sanctified imperial remnant of Rome.

Its just a fucking name people.

Seriously. HOW fucking stupid are people in this country??!


About as stupid as you.

[redsox39]

GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT SIMPLY MEAN ITS WARMER EVERYWHERE, IT MEANS THE ATMOSPHERE RETAINS MORE HEAT ON AVERAGE.

I cant believe the stupidity in america nowadays. Oh, the term given to it is
global warming', so it MUST mean that the globe is getting warmer! No, its FAR more complex than that.

And the second amendment gives us the right to the front legs of grizzly bears, and the german national socialist party were nationalist and socialists, and the holy roman empire was a sanctified imperial remnant of Rome.

Its just a fucking name people.

Seriously. HOW fucking stupid are people in this country??!

As soon as you admit that Racisim has nothing to do with Race, you can make that point.

Its just a name.

But to quote me Does anyone really buy this crap any More? You know the "Globalwarmingcoolingclimate change"WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE" stuff?

I get it. and if what you said is true, why change the name everytime the Data changes if the "name" already fits the data?

In anycase, it is crap, you believe it because you eat out of the hands of government whenever you can.

(unless they disagree with you, then they are rightwing agendas aiming to bring down the black man and silence the left)

Seriously, do you use common sense even once a day?

[kid_vidrio]

I read or hear at least one article a day about things that are going awry do to extended elevation in global temps.
Part of the reason so many people are still in denial about all this is because of the suppression of science that has been the Bush Co. policy.
Dying forests and ecosystems, there is a reason the DoD rates global warming above terrorism in terms of a threat to the US, let alone the world.

Put your head back in the sand now.

[redsox39]

I read or hear at least one article a day about things that are going awry do to extended elevation in global temps.
Part of the reason so many people are still in denial about all this is because of the suppression of science that has been the Bush Co. policy.
Dying forests and ecosystems, there is a reason the DoD rates global warming above terrorism in terms of a threat to the US, let alone the world.

Put your head back in the sand now.


OMG!!! The world is CHANGING!!!Its NEVER done THIS before!

Of course the DoD is worried about it. They have maps, and technology that depends on things staying pretty much the same. Mother Nature doesn't give a damn about the DoD or the US or China or whoever.

Shit changes, living things have to adapt. I would have loved to see some of the excuses and reasons if this society was around when Pangea spread apart, or the Ice Age, or the Dust Bowl, or when the Dinosaurs disappeared.


The Earth changes, tempuratures change.

My favorite part about this topic? Everyone is scared to change their mind. Sure, I bought this crap back in Jr. High and most of high school. But I was not such a chicken shit to realize that NOTHING they have said in the last (now)20 years has happened. Nothing.

And don;t give that crap about the name change encompasses more than just warming. The WHOLE concept of it for 15 years was, C02 in the atmosphere trapped in heat and melted ice caps and made world wide temps go up. Well, as it became obvious this wasn't happening, they had to go with a whole nother approch and media blitz with Movies like "Day After Tomorrow" and talk about "Global Climate change".

Seriously, buying this crap is like going to a bad psychic. She's wrong everytime, but you keep paying her in case she is right one time. Or one time she might get lucky.

Oh, and she keeps raising the rates.

Just plain retarded.

[Limp]

Just plain retarded.
Everything you come here to argue about on a daily basis is retarded.

Not to say I don't agree with you or you are wrong, just the topic is retarded regardless of which side you take.


CHANGE YOUR MIND! I AM A SMART PERSON ON THE INTERNET AND YOU ARE WRONG! LOOK AT MY UNBIASES SOURCES! CHANGE YOUR MIND RIGHT NOW!!!!!!

[kid_vidrio]

As someone who grew up outside, I have a particular fondness for nature and nature's God.
Sadly, the 'change' that everyone says is so 'natural' is being expedited due to carelessness and apathy. This means that within a single lifetime, I will not be able to share some things with my kid, let alone my grandkids, experiences I had. That pisses me off. I care more for nature than TV-watching-ignorant-suburban-douchebags. So let it change, let it change quick and hopefully most of you will die and leave the planet to people who give a shit.

[redsox39]

Just plain retarded.
Everything you come here to argue about on a daily basis is retarded.

Not to say I don't agree with you or you are wrong, just the topic is retarded regardless of which side you take.


CHANGE YOUR MIND! I AM A SMART PERSON ON THE INTERNET AND YOU ARE WRONG! LOOK AT MY UNBIASES SOURCES! CHANGE YOUR MIND RIGHT NOW!!!!!!

That is my point...I don't think people change their minds...I have seen lots of thoughtful debate and points on here do nothing. (I know, but you can find it if you look carefully).

As far as Global Warming goes...even the Global Warming machine doesn't buy its own garbage. Even Al Gore's website has footnote that make you chuckle.
example of a Laugher on the FIRST page...

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

Laugher Point 1. "scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence"
Footnote on bottom: "this era of global warming is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin"
Translation: there is a possibility that 100% of the warming(?) this time, is probably not natural, maybe.

I think that the silencing of science that is most disturbing is the Left silencing all critics of all walks of life if you don't fall in line, science and facts be damned.

Blaming the Bush Admin for not giving more money to research Global warming is like blaming the Bush Admin for not researching Astrology a little closer.

There is not enough evidence of ANYTHING to promote an increase over the Billions that are already being spent.

What people like to notice is that "Big Oil" is a Multi-Billion dollar industry doing everything in its power to supress "science" using Lawyers and congressmen to do their dirty work.

What people fail to realize, is that while smaller, the "We're all gonna die Enviromentist Movement" is ALSO a Multi Billion dollar industry that don't even produce a product or results.

So they can spend ALL their money on press releases, Lawyers and congressmen to do THEIR dirt work as well.

I encourage all of you to buy some Carbon credits...

[redsox39]

As someone who grew up outside, I have a particular fondness for nature and nature's God.
Sadly, the 'change' that everyone says is so 'natural' is being expedited due to carelessness and apathy. This means that within a single lifetime, I will not be able to share some things with my kid, let alone my grandkids, experiences I had. That pisses me off. I care more for nature than TV-watching-ignorant-suburban-douchebags. So let it change, let it change quick and hopefully most of you will die and leave the planet to people who give a shit.

That is just plain ignornant. Who doesn't want 100 MPG cars? Who doesn't want lightbulbs that last forever? Who doesn't want wildlife and nature to prosper?

I sure as fuck do, and guess what? You don't have to lie to me, or scare me to do it.

Just take a look at Yellowstone park to see the damage people like you cause by trying to control nature and keep everything the same.

Or take a look at the history of the SW United States before the "white" man and his nature killing practices came in town. That place dried up, changed, and the entire ecosystem disappeared in a matter of a few hundred years WITHOUT the help of indistrialized man.

It just kills me that people today are so arrogant that they think we can preserve Nature in a perfect state, or at least keep it from ever changing and that the perfect state of Nature is what is was when they were 10. It is always changing and people have had to adapt or die.

Today? We would be putting up dams all over the place to prevent the "Errosion of the Grand Canyon" caused by people using boats on the Colorado River.

"When I was a kid, you could see the trees near the top of the Canyon, now, it has dropped another 10 feet and you can't see anything but ugly rock and now that the soil is being washed away, the trees are disappearing too!"

Sorry Grandpa, the world turns...

[kid_vidrio]

That is just plain ignornant. Who doesn't want 100 MPG cars? Who doesn't want lightbulbs that last forever? Who doesn't want wildlife and nature to prosper?

I sure as fuck do, and guess what? You don't have to lie to me, or scare me to do it.

Just take a look at Yellowstone park to see the damage people like you cause by trying to control nature and keep everything the same.

Or take a look at the history of the SW United States before the "white" man and his nature killing practices came in town. That place dried up, changed, and the entire ecosystem disappeared in a matter of a few hundred years WITHOUT the help of indistrialized man.

It just kills me that people today are so arrogant that they think we can preserve Nature in a perfect state, or at least keep it from ever changing and that the perfect state of Nature is what is was when they were 10. It is always changing and people have had to adapt or die.

Today? We would be putting up dams all over the place to prevent the "Errosion of the Grand Canyon" caused by people using boats on the Colorado River.

"When I was a kid, you could see the trees near the top of the Canyon, now, it has dropped another 10 feet and you can't see anything but ugly rock and now that the soil is being washed away, the trees are disappearing too!"

Sorry Grandpa, the world turns...
Hey fuck head, you know nothing about 'people like me.' In fact, you seem to know nothing.
I really have no idea what point you are trying to make.
It just kills me that people today are so uninformed that they think such rapid change is inevitable and just part of 'change.'

[redsox39]

What rapid change?

Last I checked, we have the same "global Temps" as 20 years ago right now. Not that global temps mean anything since weather and climate is local, but just to stick with the ridiculous theme...

Unless you mean the "hottest" October on record, which turned out the be bullshit since the data came from August.

Maybe you mean the fact that Glaciers are growing? and that includes more Glacial Mass on the 200+ glaciers in California?

Or maybe it is the fact that the globe is cooling right now to put us back to where we were when you were a kid.

Must be all those Carbon credits finally paying off, lol.

[Yelram]

I read or hear at least one article a day about things that are going awry do to extended elevation in global temps.
Part of the reason so many people are still in denial about all this is because of the suppression of science that has been the Bush Co. policy.
Dying forests and ecosystems, there is a reason the DoD rates global warming above terrorism in terms of a threat to the US, let alone the world.

Put your head back in the sand now.

Oh god, you are such a sucker. You alarmists remind me of people in who used to believe in "rain gods" and the such, and that we must sacrifice animals to prevent the oncoming doom of the weather gods. Ignorant, pompous, and down right DANGEROUS speculation. We could go into a cycle of global cooling, and your time spent robbing us of fossil fuels will be responsible for more human deaths than the holocaust. There are so many more pressing environmental issues than CO2, that any government organization wasting money on a reduction in CO2 should be held liable for the other environmental catastrophes that noone wants to mention (PLASTICS AHEM)

[taters]

GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT SIMPLY MEAN ITS WARMER EVERYWHERE, IT MEANS THE ATMOSPHERE RETAINS MORE HEAT ON AVERAGE.

I cant believe the stupidity in america nowadays. Oh, the term given to it is
global warming', so it MUST mean that the globe is getting warmer! No, its FAR more complex than that.

And the second amendment gives us the right to the front legs of grizzly bears, and the german national socialist party were nationalist and socialists, and the holy roman empire was a sanctified imperial remnant of Rome.

Its just a fucking name people.

Seriously. HOW fucking stupid are people in this country??!

As soon as you admit that Racisim has nothing to do with Race, you can make that point.

Its just a name.



Funny you say that, because in the bigger picture, it doesnt. It has to do with Power. Who retains it in the social sense, who can inflict it, who can use it and who cannot.

Thats a whole big other can of worms, I wont go into it here (will you guys stop with the 'make everything about race' arguments...you guys were bitching when I came close to that, now your all doing it).

The point is, dont confuse a symptom with the disease (or better put, the epidemic).

Hotter summers in many places is one symptom. Colder winters are another (all studies and research and even popular media on the topic state this).

As I said, its just a name. 'Global Warming' does not exactly mean everywhere is warmer all the time. Just like (as I said) the national socialist were not national or socialist, and the holy roman empire was not holy, or roman, or an empire.

[Archangel]

Um, I'm pretty sure that it was an empire. Charles V Habsburg is telling you to go fuck yourself.

[kid_vidrio]

What rapid change?

Last I checked, we have the same "global Temps" as 20 years ago right now. Not that global temps mean anything since weather and climate is local, but just to stick with the ridiculous theme...

Unless you mean the "hottest" October on record, which turned out the be bullshit since the data came from August.

Maybe you mean the fact that Glaciers are growing? and that includes more Glacial Mass on the 200+ glaciers in California?

Or maybe it is the fact that the globe is cooling right now to put us back to where we were when you were a kid.

Must be all those Carbon credits finally paying off, lol.
Like I said, no clue at all.
Erosion, desertification, increased acidity, threatened fresh water supplies, aspens in the rockies, crocs, the list goes on and on. This isn't about natural change, this is about catastrophic change, but the general douchebaggery would rather get teabagged by Rush than actually get educated on their own.

[Pax Britannia]

The way I look at it is if the environmentalists are wrong all we will have done by enacting all these climate change laws is make the world a little cleaner. However if the people who dispute climate change are wrong and we do nothing then the world will become uninhabitable for us all.

[redsox39]

What rapid change?

Last I checked, we have the same "global Temps" as 20 years ago right now. Not that global temps mean anything since weather and climate is local, but just to stick with the ridiculous theme...

Unless you mean the "hottest" October on record, which turned out the be bullshit since the data came from August.

Maybe you mean the fact that Glaciers are growing? and that includes more Glacial Mass on the 200+ glaciers in California?

Or maybe it is the fact that the globe is cooling right now to put us back to where we were when you were a kid.

Must be all those Carbon credits finally paying off, lol.
Like I said, no clue at all.
Erosion, desertification, increased acidity, threatened fresh water supplies, aspens in the rockies, crocs, the list goes on and on. This isn't about natural change, this is about catastrophic change, but the general douchebaggery would rather get teabagged by Rush than actually get educated on their own.

Pretty sure I adressed erosion, desertification, and threaten water supplies as things that definetly happened before the Chevy Nova. You act like the world was completely the same, unchanged, for millions of years until Man decided to build a fire...

[redsox39]

The way I look at it is if the environmentalists are wrong all we will have done by enacting all these climate change laws is make the world a little cleaner. However if the people who dispute climate change are wrong and we do nothing then the world will become uninhabitable for us all.


While I agree with you somewhat, here is the thing.

I drive an economical car, and if I could afford it, I would drive a Hybrid. I like the bottom line. If it uses less, and costs less in the long run, sign me up.

However, what you never hear about is that most of these things cause separate problems of their own.

The Hybrids? they use highly Toxic metals in their batteries that destroy all life within miles of where they are manufactured and mined.

Those awesome lightbulbs I have throughout my house? I have to go through a 12 part government checklist if one of those were to break releasing poison into my home and enviroment.
http://epa.gov/mercury/spills/#fluorescent

No one is saying "Liter- Its cool!". That is something everyone can agree on. Or "Dump Toxic waste in the Ocean, FISH LOVE IT!"

We are talking about things that have no discernable effect on human live, or the Earth that we know of for that matter. But cost people Jobs, money and time.

Of course you should recycle your plastics and pop cans. You SHOULD use your newspaper for book covers and gift wrap.

But I am not going to skip my family vacation because of my carbon footprint, or use one square of toilet paper per shit, or quit eating meat, all of which I have been asked to do if I want to be a responsible person in the fight against global warming.

[Pax Britannia]

I agree that you shouldnt let this new focus on climate change affect your quality of life too much. However we're not arguing about the fascism of some environmentalists who seriously want us to live in pre-fab houses with no heating or electricity in order to save mother earth. We're talking about arguing the reality of climate change.

I'm a qualified Archaeologist so I know better than most that the earth goes through environmental cycles. And whilst I dont believe that mankind is solely responsible for the increasing severity of weather conditions I do accept our role. Surely now that our technology and social conscience have caught up with the decay of the natural world we have the duty to act. The sad thing is in Britain and America climate change is being used as a poltical tool and that devalues the nature of the argument in the mind of the public. Tackling climate change should be the most bi-partisan issue of all because it affects all of us.

[Snatch]

So then you think it should be an enterprise not-for-profit, rather than a developing gigantic capitalist industry.

[Morfin]

I'm a qualified Archaeologist

Cool. Indiana Pax.

[Archangel]

More like Wales Jones.



Hell, half the people there are named Jones anyway.

[redsox39]

So then you think it should be an enterprise not-for-profit, rather than a developing gigantic capitalist industry.

I don't think there should be such a liberal budget for that one envirmental concern in our Government. Let's take what they spent on "Global Warming Research" and put it towards a tangible Goal that will have immediate effects, like cleaning up the plastic dump in the Ocean, where all the Ocean currents carry the garbage to. Hundreds of square miles of this:

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5872839,00.jpg

[kid_vidrio]

Pretty sure I adressed erosion, desertification, and threaten water supplies as things that definetly happened before the Chevy Nova. You act like the world was completely the same, unchanged, for millions of years until Man decided to build a fire...
Pax pretty much summed up my position on this.
As for what you think you addressed, again, you are missing the point, and it is probably not entirely your fault. The inability to grasp the mathematics of population growth, consumption and deterioration of finite resources is both endemic and pandemic.
Raising and eating beef is one thing. Feed lots quite another. Understanding the difference is the challenge. This lack of congruity in nearly everything humanity does is the problem. If the public really knew how they were working toward their own destruction, there would have been rioting years ago. Probably. But if you keep teh lion just well enough fed, you remain safe at the watering hole. In our case, the lion is pretty much obese.

[Pax Britannia]

Cool. Indiana Pax.

Except I hate spiders not snakes.

[Mustard]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and slightly off of the topic, but bear with me.

Which idea has more evidence supporting its actual existence:
A) Global Warming
B) God

Seriously, this whole global warming / climate change argument has become the same argument for and against the existence of God.

Person A: "OMG a miracle, see, God exists because he made that happen."
Person B: "No, just because it happened doesn't mean that God made it happen."
Person A: "Yes it does! Who else could have done that then?"
Person B: "Uh, man?"
Person A: "No no no, thats not possible."
Person B: "Why isn't it?"
Person A: "Because it just isn't."
Person B: "Oh, well, I'm pretty sure the lack of evidence supporting your idea prove you're wrong then."
Person A: "No, you're wrong, and stupid!"
Person B: "What?" *facepalm*

Just insert Global Warming for God... its still the same.

[Das Kahlua]

Pax pretty much summed up my position on this.
As for what you think you addressed, again, you are missing the point, and it is probably not entirely your fault. The inability to grasp the mathematics of population growth, consumption and deterioration of finite resources is both endemic and pandemic.
Raising and eating beef is one thing. Feed lots quite another. Understanding the difference is the challenge. This lack of congruity in nearly everything humanity does is the problem. If the public really knew how they were working toward their own destruction, there would have been rioting years ago. Probably. But if you keep teh lion just well enough fed, you remain safe at the watering hole. In our case, the lion is pretty much obese.

The worst part of the whole 'debate' on global warming is that it's not an honest debate or discussion at all--as Pax said (I think), it's become so partisan that it's impossible to even discuss the issue on a national or international level honestly.

The fact is that there is no 'consensus' on this issue, despite what anyone might claim. This is a real issue, and both sides have merit and should be treated respectfully, with more factual information and less rhetoric.

Kid Vid, the effects on nature that you speak of are real and serious, and we as stewards of this planet should do all we can to preserve it for both ourselves and future generations. One thing to keep in mind, however, we are not outsiders looking in on nature, we are animals ourselves and part of the same ecosystem, and thus with as much right to exist and grow as any other organism does. That is something that is too often overlooked or forgotten by environmentalists.

[Yelram]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and slightly off of the topic, but bear with me.

Which idea has more evidence supporting its actual existence:
A) Global Warming
B) God

Seriously, this whole global warming / climate change argument has become the same argument for and against the existence of God.

Person A: "OMG a miracle, see, God exists because he made that happen."
Person B: "No, just because it happened doesn't mean that God made it happen."
Person A: "Yes it does! Who else could have done that then?"
Person B: "Uh, man?"
Person A: "No no no, thats not possible."
Person B: "Why isn't it?"
Person A: "Because it just isn't."
Person B: "Oh, well, I'm pretty sure the lack of evidence supporting your idea prove you're wrong then."
Person A: "No, you're wrong, and stupid!"
Person B: "What?" *facepalm*

Just insert Global Warming for God... its still the same.

It depends on your definition for both.

[kid_vidrio]

It depends on your definition for both.
That depends on what your definition of definition is.

[IdiotBrain]

Only your dispassionate Canadian correspondent could write this without colour or favour, but is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. “By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. “Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses.” Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. “They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it,” Heymann says. “So we bought all this throwaway stone. It’s fabulous. It’s got great color and it is relatively inexpensive.” Hmm, back to that vote

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.


Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367


How is that for irony?

[redsox39]

How's that for reporting? You NEVER hear about this and that. Sure, Bush didn't sign Kyoto (who's goal is to lower global Temps .2 degrees over 100 years, which already happened...), and he didn't want to pour any more tax money into the Enviromental money trap. But at least he doesn't silence people with differing opinions on the matter. AND he Walks the Walk while most of the left, and Hollywood green movement, just talk the talk.

[redsox39]

This is what I don't get. You guys will blindly defend a man caught LYING about statistics more than once.

The Hockey Stick Graph?

Or

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.


Or who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

But people that question these asshats are the real problem, not the liars themselves.

[Morfin]

ZOMG! You are like so wrong!!!!!111!111

The facts don't matter!!!!111. We need people to change!!!! This is the environment we are talking about!!!!! Don't you know we are going to die!!!!

[kid_vidrio]

But people that question these asshats are the real problem, not the liars themselves.
I don't think he merits the title of liar, and I find it conspicuous that his biggest critics are those that cling to the belief that volcanoes and mystic druids are the cause of climate change and not to worry or even think about it, but rather laugh and ridicule anyone who does.

[redsox39]

But people that question these asshats are the real problem, not the liars themselves.
I don't think he merits the title of liar, and I find it conspicuous that his biggest critics are those that cling to the belief that volcanoes and mystic druids are the cause of climate change and not to worry or even think about it, but rather laugh and ridicule anyone who does.

So the fact that he is an expert and gave false testimony means to me:

A. he is a liar
B. he is retarded.

Now I am not going to say he is retarded, since I am assuming he could bury me in his degrees, but here are 3 clear instances where he made false staements and passed them off as fact to further his agenda.

Neither you nor I can afford to keep our heads in the sand...

[p-air]

Whatever.

I live in Canada.

Global warming can't happen fast enough.

It was -1 this morning (Celsius, not as bad as it sounds, but still).

We're all freezing up here and Al Gore and Barry O want to make it colder. No thanks.

[heelsguy]

the way I look at it, even if humans are only 20% of the problem and not 60% or whatever as originally postulated, we should still do what we can within reason to live cleanly and not put shit into the air. just because it is right to do it.

[kid_vidrio]

the way I look at it, even if humans are only 20% of the problem and not 60% or whatever as originally postulated, we should still do what we can within reason to live cleanly and not put shit into the air. just because it is right to do it.
that should be the take away from the whole thing.

[Yelram]

the way I look at it, even if humans are only 20% of the problem and not 60% or whatever as originally postulated, we should still do what we can within reason to live cleanly and not put shit into the air. just because it is right to do it.
that should be the take away from the whole thing.

So how do you propose lowering co2 emissions without lowering everyones standard of living?

[Willam]

the way I look at it, even if humans are only 20% of the problem and not 60% or whatever as originally postulated, we should still do what we can within reason to live cleanly and not put shit into the air. just because it is right to do it.
that should be the take away from the whole thing.

So how do you propose lowering co2 emissions without lowering everyones standard of living?

Many ways. The use of CFL's instead of Incandescent bulbs (eventually moving to LEDs and OLEDs). The use of Electric vehicles once they become practical for the everyday user. Solar and Wind generators should be used MUCH more across the US.

The biggest problem with lowering CO2 emissions is the US does not have the infrastructure needed. Unless you live in a HUGE city, there are no subways/elevated trains. Busses being used are old and ineffecient. Americans have learned to drive everywhere instead of walking (remember the scene in the old Cheech and Chong movie when they are going to see "Strawberry" and drive two houses down?)

[Archangel]

I don't know about your tree huggers, but ours have been complaining about some time now that wind farms are dangerous to birds.


I'm of a mind to send these mother fuckers to Afghanistan so they can explore the joys of stone age living.

[Willam]

I don't know about your tree huggers, but ours have been complaining about some time now that wind farms are dangerous to birds.


I'm of a mind to send these mother fuckers to Afghanistan so they can explore the joys of stone age living.


They do the same here, the fools. But I'm personally more in favor of Solar power, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I'm an electrician that installs solar systems.

[kid_vidrio]

the way I look at it, even if humans are only 20% of the problem and not 60% or whatever as originally postulated, we should still do what we can within reason to live cleanly and not put shit into the air. just because it is right to do it.
that should be the take away from the whole thing.

So how do you propose lowering co2 emissions without lowering everyones standard of living?
In times of crisis, a unified country makes sacrifices for the greater good. I'm proposing people make the changes necessary, not the government.

[redsox39]

the way I look at it, even if humans are only 20% of the problem and not 60% or whatever as originally postulated, we should still do what we can within reason to live cleanly and not put shit into the air. just because it is right to do it.
that should be the take away from the whole thing.

I can live with that. I am 100% behind doing the green thing. I just get pissy when I am lied to and when blatant scare tactics are being used based on a theory with so many holes that sponges get jealous.

[Morfin]

I don't know about your tree huggers, but ours have been complaining about some time now that wind farms are dangerous to birds.


I'm of a mind to send these mother fuckers to Afghanistan so they can explore the joys of stone age living.

I'm with the tree huggers on this one. I have always, always said that we should ban windows because they are dangerous to all those birds who fly into them and die.

We should all live in stone, window-less houses, with no heating because oil -- well, there are oil spills and you know what they do to wildlife -- I mean, because nuclear -- well, what happens if there is any leakage -- I mean, because wood fire -- well, deforestation eliminates nesting opportunities -- because everything harms some animals.

The point -- and yes, I actually do have one -- is that whatever we do, there is going to be an impact on the environment and wildlife. Yes, a few birds will fly into or be hit by the wind farms, but in the GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS wind farms have virtually zero impact on the environment. The environmental impact/benefit ratio is hugely in the benefit's favor.

kid vidrio has the right idea -- do our best to minimize our waste and destruction because it is the right thing.

[Yelram]

the way I look at it, even if humans are only 20% of the problem and not 60% or whatever as originally postulated, we should still do what we can within reason to live cleanly and not put shit into the air. just because it is right to do it.
that should be the take away from the whole thing.

So how do you propose lowering co2 emissions without lowering everyones standard of living?

Many ways. The use of CFL's instead of Incandescent bulbs (eventually moving to LEDs and OLEDs). The use of Electric vehicles once they become practical for the everyday user. Solar and Wind generators should be used MUCH more across the US.

The biggest problem with lowering CO2 emissions is the US does not have the infrastructure needed. Unless you live in a HUGE city, there are no subways/elevated trains. Busses being used are old and ineffecient. Americans have learned to drive everywhere instead of walking (remember the scene in the old Cheech and Chong movie when they are going to see "Strawberry" and drive two houses down?)


CFLs contain Mercury, much worse for the environment than a little CO2. Electric vehicles require batteries with rare metals such as nickel, not a conceivable reality. We usually drive because theres 20-40 miles between where we are and where we have to be. And then you also have the issue of it costing alot more than oil, so what happens is the price of energy goes up, and up, and up, and it doesnt matter how many windmills you put out there, its not going to make a fucking dent.

[kid_vidrio]

Personally, I think we should reduce the population by 4-5 billion.

[redsox39]

Sounds like Kid Vidrio is one of the wackos in Rainbow Six...

[freegood]

Personally, I think we should reduce the population by 4-5 billion.

That's what the Financial Tsunami is for.

[Morfin]

Al Gore just took a punch to the gut:

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.Link (http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834)

When asked for comment, Global Warming alarmists responded, "These statistics are wrong," "These statistics are made up," "The University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center is known to be staffed by Republicans," and "Oh, yeah?"

[Archangel]

*gives finger to all the panic-mongering global warming homos*

[fuldstændigamok]

Still, there IS something shabby. I mean minus 10 in Biarritz for 3 days straight and great weather in Denmark??

[Claydon]

Still, there IS something shabby. I mean minus 10 in Biarritz for 3 days straight and great weather in Denmark??


shady

[redsox39]

Still, there IS something shabby. I mean minus 10 in Biarritz for 3 days straight and great weather in Denmark??


"I mean, there has to be SOMETHING to panic about..."

[Pax Britannia]

We need some British reserve here.
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii85/Raptor08_2008/557971148_c01bc7f605.jpg

[redsox39]

Most of the time, I say "F the Euros"...But the Story of the Brits during the Blitz, while I am sure is embellished year after year, is awesome.

[redsox39]

Al Gore just took a punch to the gut:

Link (http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834)

When asked for comment, Global Warming alarmists responded, "These statistics are wrong," "These statistics are made up," "The University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center is known to be staffed by Republicans," and "Oh, yeah?"


I bet Big oil just went and grew that ice so they could continue to Kill our planet!!! Assholes!

[vasili denisov]

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.
I'm not sure what blow Al Gore took by this; you're talking about a level of ice that's higher because of the properties of this new, thinner ice that's there as the result of global warming replacing the thicker multi-year ice that's melted away. It's the loss of the multi-year ice that's critical for the seal populations and the polar bears that hunt them, as well as affecting bear mobility. This ice, because of its thinness, will be melting next summer, with the substantial multi-year ice continuing to diminish.

[redsox39]

seriously...

DEATH to the people who don't beleive the World is FLAT!

Anyone who says differently is a heretic!

Take you facts and shove it up your ass!


I mean, I thought Ice was melting, but now it is growing, but it is shitty Ice that doesn't count.

*sigh*

[bodybuilder24]

The number one global warming activist, Al Gore, is the biggest hypocrite in the field. The man owns three mansions! If global warming was a real threat, Gore would not live a lavish lifestyle.

[Das Kahlua]

The number one global warming activist, Al Gore, is the biggest hypocrite in the field. The man owns three mansions! If global warming was a real threat, Gore would not live a lavish lifestyle.

Oh, shut the fuck up. I think the whole global warming hysteria is a load of crap, but the last thing we should be doing is getting too absorbed in personal attacks against anyone, rather than focusing on the actual facts. I know that this might be too complex term for some of you asshats to comprehend, but facts rather than emotion should carry the day in these debates. When you stoop to the level of pointing fingers, you sound as whiny as the next douchebag with a soapbox.

[Okie Medicvet]

For those who seriously want to argue about global climate change, just watch this mans video...then go to the next one where there is a menu with all of his aruguments and counterarguments regarding it, and see if you can even begin to debunk this. This is credible, logical, scientific thinking at it's best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=PlayList&p=92EE5DBE2987982F&index=0&playnext=1

[redsox39]

Oh, shut the fuck up. I think the whole global warming hysteria is a load of crap, but the last thing we should be doing is getting too absorbed in personal attacks against anyone, rather than focusing on the actual facts. I know that this might be too complex term for some of you asshats to comprehend, but facts rather than emotion should carry the day in these debates. When you stoop to the level of pointing fingers, you sound as whiny as the next douchebag with a soapbox.


You are right, Al Gore doesn't deserve personal attacks for being the face of the movement and being a huge hypocrite!

That would be like the MADD chair woman being hammered and driving all over town.

Or a Rape counselor going out and raping women all night.

Or a PETA spokeperson wearing fur while eating a hamburger.

Yeah, leave Al Gore and his hypocracy out of this, because it distracts from the real issue that the whole thing is bullshit.

And if you believe that it IS real, please, throw your computer and TV away, because you are contributing everytime you Google or watch the discovery Channel.

Can't own large tv's.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/giant-plasma-tvs-face-ban-in-battle-to-green-britain-1299665.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/giant-plasma-tvs-face-ban-in-battle-to-green-britain-1299665.html)

Can't google more than twice a day...
http://patdollard.com/2009/01/you-are-googling-the-planet-to-death/ (http://patdollard.com/2009/01/you-are-googling-the-planet-to-death/)

[Limp]

I'll google you mom to death.

[Yelram]

For those who seriously want to argue about global climate change, just watch this mans video...then go to the next one where there is a menu with all of his aruguments and counterarguments regarding it, and see if you can even begin to debunk this. This is credible, logical, scientific thinking at it's best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=PlayList&p=92EE5DBE2987982F&index=0&playnext=1

He is saying that it is better to take a chance, and assume its a threat, because the cost of not acting is worse than otherwise, and yet somehow, he has absolutely no information supporting the conclusions of EITHER choice, yet he insures you that trying to fix it is not as bad as not trying. This is fucking ridiculous logic. Its like this, I go, hey okie, if you dont give me 1,000,000 dollars, you are going to die tomorrow. Well shit, 1,000,000 dollars is alot, but if I'm dead I cant spend it anyway, so heres all my money. Oh wait, how am I going to kill you? Or maybe I would kill you anyways, and still keep your money. His argument appeals purely to a basis of fear.

I've seen this exact same reasoning used to get people to become christians, the "yeah but what if you're wrong, it'd be way worse".

[redsox39]

For those who seriously want to argue about global climate change, just watch this mans video...then go to the next one where there is a menu with all of his aruguments and counterarguments regarding it, and see if you can even begin to debunk this. This is credible, logical, scientific thinking at it's best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=PlayList&p=92EE5DBE2987982F&index=0&playnext=1


The guys main question is philisophically garbage. The risk of action and non action. I mean, If that convinced you Okie, you would be torn apart by a Jr. High debate team.

Tomorrow I could go to your kids daycare and blow your kids away.

The risk of action? You lose your job by making sure I don't kill your kid at daycare and skipping work everyday.

The risk of Inaction? I blow away your kids.

So the question seems pretty simple and is leading.

The problem with this? I was never going to do it in the first place. So now you lost your job protecting nothing.

[The Batman]

You know what? I don't give a shit if global warming is real or not. The only thing is that we only have to gain if we try to be more environmentally friendly is new technologies and a cleaner environment. Fuck the political bullshit. I don’t see a drawback besides a few jobs that would be cut, but if those people didn’t have the sense to get aboard the new stuff, that’s their own fault. But if there is something else that should be considered in the "big picture" please feel free to say so.

[Pax Britannia]

I'm obliged to support the theory of Global Warming because The Conservative party over here was far sighted enough to make itself the official party of the environment just in time for the recent craze of environmentalism. I cant help feeling Conservatives in the states feel obliged to reject Global Warming and environmentalism because if they admit it's a real problem their going to lose votes to the Democrats who the public trust more with the environment.

One way or another we do seem determined to destroy this planet using politics.

[Yelram]

You know what? I don't give a shit if global warming is real or not. The only thing is that we only have to gain if we try to be more environmentally friendly is new technologies and a cleaner environment. Fuck the political bullshit. I don’t see a drawback besides a few jobs that would be cut, but if those people didn’t have the sense to get aboard the new stuff, that’s their own fault. But if there is something else that should be considered in the "big picture" please feel free to say so.
Hey i'm all for a clean environment, one with co2, so that trees can grow. The real crime within global warming is that there are pressing environmental issues that are going to get completely overlooked, because the world community wants a way to tax the world, and taxing plastic bags just doesnt bring in the revenue like co2.

[redsox39]

I don't see why killing business is required here! If you want to be enviromentally friendly, save your own fucking money and by a Hybrid (that has batteries that kill the enviroment). Or use the long life light bulbs (that poison the landfills and your house with Mercury when they break).

Or maybe, we should just use common sense.
Don't liter, don't waste, Recycle.

Period.

All this bullshit about products and enviromentally friendly is all marketing garbage to put one company over another. You want to make a difference? Ride the Bus, take your bike, don't put up christmas lights, don't buy frozen food, don't use your TV, wear sweaters and layers instead of heating your house, don't shop at stores, make all your own clothes and food that is either from local products or from your own back yard.

Unless you are willing to do all of those things for a cause that you have no effect on at all, shut the fuck up and let me do a google search on my plasma screen Computer for the 3rd time today.

Jesus Christ, even the leaders of your movement are not dumb enough to follow their own advice. All while pimping expensive eco products and owning "Carbon Credit" companies, then laughing as they pour enpensive champagne all over thier naked bodies while flying in their private jets back to their mansions where the heat has been running all month even thought they have only been there 2 days of it.

You really are a sucker.

Really though. I am all for Recycleing and reusing. and Buying economical cars. And looking for alternative fuels and transportation...but I do it because they save money and actually effect me. Not because another Billionaire wants to gult trip me into giving him more money.

[redsox39]

I'm obliged to support the theory of Global Warming because The Conservative party over here was far sighted enough to make itself the official party of the environment just in time for the recent craze of environmentalism. I cant help feeling Conservatives in the states feel obliged to reject Global Warming and environmentalism because if they admit it's a real problem their going to lose votes to the Democrats who the public trust more with the environment.

One way or another we do seem determined to destroy this planet using politics.


Say BYE BYE to your TV Pax!

[Pax Britannia]

Say BYE BYE to your TV Pax!

And my apartment. Whilst we freeze to death in tents and scratch at the ground to harvest our home grown vegitables the millionaire politicians and movie stars will sleep soundly in their mansions secure in the knowledge that the world has been saved.

[redsox39]

And my apartment. Whilst we freeze to death in tents and scratch at the ground to harvest our home grown vegitables the millionaire politicians and movie stars will sleep soundly in their mansions secure in the knowledge that the world has been saved.


But hey, in the long run, it is worth it Pax.

[Trident]

Take aside the whole argument of global warming for one second, doesn't it make sense to reduce our carbon emissions as a way to solve predicted energy deficits, lower our own energy bills and essentially cut the amount of pollution we produce? I mean, if companies are forced to go greener surely that's all in our benefit?

The TV issue is not banning large tvs, they are telling the manufacturers to make them more energy efficient. We can still have 42" plasma's, they just need to eat less power, what on earth is wrong with that? It cuts our bills and energy demand.

[Pax Britannia]

Take aside the whole argument of global warming for one second, doesn't it make sense to reduce our carbon emissions as a way to solve predicted energy deficits, lower our own energy bills and essentially cut the amount of pollution we produce? I mean, if companies are forced to go greener surely that's all in our benefit?

The TV issue is not banning large tvs, they are telling the manufacturers to make them more energy efficient. We can still have 42" plasma's, they just need to eat less power, what on earth is wrong with that? It's cuts our bills and energy demand.

Sure. But history has taught us that government schemes that start out as voluntary soon end up being law and before we know it people could be getting criminal charges for putting glass in with their plastic.

[Trident]

Sure. But history has taught us that government schemes that start out as voluntary soon end up being law and before we know it people could be getting criminal charges for putting glass in with their plastic.

That happens already in some places for people who put the wrong stuff in recycling boxes; fines which I totally disagree with. But, manufacturers should be forced to make things more energy efficient, it works in our favour.

[Pax Britannia]

That happens already in some places for people who put the wrong stuff in recycling boxes; fines which I totally disagree with. But, manufacturers should be forced to make things more energy efficient, it works in our favour.

Have you gotten any free energy efficient lightbulbs yet? I have and their bloody terrible. I agree that making things more energy efficient will work in our favour but right now low energy consumption goods are like low fat meals: sure you can eat them but their not as satisfying.

[Limp]

Have you gotten any free energy efficient lightbulbs yet? I have and their bloody terrible. I agree that making things more energy efficient will work in our favour but right now low energy consumption goods are like low fat meals: sure you can eat them but their not as satisfying.
Free? I pay for them and like them. The only thing that sucks about them is the warm-up period. When you first turn them on it takes a few second for them to reach full brightness.

[Trident]

Every light in my house has an energy saving bulb in it if possible, most of them were free from various energy companies trying to get my business. The newer bulbs emit the same light temperature as a normal incandescent bulb, so in reality there is very little difference.

How on earth could you say that a 42" Pioneer plasma that uses a third less energy than 42" Sony plasma is unsatisfying?!!

Perhaps you have to own a house and pay all the bills, but much like when I replaced my old boiler with a combi-condensing boiler I saw the effect immediately in the next gas bill. I was very satisfied seeing as I get as much hot water as I want, whilst using 2/3rds less gas.

Edit: It looks like Limp and I might actually agree on something. I suggest one of us retracts our statement to avoid confusion.

[Pax Britannia]

How on earth could you say that a 42" Pioneer plasma that uses a third less energy than 42" Sony plasma is unsatisfying?!!


I wasnt talking about TV's I was talking about energy saving lightbulbs. My friends swear by them but I find them very dank, they sort of give off a constant twilight esq light. Maybe it's the wiring in my place.

[Trident]

I wasnt talking about TV's I was talking about energy saving lightbulbs. My friends swear by them but I find them very dank, they sort of give off a constant twilight esq light. Maybe it's the wiring in my place.

You can get different 'effect' bulbs have a look in B&Q - the older ones were like that, plus you might want to clean the lampshades!

[Pax Britannia]

You can get different 'effect' bulbs have a look in B&Q - the older ones were like that, plus you might want to clean the lampshades!

Maybe I should also try buying some instead of using ones given to me for free by Welsh power or British gas. Or I could stick with the regular ones and annoy Al gore.

[Trident]

Make sure you email him some pictures of you reading George Bush's biography under the comforting glow of incandescent light.

[redsox39]

Perhaps you have to own a house and pay all the bills, but much like when I replaced my old boiler with a combi-condensing boiler I saw the effect immediately in the next gas bill. I was very satisfied seeing as I get as much hot water as I want, whilst using 2/3rds less gas.

.

I am with you on this as well! Use the Money saving aspect to get people to conserve. Awesome, and when it really saves you money, even better! Just don't use bullshit science and witchcraft to guilt people into it.

That is my problem with the whole thing, the numbers don't add up, and in fact, appear to say the direct opposite thing that the blowhards are claiming.

Just because a disagree with Al Gore's lies doesn't mean I drive a SUV which leaks oil everywhere on my way to burn a bunch of styrofoam while eating McDonalds and throwing my trash out the window.

It just means I did my research and I am calling bullshit. Give me a Hydrogen car, please, I'd love nothing more than to hand Shell, BP, and Amaco a 700 Billion dollar bailout because they are producing a product that no one wants.

[Limp]

I have a 1KW power supply on my PC and leave it on 24/7 365.

Fuck you Al Gore.

[Archangel]

Give me a Hydrogen car, please, I'd love nothing more than to hand Shell, BP, and Amaco a 700 Billion dollar bailout because they are producing a product that no one wants.
Fuck that, the single greatest benefit of hydrogen engine mass production would be the ragheads going flat broke within two generations.

[Pax Britannia]

Fuck that, the single greatest benefit of hydrogen engine mass production would be the ragheads going flat broke within two generations.

"But what do you need a financial advisor for? Twenty years ago you had the highest Gross National Product in the world, now you're tied with Albania. Your second largest export is secondhand goods, closely followed by dates which you're losing five cents a pound on... You know what the business community thinks of you? They think that a hundred years ago you were living in tents out here in the desert chopping each other's heads off and that's where you'll be in another hundred years, so on behalf of my firm I accept your offer."

Whoever gets the refrence wins a cookie.

[Trident]

The problem is that global warming, climate change, energy conservation and carbon emissions have all been bundled up in to a confusing ball of bullshit. You have to extract the point of this. I've driven in Cairo where the pollution is similar to smoking one packet of cigarettes a day, I've seen the smog lie low over LA as the plane came in to land. I've seen the landfill sites grow and grow, I've seen the facts that show our fossil fuel reserves are no longer limitless (Dubai will be dry in 2020ish) and I've grown weary of the amount of packaging needed to sell me a simple USB pen.

These are issues which need addressing, some people are against any of this in principle - either through political ideology or some other reason. Some, like me realise that cutting carbon emissions will make our environment more pleasant. The coal fired power stations will work less hard, the cars stuck in traffic jams will not make people choke in cities and my life will be cheaper if I have energy efficient equipment.

They way they have marketed the need for a radical rethink of our energy use might not have been the best, but the aggressive tactics have brought the debate to the front and people are slowly beginning to realise benefits to their own lives in cutting their carbon footprint.

More money = happiness.

[redsox39]

"But what do you need a financial advisor for? Twenty years ago you had the highest Gross National Product in the world, now you're tied with Albania. Your second largest export is secondhand goods, closely followed by dates which you're losing five cents a pound on... You know what the business community thinks of you? They think that a hundred years ago you were living in tents out here in the desert chopping each other's heads off and that's where you'll be in another hundred years, so on behalf of my firm I accept your offer."

Whoever gets the refrence wins a cookie.


Syriana, great movie.

[Yelram]

I have a 1KW power supply on my PC and leave it on 24/7 365.

Fuck you Al Gore.

Ummm, I very very very much doubt that any computer you use would draw 1000 watts, unless you fly a space shuttle. A computer uses roughly 65-250 watts, and most of that is in the screen, LCD obviously drawing alot less. Energy in my mind is a personal thing. If I want to leave lights on when I'm not home, as long as I pay my bill, its noone elses fucking business. And the idea that me turning off lights is going to somehow save the world is fucking asinine.

[Kerjack]

The thing is if he is running two or three video cards he could be pulling 400-500 watts when the system is pressed.

And power supplies are at their most efficient at about 50% load. So by running a 1000 watt power supply rather then a 500 watt he is making Al Gore smile.

[TylerDurden]

Ummm, I very very very much doubt that any computer you use would draw 1000 watts, unless you fly a space shuttle. A computer uses roughly 65-250 watts, and most of that is in the screen, LCD obviously drawing alot less.

jesus, looks like you went and did a yahoo answers search and grabbed the shittiest (and unaccepted) answer possible. unless you're talking about some pint-sized mini bitch tower from dell i can't think of many desktops that start under 300 watts, without the monitor. any reasonable half-decent rig has at minimum a 400 watt power supply. start adding in shit like dedicated graphics cards instead of onboard shit and the number goes up. start dicking with things like dual/triple sli and it climbs accordingly. fuck around with liquid cooling and see where that gets you.

Energy in my mind is a personal thing. If I want to leave lights on when I'm not home, as long as I pay my bill, its noone elses fucking business. And the idea that me turning off lights is going to somehow save the world is fucking asinine.

it's a matter of personal responsibility to yourself and others. justifying shit with a reason of "because i can" really is as fucking childish as it sounds. it also sounds like someone just fucking moved out of mommy and daddy's house and are currently enjoying having the same fucking bills that the grown-ups do. don't worry, kiddo, it won't be too long before you're bitching about those same bills... just like the grown-ups.

[Kerjack]

I will say PC's pull less power then people think. Between my UPS and Kill-a-watt (http://www.p3international.com/products/consumer/index.html) monitor I keep pretty close tabs on actual usage.

[TylerDurden]

I will say PC's pull less power then people think. Between my UPS and Kill-a-watt monitor I keep pretty close tabs on actual usage.

as with everything it depends on usage. almost gone are the days of gramma leaving her computer on to only check email once a day. a blanket statement such as the one used might have been true even two years ago, but as people become more savvy the more use and the types of use go up.

the 75-250 watt range is a stretch for anyone but those who seriously only check e-mail or casually browse, which is no longer the majority.

[Limp]

Ummm, I very very very much doubt that any computer you use would draw 1000 watts, unless you fly a space shuttle. A computer uses roughly 65-250 watts, and most of that is in the screen, LCD obviously drawing alot less. Energy in my mind is a personal thing. If I want to leave lights on when I'm not home, as long as I pay my bill, its noone elses fucking business. And the idea that me turning off lights is going to somehow save the world is fucking asinine.
It's a gaming machine... it can pull 850watts on full load.

[Kerjack]

as with everything it depends on usage. almost gone are the days of gramma leaving her computer on to only check email once a day. a blanket statement such as the one used might have been true even two years ago, but as people become more savvy the more use and the types of use go up.

the 75-250 watt range is a stretch for anyone but those who seriously only check e-mail or casually browse, which is no longer the majority.

I'll hook the kill-a-watt back up to my pc but if I recall I only pull 240watts when gaming max. Course this is with a single core CPU only 2 internal HDD's but a fairly competent video card (one of the last AGP socketed to be made).

Buuut like I said modern gaming machines can pull 500watts - 600watts perhaps higher with 3 way SLI and quad core CPU. And since power supplies work best at 50% load a 1000watt is perfectly reasonable in this day and age.

[Yelram]

jesus, looks like you went and did a yahoo answers search and grabbed the shittiest (and unaccepted) answer possible. unless you're talking about some pint-sized mini bitch tower from dell i can't think of many desktops that start under 300 watts, without the monitor. any reasonable half-decent rig has at minimum a 400 watt power supply. start adding in shit like dedicated graphics cards instead of onboard shit and the number goes up. start dicking with things like dual/triple sli and it climbs accordingly. fuck around with liquid cooling and see where that gets you.


Oh i'm sorry, I forgot to mention that total fucking geeks like you exist. For most standard computer users, what I posted is completely correct. I can run a heatpump, a 36 inch lcd tv, a computer(monitor, speakers), and a (small)refrigerator on around 1200 watts, so unless your fucking computer draws more than a fucking 9000 btu heatpump compressor, STFU. Any more than 1500 watts, and you'd need more than one circuit to plug it into.

[TylerDurden]

I'll hook the kill-a-watt back up to my pc but if I recall I only pull 240watts when gaming max.

last i checked my grandmother's dell xps desktop system was steamrolling with a minimum of 350+ watts in use. i'm not sure what they ship that thing with, but it's a behemoth. the only thing she was doing was browsing while ripping and listening to music. all tasks that the average computer user does these days.

[Kerjack]

last i checked my grandmother's dell xps desktop system was steamrolling with a minimum of 350+ watts in use. i'm not sure what they ship that thing with, but it's a behemoth. the only thing she was doing was browsing while ripping and listening to music. all tasks that the average computer user does these days.

How are you gauging use? UPS? Is the monitor/speakers ect also pluged into it? I'm talking strictly what the PSU is pulling and powering.

[redsox39]

Here ya go boys!

http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=85

[vasili denisov]

Just to point out a problem with the post that began this thread.

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/graphics/2008/11/16/asnow.jpgA sudden cold snap brought snow to London in October
Read more from Christopher Booker (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=6795&menuItemId=10317&view=PICHEADLINESUMMARY&grid=F7&targetRule=15) This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) and Climate Audit (http://www.climateaudit.org/), began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running...
Link. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml)

The numbers weren't made up; they carried over data from September to October. Taking into account that the data from that month is in error, 2008 still ranks between the 7th and 12th warmest.

An analogy is that you're a gambler at a casino. Your losses have been consistent and mounting for a considerable period of time. You've just now pointed at the losses from one game and said they're not as great as they might have been. Overall though, your trend is massive loss.

This is a graph of the overall trend.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2mcv3m.gif

Link. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/)

[redsox39]

Its just too bad that your graph can only get back to the end of the little Ice age, and one of the coolest period of time since the real Ice age.

No one is arguing that it is warmer now than it was 100 years ago. duh. We are arguing that it is not a man made phenomenon.

I'd also argue that everytime there is a warming trend, the world has huge net benefits.

But since we are at the end of this warming trend again, and are starting to cool, get ready for some dark times brother.

[Yelram]

http://i43.tinypic.com/2mcv3m.gif

Link. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/)

So in otherwords, the weather has been off more often than its on. I assume that the "zero" in the middle is where we would be idealistically right? Not .2 degrees colder or hotter. Not even a whole degree worth of variation in over 100 years. And it doesnt hurt that where it starts happens to be the coldest winters on record. 1918 was the coldest winter on record, 94 was the hottest summer. Its all the type of logic being used to "predict" the weather. If you are dumb enough to think that weather patterns tend to repeat themselves more often than not, you would be quite susceptible to the global warming alarmist racket.

[Okie Medicvet]

The guys main question is philisophically garbage. The risk of action and non action. I mean, If that convinced you Okie, you would be torn apart by a Jr. High debate team.

Tomorrow I could go to your kids daycare and blow your kids away.

The risk of action? You lose your job by making sure I don't kill your kid at daycare and skipping work everyday.

The risk of Inaction? I blow away your kids.

So the question seems pretty simple and is leading.

The problem with this? I was never going to do it in the first place. So now you lost your job protecting nothing.

That is a specious argument, because you are holding up one example that really has nothing to do with what he is really talking about. If you want to know his responses to different arguments and perspectives, I suggest you see more than just his first and summation video.

[kid_vidrio]

Its just too bad that your graph can only get back to the end of the little Ice age, and one of the coolest period of time since the real Ice age.

No one is arguing that it is warmer now than it was 100 years ago. duh. We are arguing that it is not a man made phenomenon.

I'd also argue that everytime there is a warming trend, the world has huge net benefits.

But since we are at the end of this warming trend again, and are starting to cool, get ready for some dark times brother.
Are you really this fucking stupid, or do you just continually appear this way?

[redsox39]

That is a specious argument, because you are holding up one example that really has nothing to do with what he is really talking about. If you want to know his responses to different arguments and perspectives, I suggest you see more than just his first and summation video.

I did, and at the end, he say LOOK!!! BP and all these oil companies say "we should do something". Well, if you eat you information off of PR press releases, then I guess. My favorite part was when he was talking about a "handful" of dissenting scientists, when in reality, among climatologists and geologists, the idea is largely a thing of the past.

The whole video was put together well, and he was entertaining. But overall, his message wasn't any less biased than any other. He put out the same disinformation and then compared it to a invasion of trolls or something to show how ridiculous it was.

[redsox39]

Are you really this fucking stupid, or do you just continually appear this way?


Or you can prove me wrong...instead of sounding like a 12 year old who didn't get hugs from daddy.

Jesus Christ Vidro, we are on a pretty Liberal slanted site here, and only 1/4 of the people so far even thinks it is real. Maybe you need to wake up and quit being so stubborn. Maybe you are just a stooge for the multi billionBig Oil companiesenviromentalist groups.

[Hoser]

The world warms and cools over a cycle that lasts thousands of years. The rate at which temperature has shifted in the industrial age is unprecedented, and exactly one thing is different about that era to all others before it. Industrialized man.

Wrong.

After this deep freeze, there were several "hothouse earth" periods when the temperature exceeded those we experience today. The warmest was probably the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which peaked about 55 million years ago. Global temperatures during this event may have warmed by 5°C to 8°C within a few thousand years, with the Arctic Ocean reaching a subtropical 23°C. Mass extinctions resulted.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11647/dn11647-5_738.jpg

Just a real quick search came up with that.

This is not the fastest the earth has heated up. And guess what after this, it will cool down again, we just won't be around by that time.

[redsox39]

*sigh*

[vasili denisov]

After this deep freeze, there were several "hothouse earth" periods when the temperature exceeded those we experience today. The warmest was probably the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which peaked about 55 million years ago. Global temperatures during this event may have warmed by 5°C to 8°C within a few thousand years, with the Arctic Ocean reaching a subtropical 23°C. Mass extinctions resulted.
Okay, so the last time the earth rose in temperature by a few degrees, the earth became so uninhabitable it resulted in mass extinctions. Well, that reassures me.

Or you can prove me wrong...instead of sounding like a 12 year old who didn't get hugs from daddy.
So far, you've made two claims; that the expansion of thin ice in the arctic and that missing data in October constitute proof that there's no global warming. I've refuted both claims, and you haven't attempted to counter the refutations. You've claimed that we're now on the verge of a global cooling, though you've provided no evidence for that. You seem to be having it both ways. You assail any belief in global warming as emotional and having nothing to do with facts, yet the facts which underlie your own counter beliefs are without substance.

[Hoser]

Okay, so the last time the earth rose in temperature by a few degrees, the earth became so uninhabitable it resulted in mass extinctions. Well, that reassures me.



I wasn't saying it was a good thing, I was just saying it has happened before naturally.

[redsox39]

Okay, so the last time the earth rose in temperature by a few degrees, the earth became so uninhabitable it resulted in mass extinctions. Well, that reassures me.


Well, it should since it allowed you to exist on earth.

[Whiffleball]

I love vasili denisov (http://forum.gorillamask.net/member.php?u=45), I hate stupid threads tho

[wonderllama]

We just had our 3rd hottest overnight minimum on record...and yet, summer has only had 5 days HOTTER than that minimum so far!

I think Global Warming is a genuine issue, I just don't think every little bit of data should be looked at alone to formulate some theory that we're all going to drown in melted ice cap water.

[Morfin]

We're Number 2! We're Number 2!

Climate change: The carbon atlas

New figures confirm that China has overtaken the US as the largest emitter of CO2. This interactive emissions map shows how the rest of the world compares. Global C02 emissions totalled 29,195m tonnes in 2006 – up 2.4% on 2005
Check the link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/interactive/2008/dec/09/climatechange-carbonemissions) for a pretty, interactive, graphic map.

[Hanover Fist]

A new sport to take advantage of global warming and all the glaciers melting perhaps?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dc0_1231949811

dc0_1231949811

[shdaow]

Its -30 outside right now... Global Warming my ass

[freegood]

I'm more amused than depressed that people think they can attempt to fumble with science to refute science.

[Das Kahlua]

I'm more amused than depressed that people think they can attempt to fumble with science to refute science.

Very little 'science' is actually used in the global warming debate, most of it is rhetoric and worst case predictions that have never even come close to being accurate.

[Morfin]

Waddayamean?

-30 on one January day in Toronto = No Global Warming.

Refute that, Mr. Science. [/sarcasm]

[Das Kahlua]

Waddayamean?

-30 on one January day in Toronto = No Global Warming.

Refute that, Mr. Science. [/sarcasm]

The biggest underlying problem about people who are advocating global warming, citing temperature changes, is that they're assuming that there is some temperature level that is 'natural,' that the planet should always be, and if its not that temperature its by definition 'unnatural.'

Nobody can deny that the planet has undergone drastic temperature fluctuations, yet so many people now seem to think that that was distant history, that the planet should always be the same, and any changes are caused solely by humans.

[satandole666]

Nobody can deny that the planet has undergone drastic temperature fluctuations, yet so many people now seem to think that that was distant history, that the planet should always be the same, and any changes are caused solely by corporations.

fixed for you

[Morfin]

The biggest underlying problem about people who are advocating global warming, citing temperature changes, is that they're assuming that there is some temperature level that is 'natural,' that the planet should always be, and if its not that temperature its by definition 'unnatural.'

Nobody can deny that the planet has undergone drastic temperature fluctuations, yet so many people now seem to think that that was distant history, that the planet should always be the same, and any changes are caused solely by evil corporations.

fixed for you

re-fixed for you.

http://www.hmc.psu.edu/ume/fcmonline/case27/images/Patient.jpg

[satandole666]

egggggg cellent

[heelsguy]

yeah, corporations are the bane of our existence. the liberal playbook reads as follows: 'when in doubt, blame it on Bush. In the rare cases where that does not suffice, then blame it on corporations. "

[Das Kahlua]

yeah, corporations are the bane of our existence. the liberal playbook reads as follows: 'when in doubt, blame it on Bush. In the rare cases where that does not suffice, then blame it on corporations. "

Come January 20th, all excuses are gone. Obama promises that if the American people elected him, the oceans would cease to rise, every American would have plenty of money in their bank account, and puppies and kittens would live together in harmony.

[heelsguy]

Come January 20th, all excuses are gone. Obama promises that if the American people elected him, the oceans would cease to rise, every American would have plenty of money in their bank account, and puppies and kittens would live together in harmony.

I wonder how The Daily Show will survive. The other night it compared obama's press conference with footage of Bush's. I guess they will just use Bush footage to contrast and compare so we cannot move forward.

How long before the press gets bored sucking his schlong?

[satandole666]

I wonder how The Daily Show will survive. The other night it compared obama's press conference with footage of Bush's. I guess they will just use Bush footage to contrast and compare so we cannot move forward.

How long before the press gets bored sucking his schlong?

Someone will get brave. I give it no more than 3-5 weeks tops.

[kid_vidrio]

The gag is off.
Read it and weep as real science weighs in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/science/earth/22climate.html?hp

[Hoser]

From 1957 through 2006, temperatures across Antarctica rose an average of 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, comparable to the warming that has been measured globally.

HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!



Guess what over time the earth gets warmer, then eventually it gets colder again. Sometimes this happens rapidly, sometimes it happens slowly.

[Hoser]

Oh and this too

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071130/cold_winter_071130/20071130?hub=CTVNewsAt11
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28779091/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/weather/chi-tom-skilling-explainer_0120jan20,0,7997985.story

[kid_vidrio]

Oh and this too

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071130/cold_winter_071130/20071130?hub=CTVNewsAt11
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28779091/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/weather/chi-tom-skilling-explainer_0120jan20,0,7997985.story

1. the winter isn't over yet - how can any city rank it against other winters yet?
2. it was 80 deg in phx a couple days ago. temperatures vary.
3. a cold winter in NC or IL has NOTHING to do with antarctic ice melt
4. you're new to this, aren't you

[redsox39]

See Hoser, its only real science when it agree with Kid's views. He'll hold up the NY times and say this is the real story. Chicago Tribune Story? MSNBC? CTV? Thats all witchcraft and hocus pocus paid for by Big oil.

Get with the program.

[Yelram]

3. a cold winter in NC or IL has NOTHING to do with antarctic ice melt


You're exactly right, and CO2 emissions from NC and IL have nothing to do with it either. Could it be a slight shifting of the poles? I mean look at that map, its getting colder on one side, and hotter on another, that doesnt sound like any sort of uniform warming to me.

[nuclearjew]

What I can't seem to understand is that, generally speaking, the same people who think Global Warming is a myth are the same people who also think evolution is a myth. So humans are too sophisticated to have sprung from lowly apes, but they're not sophisticated enough to affect climate change? And I can never understand why people get up in arms against global warming. God forbid we at least absorb the good conservationist messages of global warming, despite the hypocrisies of some of the proponents of it (i.e. Al Gore's energy-sucking mansion).

[nuclearjew]

Uh oh, here come de repliez!

[Hanover Fist]

What I can't seem to understand is that, generally speaking, the same people who think Global Warming is a myth are the same people who also think evolution is a myth. So humans are too sophisticated to have sprung from lowly apes, but they're not sophisticated enough to affect climate change? And I can never understand why people get up in arms against global warming. God forbid we at least absorb the good conservationist messages of global warming, despite the hypocrisies of some of the proponents of it (i.e. Al Gore's energy-sucking mansion).

I don't think that there is a correlation at all. A majority of actual scientists don't agree with global warming and I would be positive that they almost all to a man believe in evolution. I myself don't believe one iota in global warming and I am firmly in the evolution camp.

[Yelram]

What I can't seem to understand is that, generally speaking, the same people who think Global Warming is a myth are the same people who also think evolution is a myth. So humans are too sophisticated to have sprung from lowly apes, but they're not sophisticated enough to affect climate change? And I can never understand why people get up in arms against global warming. God forbid we at least absorb the good conservationist messages of global warming, despite the hypocrisies of some of the proponents of it (i.e. Al Gore's energy-sucking mansion).

Listen, if CO2 was a pollutant, I'd be all with you. If you say, lets cut Mercury emissions or sulfur , or something thats actually harmful to the environment, not something that increases the growth of vegetation. We are wasting money preventing CO2 emissions, while there are dire environmental concerns being overlooked, because they are FAR LESS LUCRATIVE. The only connection between global warming an evolution are that they are both totally incomplete theories that have been taught in schools as "the truth". So people that are skeptical of the establishment, and how hit and miss science is. Having the faith to believe in evolution (and I mean this starting from NOTHING and somehow life coming about randomly), and the faith to believe that breathing out makes the world warm up significantly, might as well become neo-paganism.

[redsox39]

What I can't seem to understand is that, generally speaking, the same people who think Global Warming is a myth are the same people who also think evolution is a myth. So humans are too sophisticated to have sprung from lowly apes, but they're not sophisticated enough to affect climate change? And I can never understand why people get up in arms against global warming. God forbid we at least absorb the good conservationist messages of global warming, despite the hypocrisies of some of the proponents of it (i.e. Al Gore's energy-sucking mansion).

Well, we just found out you are Fucking retarded. Awesome. The Same people who believe Evolution is a myth? You have got to be kidding me.

Don't try to lump a group of idiots together and lable them the Anit-Global warming movement.

"What I can't seem to understand is that, generally speaking, the same people who Vote Democrat is a myth are the same people who also think jobs are for losers and 50 cent is a prophet."

And futhermore your reasoning is fucking retarded too. You think that people who don't believe in evolution think that way because people are too complex? No, they think that way because Preacher John told them it was that way. Period.

And once again, I am all for saving energy, because it saves money, and make the world "Cleaner". I am cool with that. What I am not cool with is using unprovable bunk science to raise people's stress levels for no fucking reason except to make the Enviromental activist's rich. Carbon credits my ass.

[brentblack]

What I can't seem to understand is that, generally speaking, the same people who think Global Warming is a myth are the same people who also think evolution is a myth. So humans are too sophisticated to have sprung from lowly apes, but they're not sophisticated enough to affect climate change? And I can never understand why people get up in arms against global warming. God forbid we at least absorb the good conservationist messages of global warming, despite the hypocrisies of some of the proponents of it (i.e. Al Gore's energy-sucking mansion).

agreed. it's the doomsday approach some of these global warming people are using that turns me off. reduce, reuse, recycle...it's that simple for a person to understand and have any control over. don't try to make me feel guilty that i'm killing the planet just by living

[Hoser]

1. the winter isn't over yet - how can any city rank it against other winters yet?
2. it was 80 deg in phx a couple days ago. temperatures vary.
3. a cold winter in NC or IL has NOTHING to do with antarctic ice melt
4. you're new to this, aren't you

You missed the entire point of the post.

Temperatures change, it happens. Sometimes they go higher then average, sometimes they go lower. Some places get warmer over a period of time, some places get colder. Sometimes the entire planet warms up and then it will start to cool.

People love to scream "GLOBAL WARMING!!!" as soon as the temp changes .0001 of a degree over a 10 year period. guess what it is still -56F in Antarctica. That ice isn't going anywhere.

Also before the last ice age what do you think the temp of the world was, probably warmer then it is now. Do you know nothing of heating and cooling cycles?? The earth heats up, then it cools down, that heats up again, then cools down. The time period that this happens in changes, it isnt always the same. Sometimes it is faster and sometimes it is slower.

Personally I don't give a fuck if you believe it or not. You can worry and cry about global warming all you want. I am not saying the climate isn't changing, but I am saying that even if we weren't here this was going to happen anyways.

Should people try to be cleaner? Yes. Should they try to reduce emissions? sure. Should they give up a normal life and live in a grass hut?? Fuck no.

I try to be clean, I use reusable grocery bags, I recycle. I do everything i can that doesn't change my normal way of life, and if everyone did that then it would be a cleaner planet, but it would not stop what is going to happen anyways. Stopping the warming of the earth is right on par with stopping the earths rotation.

[Hanover Fist]

Shit..fuck..damn...the temperature was just starting to edge up, almost 21 degrees today with a high of 26 expected. Now, i check the week forecast and we will be plummeting back into the single digits over the weekend and remain low for the start of next week.
This is starting to be a rather long time to be remaining well below freezing. I've lived in Michigan for 15 years now and this winter was the first time I saw actual temperatures reach -18F without windchill. We actually reached -32F with windchill this year.
So with all that said, I truly want to believe in global warming, I would be very very happy if the winters in Michigan became a little tamer.

(Next Thursday could possibly get above freezing, they are predicting a high of 36F, right about now that sounds like shorts and T-shirt weather)

[Claydon]

Shit..fuck..damn...the temperature was just starting to edge up, almost 21 degrees today with a high of 26 expected. Now, i check the week forecast and we will be plummeting back into the single digits over the weekend and remain low for the start of next week.
This is starting to be a rather long time to be remaining well below freezing. I've lived in Michigan for 15 years now and this winter was the first time I saw actual temperatures reach -18F without windchill. We actually reached -32F with windchill this year.
So with all that said, I truly want to believe in global warming, I would be very very happy if the winters in Michigan became a little tamer.

(Next Thursday could possibly get above freezing, they are predicting a high of 36F, right about now that sounds like shorts and T-shirt weather)



Global warming ftw!

[POO POO CANNON]

You silly man.

"Global warming" can actually mean that temperatures can drop regionally! That's the beauty of it, that no matter what happens, you can say that it's a part of it!

Geez, some people...

First off, let me state I'm no global warming nut.

Right, so global warming constitutes a global rise in temperatures, believe it or not. Just because some areas drop in temperature doesn't mean that the term is flawed, as the decline in regional temperatures is made up for in other areas.

If you can't understand why global warming can cause regional cooling, you need to take some biogeo.

[Soup Nazi]

We had record highs in Vegas yesterday.......

What does that mean? Pretty much absolutely nothing, just like cold weather in other areas.

[Yelram]

First off, let me state I'm no global warming nut.

Right, so global warming constitutes a global rise in temperatures, believe it or not. Just because some areas drop in temperature doesn't mean that the term is flawed, as the decline in regional temperatures is made up for in other areas.

If you can't understand why global warming can cause regional cooling, you need to take some biogeo.

Apparently global warming can actually cause global cooling as well!!!(/sarcasm)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

[POO POO CANNON]

Apparently global warming can actually cause global cooling as well!!!(/sarcasm)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

From the author himself
This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything.

Also, you must remember that GISS and a few of the other sources listed rely on 1950's data for referencing change, as opposed to the conventional mid 1960's, resulting in an imprecise value when compared to other sources. Also, take a look at GISS's number of 0.75. The next highest is .62, which means GISS probably fucked something up, as they rely on a somewhat inaccurate method of data collection, look it up.

Just food for thought.

[brentblack]

here is a link to a few hundred articles http://schnittshow.newsradio610.com/globalwarming.html

It is virtually shoved down our throats that scientists are in complete agreement about global warming. Al Gore and the media assure us there is an absolute consensus in the scientific community that humans are heating the planet and irreversible damage is looming as a result of man's carbon output. The truth is, there is not an irrefutable consensus. How about some intellectual honesty? Reasonable debate? Or, in the least, a different explanation. Below is one of the largest collections of articles and opinion pieces on the Internet, many written by respected scientists, climatologists, meteorologists and professors who dispute the apocalyptic "man-made" explanation of global warming.

[Yelram]

From the author himself


Also, you must remember that GISS and a few of the other sources listed rely on 1950's data for referencing change, as opposed to the conventional mid 1960's, resulting in an imprecise value when compared to other sources. Also, take a look at GISS's number of 0.75. The next highest is .62, which means GISS probably fucked something up, as they rely on a somewhat inaccurate method of data collection, look it up.

Just food for thought.

Dude, that doesnt change the FACT that we've been in a GLOBAL COOLING TREND for almost 10 years now, and that the ANOMALY he was referring to was 1 year. Within that one year, the whole trend swung the opposite direction by the same amount that it had been showing a slow warming trend for the last 50 years. Obviously it is an outlier within the data set now. We get 4-5 more years of this, its not an outlier.

[redsox39]

Dude, that doesnt change the FACT that we've been in a GLOBAL COOLING TREND for almost 10 years now, and that the ANOMALY he was referring to was 1 year. Within that one year, the whole trend swung the opposite direction by the same amount that it had been showing a slow warming trend for the last 50 years. Obviously it is an outlier within the data set now. We get 4-5 more years of this, its not an outlier.

ftw!

[wonderllama]

Another one for the Global Warming here...

Southern Australia is currently having a "significant weather event" with a week of temperatures above 40C (105F). We've got no rain, no water storages, it's the middle of summer and we're wearing sunglasses.

[kid_vidrio]

another name for all this could by 'Carbon Displacement' or 'Human generated molecular redistribution.'
No one can deny that carbon, previously held in the ground, when burned goes atmospheric. In addition, cows, in support of the masses burning said petroleum product, are an issue.
To name two.

Basically, we are changing the molecular composition of the air in the atmosphere at a rate far greater than would naturally happen and we really don't know the consequences though they are probably dire.
Is there natural change? Yes.
Is it moving faster? Seems so.
Could we slow it? I doubt it at this point.
Does this mean that people who deny it completely aren't idiots? No.

[redsox39]

Is there natural change? Yes.
Is it moving faster? Seems so.
Could we slow it? I doubt it at this point.
Does this mean that people who deny it completely aren't idiots? No.

This is the difference. No one is denying that the temps change. No one is denying that humans burn more carbon. No one is denying that Carbon is making up a larger part of the atmosphere. In fact, I think it is up to 0.002 now.

What we are denying is the Chicken Little syndrom you have embraced. I don't beleive it is having a negative impact, I DO believe that overall it will be better for life on this planet.

I also beleive that most of the stats quoted from people like you are total bullshit. One one hand, you guys will say we only have satelite data from 1972 when it fits your needs, and then on the other hand you'll say retarded things like "never before" like anyone fucking knows that.

If the satelite data disagrees with you, go with Ice core samples. If the Ice core samples disagree with what you want to beleive, use Satalite data.

I mean, I have never heard of such blantant lies and hypocracy passed off as science that didn't come from the Vatican...

[Yelram]

another name for all this could by 'Carbon Displacement' or 'Human generated molecular redistribution.'
No one can deny that carbon, previously held in the ground, when burned goes atmospheric. In addition, cows, in support of the masses burning said petroleum product, are an issue.
To name two.

Basically, we are changing the molecular composition of the air in the atmosphere at a rate far greater than would naturally happen and we really don't know the consequences though they are probably dire.
Is there natural change? Yes.
Is it moving faster? Seems so.
Could we slow it? I doubt it at this point.
Does this mean that people who deny it completely aren't idiots? No.
Oxidation of carbon is one of the most common chemical reactions on this planet, we arent "adding new carbon", thats total bullshit. Theres carbon in every living thing. Every living animal breaths out CO2. Did you ever think that when we started recording, we were at an all time low in CO2 concentrations since we are coming out of an ice age? Parts of frozen tundra melting release tons of methane and CO2. A raise in temperature always equals raise in co2, but there is absolutely no proof that a raise in co2 causes a raise in temperature. That logic is entirely backwards.

[redsox39]

Oxidation of carbon is one of the most common chemical reactions on this planet, we arent "adding new carbon", thats total bullshit. Theres carbon in every living thing. Every living animal breaths out CO2. Did you ever think that when we started recording, we were at an all time low in CO2 concentrations since we are coming out of an ice age? Parts of frozen tundra melting release tons of methane and CO2. A raise in temperature always equals raise in co2, but there is absolutely no proof that a raise in co2 causes a raise in temperature. That logic is entirely backwards.


And IN FACT, didn't Al Gore Accidently (I will stop short of calling him a liar, he's just a puppet) prove to us that Carbon levels goes up AFTER temp rises? Not the other way around?