Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: IPAndrews on December 14, 2007, 07:17:18 am
-
Let the world burn. :mad:
-
You just now realized this?
-
Today I've been surprised by quite how intent they are on the whole destruction of mankind thing, I have to admit.
-
The US likes to melt things, nukes, global warming, you name it, it's all good. :D
-
Today I've been surprised by quite how intent they are on the whole destruction of mankind thing, I have to admit.
So what brought about this revelation?
-
Global warming is coused by USA secret microwawe weapon experiments!
-
Today I've been surprised by quite how intent they are on the whole destruction of mankind thing, I have to admit.
So what brought about this revelation?
At a wild guess, the climate talks in Bali going straight into the toilet?
-
First we build a great big wall around North America.....
Actually there's no more to it than that. As long as we don't put a roof on it we can still get Battlestar Galactica out on satellite.
-
I say put a roof too....pollution travels. We need to hermeticly seal them.
-
I say put a roof too....pollution travels. We need to hermeticly seal them.
The space is a good enough roof.
After all, if you put water in a glass and the glass in a bigger cup of water, the waters don't mix if the edge of the glass stays above the surface. Same effect here. :p
-
So if the US by it's actions is resulting in the deaths of civilians in countries around the world, at what point does it become an act of war by the US against those countries?
-
First we build a great big wall around North America.....
Actually there's no more to it than that. As long as we don't put a roof on it we can still get Battlestar Galactica out on satellite.
No, no, no, we get what we need to watch BSG out of there first then we seal everything.
So if the US by it's actions is resulting in the deaths of civilians in countries around the world, at what point does it become an act of war by the US against those countries?
The moment a US citizen dies in those other countries cause they are the bad guys.
-
Well, lets look at the positives, or one it should keep hurricanes out, and that would help with the melting ice caps, as it would keep us dry, then when everyone else drowns we simply conquer all the land. :p
Also instead of north America, can we just make it the US? That will keep those illegals out.
-
It's a trade off between growth and survival. Most countries can only afford to only commit to one path, we can either grow, or we can simply survive. Unfortunately, we are all on the same planet, which means we're dividing the cake up way too small, we're thinking countries when we should be thinking species when it comes these decisions.
-
Well, lets look at the positives, or one it should keep hurricanes out, and that would help with the melting ice caps, as it would keep us dry, then when everyone else drowns we simply conquer all the land. :p
Also instead of north America, can we just make it the US? That will keep those illegals out.
Canada is being just as bad as you. So no.
And since you get them too you'll have plenty of ice to drown yourselves with too. :p
-
It's a trade off between growth and survival. Most countries can only afford to only commit to one path, we can either grow, or we can simply survive. Unfortunately, we are all on the same planet, which means we're dividing the cake up way too small, we're thinking countries when we should be thinking species when it comes these decisions.
What do you mean? Kill all the back/yellow/red/white/whatever?
Kill off all the animals?
Ever heard of the concept of "managable development?"
-
You miss the point, black, white, red, green, blue, purple, it's all as irrelevant as China, USA, UK, North Korea and Italy. What Italy does effects the UK, what the UK does affects Italy, etc what white does affects the black, what black does affects the green etc, it's the most obvious and simple truth in the world and yet we still haven't figured it out.
We aren't countries, we aren't races, we are a species on a planet, and, at this point in time, there's no exit.
-
How is this thread any different from the others, out of curiousity?
-
It isn't, this race is going to finger-point itself into extinction ;)
-
Well, I guess we'll have to do our part and watch the people who understand it argue with the people who do not.
-
Canada is being just as bad as you. So no.
Hey hey... Canada's position is that climate change measures are meaningless unless everyone is bound by them. That's the smartest position on global warming out there; unless everyone is capped, what is reduced by developed nations will be quickly made up for by developing.
Reducing by half measures, like your PM is essentially proposing, is stupid.
-
Canada is being just as bad as you. So no.
Hey hey... Canada's position is that climate change measures are meaningless unless everyone is bound by them. That's the smartest position on global warming out there; unless everyone is capped, what is reduced by developed nations will be quickly made up for by developing.
Reducing by half measures, like your PM is essentially proposing, is stupid.
Yeah but thats partly a cop out by Harpers government who barely believes in the climate change thing. They do believe something so thats an up against the right wingers in the US but its just barely.
I'd also like to point out that no, Canada is not just as bad, its just our government that is bad. The average person up here isn't quite as ignorant not to have noticed whats happening locally (never mind globally) over the last 10 years. We drive small cars, we started up recycling a long time ago, locally we are now encouraging a 1 bag of garbage a week program, we have two recycling bins and a green bin plus composters are available for relatively cheap. Plus Canadians favour smaller cars (two top selling vehicles in this country are the Honda Civic and the Mazda3 with the Corolla and some other smaller vehicles not too far behind).
Everywhere I go in this country there are some good measures going forward. The problem is getting our damn government to get its fingers out of its nose and start doing something. Plus we should be leaders on development of new technologies to deal with this issue (good for the economy too). We shouldn't be waiting for everyone else to do something.
-
Every time there is a thread like this, I like this place a little less.
-
Is it just me, or does this thread have virtually nothing to do with the theory of global warming? :rolleyes:
Every time there is a thread like this, I like this place a little less.
Agreed.
-
Every time there is a thread like this, I like this place a little less.
You know, if I lock 'em people complain, if I leave them open, people complain.
This was why postcount was turned off in here.
-
Is it just me, or does this thread have virtually nothing to do with the theory of global warming? :rolleyes:
Given that today was the last day of the UN climate summit in Bali, and that the US did its usual trick with stalling it until time ran out so that nothing substantial came out of it, it seems fairly obvious that the theory of global warming had nothing whatsoever to do with this the creation of thread.
-
Well, regarding the actual topic - have all here already seen this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI) (or the newer version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg)?
Basically, the humanity needs to choose between trying to act against climate warming or not. Whether or not it's actually happening is irrelevant in the light of risk analysis. The risk of taking action against non-existant threat is, in this case, much smaller than the risk associated with not taking any action against a real threat.
It makes all the sense in the world IMHO, scary may it be - by the standards of common sense. Economics and politics, obviously, don't follow those standards as we all know.
-
i say we increase our technology level *cost 200 billion* and float up to the moon
-
Every time there is a thread like this, I like this place a little less.
You know, if I lock 'em people complain, if I leave them open, people complain.
This was why postcount was turned off in here.
If you imprison murderers, they'll complain, won't they? But if you don't imprison them, the victim's family complains.
The problem won't be solved by locking the murderer and the victim's family in a room and hoping for the best, I can tell you that much.
I hope to God that someone other than me gets that analogy. Because usually no one does.
-
Maybe it's because there's a difference between not holding the same opinion and killing each other? ;) Though sometimes in here, it's a little hard to tell.
My memory is a little too clear on the reaction when the General Discussion Forum was first moved to the bottom of the list, that has been my main reason for not interfering in these debates. Open, they are pointless, locked, I'm a censor.
If it's a choice of me having to put up with being accused of censorship, of being a bad moderator etc etc, or you lot having conversations that won't change the world, I'll take option 2.
-
Hey hey... Canada's position is that climate change measures are meaningless unless everyone is bound by them. That's the smartest position on global warming out there; unless everyone is capped, what is reduced by developed nations will be quickly made up for by developing.
Reducing by half measures, like your PM is essentially proposing, is stupid.
If half measures are stupid doing nothing at all because a half measure isn't enough is ****ing stupid. :p
The west should at least make a start. Then it can do what it does best and bully everyone else into doing what they want.
-
Maybe it's because there's a difference between not holding the same opinion and killing each other? ;) Though sometimes in here, it's a little hard to tell.
My memory is a little too clear on the reaction when the General Discussion Forum was first moved to the bottom of the list, that has been my main reason for not interfering in these debates. Open, they are pointless, locked, I'm a censor.
If it's a choice of me having to put up with being accused of censorship, of being a bad moderator etc etc, or you lot having conversations that won't change the world, I'll take option 2.
Does locking threads that is hostile towards an entire nation for no reason make you a bad moderator?
Look at this:
I am a US citizen. How much does this thread reflect my attitude towards global warming? None. Am I being insulted for other people's intelligences (or lack thereof), for which I have no responsibility? Yes.
This is a gross misrepresentation and over generalization of the population of the US to the point of insult.
But if you really want to be a good moderator, by all means condone these actions...
-
In all practicality, this is racism bigotry.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/GenoStar/applause.gif)
-
So if the title of this thread was 'Iran's attitude towards Women's Rights', I should lock that one too?
God forbid someone should, you know, have an opinion about your environmental policy, that's quite obviously racist.
-
I changed the last line to "condone" for a reason (sorry if you didn't see that). Something less drastic would suffice, I'm sure.
Plus, I'm unsure if there are any Iranians here to even be offended by that thread. And if all you did was go through this thread and replace words pertaining to the US with correlating words pertaining to Iran, then yes.
And yes, I'll admit that the word racist is technically wrong; I was to lazy to type out "gross misrepresentation and over generalization of the population of the US". If it makes you feel better, I'll go back and change it.
And as I stated in my previous post, that's not my "environmental policy", yet I'm still insulted for it. Come back in three years when I can vote, then it will be valid.
-
I've had to read some whopping great big assumptions of the EU and UN over the years, I either try to correct the error, or simply ignore it, I don't think it's unfair to criticise another country over its policies, governments do it all the time, and that has far more impact than a bunch of people on a forum board.
People make mistakes or misinterpretations, the purpose of a forum is to exchange information, personally, I suggest, rather than simply attacking the thread, you correct those misconceptions and give your own point of view, otherwise nothing will change.
-
Hey hey... Canada's position is that climate change measures are meaningless unless everyone is bound by them. That's the smartest position on global warming out there; unless everyone is capped, what is reduced by developed nations will be quickly made up for by developing.
Reducing by half measures, like your PM is essentially proposing, is stupid.
If half measures are stupid doing nothing at all because a half measure isn't enough is ****ing stupid. :p
The west should at least make a start. Then it can do what it does best and bully everyone else into doing what they want.
However, Western emission cutbacks will reflect in productivity levels. I'm of the mindset that we're better to put as much effort into new technologies as possible, even if it means continuing with only slight reductions in overall emission levels until a binding deal can be forged that includes everyone.
Cutbacks in the Western nations are absolutely meaningless unless we can get China and India to meet the same targets. By contrast, if we set less ambitious targets and get everyone on board, perhaps a gradual and practical solution can be found. Setting targets in the West and trying to force it on less developed nations later without a gradual introductory period is going to do nothing but cause chaos.
I'd rather have politicians like Harper at the table pointing at India and going "they have to be included too" then setting lesser targets for everyone, than Brown's idealism which is going to make the situation worse - the more China and India develop in industry, they less willing they're going to be to spend more money and give up those production levels.
-
Go read this: here (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html). Then come back and talk about it.. will be interesting. Just keep it nice, will ya? XD Ya, riiiiiight...
-
I've had to read some whopping great big assumptions of the EU and UN over the years, I either try to correct the error, or simply ignore it, I don't think it's unfair to criticise another country over its policies, governments do it all the time, and that has far more impact than a bunch of people on a forum board.
People make mistakes or misinterpretations, the purpose of a forum is to exchange information, personally, I suggest, rather than simply attacking the thread, you correct those misconceptions and give your own point of view, otherwise nothing will change.
The most simplified version of what I'm trying to say in all of these types of threads: Stop acting like the idiot population of the US is the only population. However large it may be, it is not the only.
-
Cutbacks in the Western nations are absolutely meaningless unless we can get China and India to meet the same targets. By contrast, if we set less ambitious targets and get everyone on board, perhaps a gradual and practical solution can be found. Setting targets in the West and trying to force it on less developed nations later without a gradual introductory period is going to do nothing but cause chaos.
Great idea, so where is the money to do that going to come from? You're forgetting that despite their growth they are still poor developing countries. Rather than developed nations (whom they themselves did much the same kind of polluting when they were developing) pointing the finger at developing nations, why not offer technologies and assistance for free to actually make the reduction of emissions FEASABLE? To assume a developing country like, say, India can do it by themselves is rediculous.
-
The most simplified version of what I'm trying to say in all of these types of threads: Stop acting like the idiot population of the US is the only population. However large it may be, it is not the only.
Fair enough, but rather than foaming at the mouth at any negative statement towards the US, how about you take Flipside's advice to heart and point out that you are not an idiot. If you see something you disagree with, then challenge it openly and passionately, and we will listen. Simply calling for the thread to be locked only weakens your position, doesn't help anyone, and makes you come across as a prat (which goes for mimic monkeys like BloodEagle too, get your own damn opinion!).
So either suck it up and throw something useful into the debate, or just **** off and ignore the thread altogether.
Anyway, back OT: I've not been paying much close attention to the current potentials in the US presidential election race, but would a Democratic win put a more favorable view on the Global Warming issue into the White House or would it likely remain the same?
-
Every time there is a thread like this, I like this place a little less.
You know, if I lock 'em people complain, if I leave them open, people complain.
This was why postcount was turned off in here.
And how is the situation with global warming any different? People that don't believe that humans are causing or can do anything about global warming will try to tell you that you're gullible for believing Al Gore's political shennanigans.
As for people that do believe - well, this thread would seem to label me a racist and a mass murderer who's responsible for war crimes because I live in the US. There's no thought given to who's actually responsible, it's just 'they' and 'them'. That is what I, personally, dislike about this thread. I haven't said a word for or against environmentalism, and I'm already supposedly guilty by association of war crimes.
Is this how career environmentalists want to be viewed? As a bunch of whiners who blame entire countries when one piece of legislation doesn't go their way?
Furthermore, I don't pretend to understand the science or evidence behind global warming like most people do. I leave that to the people who care and want to be a part of that flamefest. But from what I've experienced, both sides will claim you're an idiot if you either (A) naively believe that global warming can be prevented, or (B) can't see the validity of the evidence that's staring you in the face.
So all this name-calling just leaves me walking away from both sides. I guess that would technically be a win for the people who don't believe in global warming, but I don't see how I can remain neutral. Plant half-trees or something?
-
The most simplified version of what I'm trying to say in all of these types of threads: Stop acting like the idiot population of the US is the only population. However large it may be, it is not the only.
Fair enough, but rather than foaming at the mouth at any negative statement towards the US, how about you take Flipside's advice to heart and point out that you are not an idiot. If you see something you disagree with, then challenge it openly and passionately, and we will listen. Simply calling for the thread to be locked only weakens your position, doesn't help anyone, and makes you come across as a prat (which goes for mimic monkeys like BloodEagle too, get your own damn opinion!).
So either suck it up and throw something useful into the debate, or just **** off and ignore the thread altogether.
:confused:
Why do people keep thinking that I specifically asked for this thread to be locked? You make it sound like I just blatantly shouted "LOCK THIS THREAD OR DIE!!!".
First, I stated that I don't like these threads, Flipside stated that he can't lock it. I could see how you interpret it from my next post, but I never said there that locking the thread was the only option. I forget what flipside then said, but then I said something that implied that just telling the people to stop the generalizations would be fine. Then I reworded my previous post for clarifacation, and then I made my current previous post.
I'd write more, but I want this particular aspect of the thread to die...
-
Every time there is a thread like this, I like this place a little less.
You know, if I lock 'em people complain, if I leave them open, people complain.
This was why postcount was turned off in here.
And how is the situation with global warming any different? People that don't believe that humans are causing or can do anything about global warming will try to tell you that you're gullible for believing Al Gore's political shennanigans.
As for people that do believe - well, this thread would seem to label me a racist and a mass murderer who's responsible for war crimes because I live in the US. There's no thought given to who's actually responsible, it's just 'they' and 'them'. That is what I, personally, dislike about this thread. I haven't said a word for or against environmentalism, and I'm already supposedly guilty by association of war crimes.
Is this how career environmentalists want to be viewed? As a bunch of whiners who blame entire countries when one piece of legislation doesn't go their way?
Furthermore, I don't pretend to understand the science or evidence behind global warming like most people do. I leave that to the people who care and want to be a part of that flamefest. But from what I've experienced, both sides will claim you're an idiot if you either (A) naively believe that global warming can be prevented, or (B) can't see the validity of the evidence that's staring you in the face.
So all this name-calling just leaves me walking away from both sides. I guess that would technically be a win for the people who don't believe in global warming, but I don't see how I can remain neutral. Plant half-trees or something?
Because the thread is referring to the Environment meetings in Bali, all IPAndrews was commenting on was the current American position with regards to those meetings.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to agree that the first post could be a little more specific, don't have a problem with that, but I know you remember the days following the reshuffle, when threads were being locked at about 10 a day, rather than assuming that what someone says is directed at you, just spend a few minutes and ask yourself how else it can be interpreted. I've done it myself, taken a post in a particular way and then realised that I've found offence because, in a way, I was looking for it.
I will change the title to 'The US Governments' attitude towards Global Warming', hopefully that will clear up some confusion? He's not criticising you personally, only the policy.
-
[...] (which goes for mimic monkeys like BloodEagle too, get your own damn opinion!).
How in the Hell does agreeing with someone make me a "mimic monkey"? :wtf:
By the way... just so you know, and seeing as how you don't know; it is possible for two people to have the same opinion about a specific thing. :rolleyes:
--------------------------------------------
And yes, I'll admit that the word racist is technically wrong; I was to lazy to type out "gross misrepresentation and over generalization of the population of the US". If it makes you feel better, I'll go back and change it.
Just so there's no confusion, which I seem to see somehow.... I was just pointing it out, I still agree with the statement and everything. :D
-
Because the thread is referring to the Environment meetings in Bali, all IPAndrews was commenting on was the current American position with regards to those meetings.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to agree that the first post could be a little more specific, don't have a problem with that, but I know you remember the days following the reshuffle, when threads were being locked at about 10 a day, rather than assuming that what someone says is directed at you, just spend a few minutes and ask yourself how else it can be interpreted. I've done it myself, taken a post in a particular way and then realised that I've found offence because, in a way, I was looking for it.
I will change the title to 'The US Governments' attitude towards Global Warming', hopefully that will clear up some confusion? He's not criticising you personally, only the policy.
Just because I was one of the people who complained about the number of threads being locked doesn't mean that I think every thread needs to stay open. I also didn't ask for this thread to be locked. I've seen this thread for the last day or so and it's annoyed me, but I didn't think it was a good idea to say anything until:
If you see something you disagree with, then challenge it openly and passionately, and we will listen.
Which was the first time that I saw a way in to the thread.
As for me getting defensive, it's too complex to explain. Maybe someone else can, but I feel like you've either been in this position and you know how it feels, or you haven't, or you're just different enough that you really don't see why it's worth it to me to respond at all.
-
And how is the situation with global warming any different? People that don't believe that humans are causing or can do anything about global warming will try to tell you that you're gullible for believing Al Gore's political shennanigans.
Doesn't the majority of the scientific community agree taht we caused it and that we have to do something about it?
But then again, people tend to listen to scintists, lawyers, facts and evidence only when it suits them :P
-
And how is the situation with global warming any different? People that don't believe that humans are causing or can do anything about global warming will try to tell you that you're gullible for believing Al Gore's political shennanigans.
Doesn't the majority of the scientific community agree taht we caused it and that we have to do something about it?
But then again, people tend to listen to scintists, lawyers, facts and evidence only when it suits them :P
No, actually.
They agree it's happening, sure, but not that we caused it. It's an open question as to whether we caused it, we are accelerating a natural process that was ongoing already, or it's not our fault at all...yet. Doubtless we have the capablity to cause it, but it's not sure that it would take effect as quickly as it has.
-
Yes actually.
From what I read most scientist agree we caused it.
-
From what I read most scientist agree we caused it. [citation needed]
-
To be honest, when the Lea Valley floods, and I'm busy pulling all my belongings up the stairs, I don't give a monkeys if it's man-made or not, it doesn't make the floodwater any drier.
-
Thread necromancy ftw
Over 400 scientists dispute "manmade" global warming. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)
Edit:
However, Western emission cutbacks will reflect in productivity levels. I'm of the mindset that we're better to put as much effort into new technologies as possible, even if it means continuing with only slight reductions in overall emission levels until a binding deal can be forged that includes everyone.
Cutbacks in the Western nations are absolutely meaningless unless we can get China and India to meet the same targets. By contrast, if we set less ambitious targets and get everyone on board, perhaps a gradual and practical solution can be found. Setting targets in the West and trying to force it on less developed nations later without a gradual introductory period is going to do nothing but cause chaos.
I'd rather have politicians like Harper at the table pointing at India and going "they have to be included too" then setting lesser targets for everyone, than Brown's idealism which is going to make the situation worse - the more China and India develop in industry, they less willing they're going to be to spend more money and give up those production levels.
Wow. For once I actually agree with MP-Ryan. And its not the usual gigantic wall of text!!!???!!! What's up with that? :p
-
Nice. About time. Now they can wrangle it out instead of saying:
"All the scientists say global warming is out doing and only quackpots disagree; there's only a few dozen who do so."
"That's not true! Many scientists disagree!"
Ah... names. Research papers & sites. Good stuff. Now maybe we'll get somewhere. :yes:
-
Many of those scientists are sceptical of the Alarmist outlook given by the UN review, that doesn't mean that they think we don't have any impact at all, they just think things are not as bad as Al Gore makes out. If you take Al Gore as a comparison, as that document does, then I'm a sceptic.....
-
Many of those scientists are sceptical of the Alarmist outlook given by the UN review, that doesn't mean that they think we don't have any impact at all, they just think things are not as bad as Al Gore makes out. If you take Al Gore as a comparison, as that document does, then I'm a sceptic.....
No, don't try to explain it away, it's proof. Total, undeniable proof that we aren't causing global warming. Proof that we haven't caused anything, and by extension can't fix anything. So let's just kick up our heels, sit back, and relax with a tall margarita. Everything's gonna be all right.
-
I have always thought that the argument about "we should do something to prevent the climate change" is a little bit black and white.
How the hell do you know those actions have any possible means to prevent the climate change? There is a huge risk of global instability also from that side. I have not seen many studies about the reversibility of the climate change. Also regarding the congressional link, it seems that the UN IPCC report has some shaky background in the reviewing process. I should contact one of those listed scientists to ask about some questions, if I find time and interest.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that even if climate change would happen, it is pretty much something you need to adapt to. Climate change has happened, happens and will happen in cycles even without the presence of man.
Personally, my opinion is that the best thing about global warming is that it will hit hardest the most polluting areas.
Mika
-
http://www.desmogblog.com/science-committee-slams-industry-funded-climate-science-attack
I wonder how many of those scientists were bought and paid for by certain industries. So yeah, what kind of research have those guys done?
Ah, a breath of fresh air on Capitol Hill today. Was it the spring air? Nope, it was a Congressional Subcommittee hearing today questioning industry efforts within science agencies, like NASA, NOAA and the EPA, to control federal scientists and confuse the public around the science of global warming.
Ahhhh, sweet sweet exposure.
-
Given that are thousands of scientists around, 400 ARE a minority :lol:
-
I wonder how many of those scientists were bought and paid for by certain industries. So yeah, what kind of research have those guys done?
Kosh Kosh Kosh... ever the resident conspiracy theorist. While there is the possibility that the accusations are true, I suppose we can all continue wondering, since after lengthy investigations, absolutely no evidence was ever found linking "those scientists" to "certain industries." Shady indeed. On the other hand, "man-made" global warming theorists/scientists have been making a killing off of the idea. Tourism, government funding, even oceanic cruises (a couple of which have sunk due to running into ice as I recall. How is that for irony?). You name it. Do I really even have to name Al Gore as an example? Don't make me go there please. I don't think anybody likes talking about Gore.
Given that are thousands of scientists around, 400 ARE a minority :lol:
ZOMG fascist Canadian news article
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
Extra reading:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3
-
The problem with Climate Change is that it is heavily politized question. Let me start with a question that what makes you think that federal scientists will not have a bias caused by funding from environmental groups?
After reading IPCC's report, I would go on to the proponents site, like this:
http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
and read the alternative point of view.
There are certain articles listed in there, like these that I find to be very interesting:
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm (<- this is especially interesting, I have been wondering about the history of the hysteria for quite a long time. It certainly is not un-biased, though.)
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/co2new.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/guests/jet.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/DecadalEnso.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/US-drought.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/guests/tim-ball.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/dietze/cmodcalc.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/cooling.htm
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32&p=1
http://www.hilltimes.com/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/may/28/letter4/&c=1
I'm perfectly aware there are little references to publications in these articles and the author is most likely heavily linked to energy industry. So, is it mudslinging by energy industry, or valid arguments coming from people who have been employed by energy companies [if you cannot alter the facts, attack the ways facts are obtained]? Or comments by concerned scientists? By my judgement, there is still some legitimaty in these articles.
One thing to note is that some of the article writers honestly and openly admit they are working for energy companies. How easily can you get the funding group information from scientifical articles? Besides, there are some strange tones what one could read along the lines about the quality of scientists and engineers working in the industry in general.
According to my observations, the industry and military will employ the best of the classes and have far more demanding tasks. This is simply because you cannot do business by being stupid and making big mistakes in the analysis, so you might as well call them even better qualified than University researchers.
The truth about if global warming is caused by man lies most likely somewhere between these two sides. Adaption is the solution, which ever way the future will play.
Mika
-
http://www.desmogblog.com/science-committee-slams-industry-funded-climate-science-attack
I wonder how many of those scientists were bought and paid for by certain industries. So yeah, what kind of research have those guys done?
Ah, a breath of fresh air on Capitol Hill today. Was it the spring air? Nope, it was a Congressional Subcommittee hearing today questioning industry efforts within science agencies, like NASA, NOAA and the EPA, to control federal scientists and confuse the public around the science of global warming.
Ahhhh, sweet sweet exposure.
I'm still waiting on my check. :D
But, I'm just wondering, if the industry is paying scientists to be sceptics, could we also say greenies are paying scientists and people like Al Gore?
-
I'd say that without a doubt, scientists are having a great deal of pressure put on them from those that stand to benefit from the outcome, regardless of which direction.
The answer probably lay somewhere in the middle, i.e. We are having an affect, but the environment was headed that way anyway.
The important half of that sentence is the second one, it's the one we really should start thinking about more deeply.
-
But, I'm just wondering, if the industry is paying scientists to be sceptics, could we also say greenies are paying scientists and people like Al Gore?
They're all hippies. Where would they get the money? :p
-
But, I'm just wondering, if the industry is paying scientists to be sceptics, could we also say greenies are paying scientists and people like Al Gore?
They're all hippies. Where would they get the money? :p
Drugs, dur. :D
-
According to my observations, the industry and military will employ the best of the classes and have far more demanding tasks. This is simply because you cannot do business by being stupid and making big mistakes in the analysis, so you might as well call them even better qualified than University researchers.
As someone who has a foot in both academia and the oil industry, can I just call bull****, please? You get idiots and geniuses in both camps, to be sure, but it is a helluvalot harder for the idiots to hide in academia. You are expected to publish peer reviewed articles; lots of them. If you don't, you will not get tenure. If your science is shoddy, it will eventually get caught (re: Hwang Woo Suk, cold fusion, etc.) In industry, there are usually few to no peer-reviewed papers. Your work will NOT receive public scrutiny. It frequently won't receive much scrutiny within the company itself. It is EASY to hide the fact you are incompetent when there is no one in contact with you who could also do your job.
-
Although I agree with you in general, the standards aren't exactly great in the academic world either. Unless you're exceptionally good, either the peer review process involves having connections in the editorial committees or the nature of the subject is such that it's trivial to make up nonsense. Even in math, I've seen plenty of cases where a guy writes 5+ papers on essentially the same thing, just presented a slightly different way each time and spread out over a few years. Only someone familiar with the area would notice it, but that probably consists of less than 30 people in the world, most of whom are likely the author's friends anyway. :p
-
I'd say that without a doubt, scientists are having a great deal of pressure put on them from those that stand to benefit from the outcome, regardless of which direction.
The answer probably lay somewhere in the middle, i.e. We are having an affect, but the environment was headed that way anyway.
The important half of that sentence is the second one, it's the one we really should start thinking about more deeply.
I'd like to bring up a point I think interesting. Apparently there is a relatively significant divergence of earth's surface temperatures vs its atmospheric temperatures -- With surface temperatures generally increasing, and atmospheric temperatures having a lower trend and in some cases cooling. There is, of course, also debate on the methods of measuring these temperatures. Stationary ground stations for the surface, and weather balloon & satellite for atmospheric. I won't throw a huge wall of text to explain my view on the whole issue, but it seems to be solar activity causing much/most/all of the warming previously thought to be caused by greenhouse effect. My reasons for believing this being: #1, Surface temperature of Mars as well as other planets are increasing on a parallel level, #2, solar activity has the tendency to warm surface temperature while having a much smaller effect on the atmosphere (even in the long-term) #3, the greenhouse effect theory supposedly conjects that atmospheric temperature should have roughly the same trend as surface temperature with little time-delay between the two.
Anyways, just some ideas to throw out there.
-
But, I'm just wondering, if the industry is paying scientists to be sceptics, could we also say greenies are paying scientists and people like Al Gore?
With what? Green organizations are non-profit grass roots organizations that depends completely on donations from its members. Compare this with the billions of dollars the energy industry makes every year. "It's a vast green conspiracy", rrriiiiigggghhhhhttttt. Lets face it, they don't have the money or the power to do something like that.
-
But, I'm just wondering, if the industry is paying scientists to be sceptics, could we also say greenies are paying scientists and people like Al Gore?
With what? Green organizations are non-profit grass roots organizations that depends completely on donations from its members. Compare this with the billions of dollars the energy industry makes every year. "It's a vast green conspiracy", rrriiiiigggghhhhhttttt. Lets face it, they don't have the money or the power to do something like that.
You'd be surprised how much some of these "Green organizations" make every year. And they don't (contrary to popular belief) depend completely on donations from members. Just google anything like "FavoriteEnvironmentalGroupHere to sue/sues." You wouldn't even be able to read all the cases before you died of old age (or boredom).
Also, its not just the "Green" groups. Much more so, the money comes from lobbyists, universities, TONS of foundation funds, and of course, government funding. Its not a conspiracy theory because they're not trying to be secretive about it. Its proudly presented all over the place. Everybody is scrambling to be the next Captain Planet.
I was going to finish the thought, but I'm way too tired and about to pass out. Cheers!
-
I think it's interesting you say I am a conspiracy theorist for saying pretty much the exact opposite you are.
-
I'd say that without a doubt, scientists are having a great deal of pressure put on them from those that stand to benefit from the outcome, regardless of which direction.
The answer probably lay somewhere in the middle, i.e. We are having an affect, but the environment was headed that way anyway.
The important half of that sentence is the second one, it's the one we really should start thinking about more deeply.
I'd like to bring up a point I think interesting. Apparently there is a relatively significant divergence of earth's surface temperatures vs its atmospheric temperatures -- With surface temperatures generally increasing, and atmospheric temperatures having a lower trend and in some cases cooling. There is, of course, also debate on the methods of measuring these temperatures. Stationary ground stations for the surface, and weather balloon & satellite for atmospheric. I won't throw a huge wall of text to explain my view on the whole issue, but it seems to be solar activity causing much/most/all of the warming previously thought to be caused by greenhouse effect. My reasons for believing this being: #1, Surface temperature of Mars as well as other planets are increasing on a parallel level, #2, solar activity has the tendency to warm surface temperature while having a much smaller effect on the atmosphere (even in the long-term) #3, the greenhouse effect theory supposedly conjects that atmospheric temperature should have roughly the same trend as surface temperature with little time-delay between the two.
Anyways, just some ideas to throw out there.
Well then yay, were still screwed. we DEFINATELY cant change things on a solar scale at this time
-
Who said we're screwed? Why should global warming be a bad thing? Hel-lo, there are frozen palm trees buried in ice in the Arctic, not to mention mammoths... oh, did I mention they were frozen with the contents of their stomach not having decayed!!??!!... something changed there... and appartently, we're on the other side of that event.
-
I'd say that without a doubt, scientists are having a great deal of pressure put on them from those that stand to benefit from the outcome, regardless of which direction.
The answer probably lay somewhere in the middle, i.e. We are having an affect, but the environment was headed that way anyway.
The important half of that sentence is the second one, it's the one we really should start thinking about more deeply.
Ahh yes, the good old "Truth is in the middle"-fallacy. Yes, IPCC and other international huge scientific organizations are wrong, these news brought to you by Flipside from the internet!
-
You'd be surprised how much some of these "Green organizations" make every year.
A LOT less than the big companies.
And they don't (contrary to popular belief) depend completely on donations from members. Just google anything like "FavoriteEnvironmentalGroupHere to sue/sues." You wouldn't even be able to read all the cases before you died of old age (or boredom).
How many of those cases do they win? Who pays for the procedure? Do they sue for money or to force some action? If for money, check what that money is used for.
Surface temperature of Mars as well as other planets are increasing on a parallel level
Nah, I don't know where you get this from, but there is no consistent increase on all solar planets. The temperature on Mars has risen somewhat, but is has actually fallen on some other planets. That said, given how little we know of those planets and their cycles, any increase/drop of temperature could very well be a part of their cycle, so any "evidence" derived from that is on shaky legs (to put it very mildly).
-
I'd say that without a doubt, scientists are having a great deal of pressure put on them from those that stand to benefit from the outcome, regardless of which direction.
The answer probably lay somewhere in the middle, i.e. We are having an affect, but the environment was headed that way anyway.
The important half of that sentence is the second one, it's the one we really should start thinking about more deeply.
Ahh yes, the good old "Truth is in the middle"-fallacy. Yes, IPCC and other international huge scientific organizations are wrong, these news brought to you by Flipside from the internet!
Gosh! Did I actually say that I didn't necessarily agree with a large, scientific body that relies on funding? Unthinkable, maybe I should be put to death by stoning for daring to go against the 'flow'!
Do you realise where that kind of thinking leads?
'You can't argue with the IPCC! They're....the IPCC!'
Seen that fallacy rise to the surface more than once.
Edit: And for clarification, 400 years ago would you have been saying 'The Earth? Around the sun?? don't be ridiculous!'?
-
And now that I've calmed down a little from waking up to Janos' rudeness, I will explain a little further....
Saying that 'You cannot agree with the scientifically accepted answer because it's the scientifically accepted answer' is a surefire path to stagnation, axioms are made to be tested and questioned. That's why Janos' comment annoyed me so much, I don't agree that we should ignore the argument, but I also don't consider that any organisation or person has the right to say 'We are the only ones who are right'.
Oh, and considering the thread is about the difference between the alarmist view and the passive view, not the passive view and the denial view anyway, it might have helped if you had read all of it.
-
Saying that 'You cannot agree with the scientifically accepted answer because it's the scientifically accepted answer' is a surefire path to stagnation, axioms are made to be tested and questioned.
Questioning is fine Flip. But you went further and claimed to have a probable answer different from the IPCC. At which point it's only fair that we question your claim and ask you on what evidence you arrived at it?
Janos might have been rude in the way he put it but you can't simply disagree with IPCC just because they are a bunch of people claiming that it's wrong. It's quite possible the IPCC is correct and the others are cranks and yes men.
To use your Earth and Sun analogy you probably ought to explain why your "It's probably in the middle" argument isn't like someone saying "Can't we just say that 50% of the time the Earth goes round the Sun and 50% of the time the Sun goes round it" and thinking it would please both sides since in effect you're disagreeing with both sets of scientific opinion on the matter.
-
I sometimes feel guilty in posting these things but...
US Scientists have 'proven' that global warming is not due to the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, but because of Earth itself. The scientists claimed that the Earth is rotating faster, and therefore the core of the earth is also heating up.
I bet all you played Blue Planet right? That would happen one day...except there is no Knossos portal AND there is no Delta Serpantis AND there are no Vasudans AND ther is no subspace.
-
If people want to disagree with my opinion, that's fine.
The entire discussion I was having was regarding a document where several of the scientists involved are questioning the alarmist approach, just as I do. That doesn't mean I don't think there is a problem, it means that I am more on the side of the people who think Al Gore and the other politicos are over-playing it.
My problem is not with Janos disagreeing with me, that's his prerogative, my problem is with the whole 'Oh noes! He questions the Panel!'
A more accurate answer to the 'Earth round the Sun' analogy would be to say, 'Yes, the Earth does go round the Sun, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.'
In other words, I believe in climate change, I don't believe in some of the more alarmist points of view, and neither do many scientists.
Edit: And, I hate to say it, but if I can post anonymously to a bulletin board and get my credibility vehemently attacked, when I never even pretended to have any, it does make me wonder how accurate that report is about scientists who are afraid to mention their own personal concerns about the alarmism.
-
I am disagreeing you, I am just saying that people are trying to make exuses to fool the people that this is a natural cause and we can't help it.
I am with you, since alarmist are a lot of times lying.
-
I am with you, since alarmist are a lot of times lying.
... And all of the time stretching.
-
Oh, I don't doubt we are having an impact to a degree either, which is probably larger than some would like you to think, but probably less than some others try to make you believe. Or, to round it down, probably somewhere in between.
We've known we were at the tail end of an interglacial period for some time, it's going to get mighty cold for around 60,000 years, as I remember it, that interglacial period is preceded by a period of Global Warming. The original estimate for that, though, was within the next 20,000 years. However, as far as I'm aware, there is very little data for the glacial-interglacial transition speed, we don't know how long it takes for an ice-age to get rolling.
So, are we having an effect? Yes. Is cutting back going to buy us some time? Yes. Are we, at the end of the day, spitting at a Tsunami? I believe that is quite possibly the case.
-
I'd say that without a doubt, scientists are having a great deal of pressure put on them from those that stand to benefit from the outcome, regardless of which direction.
The answer probably lay somewhere in the middle, i.e. We are having an affect, but the environment was headed that way anyway.
The important half of that sentence is the second one, it's the one we really should start thinking about more deeply.
Ahh yes, the good old "Truth is in the middle"-fallacy. Yes, IPCC and other international huge scientific organizations are wrong, these news brought to you by Flipside from the internet!
Gosh! Did I actually say that I didn't necessarily agree with a large, scientific body that relies on funding? Unthinkable, maybe I should be put to death by stoning for daring to go against the 'flow'!
Do you realise where that kind of thinking leads?
'You can't argue with the IPCC! They're....the IPCC!'
Seen that fallacy rise to the surface more than once.
Edit: And for clarification, 400 years ago would you have been saying 'The Earth? Around the sun?? don't be ridiculous!'?
You can disagree with them as much as you want. But you do realize that they are a very good authority on this (and they are only one of like billion institutions that say that yes, global warming is manmade)? Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not authority on the matter at hand! However, your "disagreement", calling for middle road, means that you believe they are wrong every single time when it comes to global warming!
Also, I wasn't there 400 years ago, so thanks for your omniscience, what am I going to do tomorrow?
-
Oh, I don't doubt we are having an impact to a degree either, which is probably larger than some would like you to think, but probably less than some others try to make you believe. Or, to round it down, probably somewhere in between.
We've known we were at the tail end of an interglacial period for some time, it's going to get mighty cold for around 60,000 years, as I remember it, that interglacial period is preceded by a period of Global Warming. The original estimate for that, though, was within the next 20,000 years. However, as far as I'm aware, there is very little data for the glacial-interglacial transition speed, we don't know how long it takes for an ice-age to get rolling.
So, are we having an effect? Yes. Is cutting back going to buy us some time? Yes. Are we, at the end of the day, spitting at a Tsunami? I believe that is quite possibly the case.
We'll the thing is there are many different ways of looking at the effects. My major beef with Global Warming lies with "Climate Change", where as everyone knows the heat from the greenhouse effect strengthens totally throwing the climate into chaos. Now for one, the temp has risen between .4 and .6C over the past 200 years. Now the thing is, could .5C of warming throw the climate into chaos? Well there is another twist, that is at the surface, as as has been said already the surface is warming faster than the mid-upper layers of the atmosphere(Throws a kink into some global warming thoughts) So the warming up through the atmosphere is less.
Why is that important? Well the systems that give us our weather are not at the surface but are at and above 500mb(around 5600M in height). So one of the real split questions in Global Warming is Not just are we warming the earth, but are we changing the atmosphere.
My second major beef with global warming is not really global warming but it's supporters. Now I've seen several times where someone gets a heat wave, "it's global warming!", if someone gets hit by a hurricane, "it's global warming", but sometimes if you get a freak winter blast you get this answer, "No single event can prove support for or against global warming" :p
Now that steams me. :D
I totally understand your stance Flip and it is a good one I can relate with. If we have added this much Co2 into the atmosphere, yes we would be likely having a small effect temp-wise. But, when someone tells me that the effect we caused has thrown the planet into chaos, you'll lose me pretty quick. ;)
-
There's no doubt some people are overblowingthe issue..You will ALLWAYS find people on both sides (both? Many times there aren't just 3 sides..on any side to be more specific)
Several large scienfitic bodies agree on the amtter (The IPPC, UN report, etc..) Do they have the auhority on the matter? Yes. Is it possible that they are lying? Of course..it always is..but it's not very likely. We're talking about thousands of scientists here.
On the "Sun around the Earth" analgoy - back then there was no scientific method, no peer review, no large anual gathering and debates, so this can't compare...at all.
Will you find scientists that disagree? Of course you will. These days you can find people that disagree on ANYTHING. You even have educated people claiming redicolous things - like the Earth is 4000 years old or even crazier stuff. So that doesn't realyl say much.
I for one trust Al Gore. Why?
1. I had to write a paper on the subject of Global Warming so I had to do a lot of research into that matter. Real reserch, and a not a quick web search.
2. Why would he lie? I'ts not a political gimmick, since he's not running for president and he's been fighting global warming like forever.
3. I have eyes.
Just how big of a influence we have? Hard to tell, but even a small influence is enough to tip the scales, and climate is and apparently allways has been rather fragile. Not to mention that anyone with some knowledge of chemisty can quickyl see that some of the things we dump in nature and thousands, if not million of times more damageing than anything that normally happens in nature.
IIRC, one molecule of a greenhouse gas (can't remember which one it was tough) can react to and destroy more than 10000 molecules of ozone before it degrades :P Go figure.
-
There's no doubt some people are overblowingthe issue..You will ALLWAYS find people on both sides (both? Many times there aren't just 3 sides..on any side to be more specific)
Several large scienfitic bodies agree on the amtter (The IPPC, UN report, etc..) Do they have the auhority on the matter? Yes. Is it possible that they are lying? Of course..it always is..but it's not very likely. We're talking about thousands of scientists here.
On the "Sun around the Earth" analgoy - back then there was no scientific method, no peer review, no large anual gathering and debates, so this can't compare...at all.
Will you find scientists that disagree? Of course you will. These days you can find people that disagree on ANYTHING. You even have educated people claiming redicolous things - like the Earth is 4000 years old or even crazier stuff. So that doesn't realyl say much.
I for one trust Al Gore. Why?
1. I had to write a paper on the subject of Global Warming so I had to do a lot of research into that matter. Real reserch, and a not a quick web search.
2. Why would he lie? I'ts not a political gimmick, since he's not running for president and he's been fighting global warming like forever.
3. I have eyes.
Just how big of a influence we have? Hard to tell, but even a small influence is enough to tip the scales, and climate is and apparently allways has been rather fragile. Not to mention that anyone with some knowledge of chemisty can quickyl see that some of the things we dump in nature and thousands, if not million of times more damageing than anything that normally happens in nature.
IIRC, one molecule of a greenhouse gas (can't remember which one it was tough) can react to and destroy more than 10000 molecules of ozone before it degrades :P Go figure.
Then you might like this. ;)
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)
-
Two can play that game. :p
http://www.badscience.net/?p=383
I do have to wonder how many of those scientists who have doubts are simply being misrepresented in the same way as in that documentary.
My second major beef with global warming is not really global warming but it's supporters. Now I've seen several times where someone gets a heat wave, "it's global warming!", if someone gets hit by a hurricane, "it's global warming", but sometimes if you get a freak winter blast you get this answer, "No single event can prove support for or against global warming" :p
Now that steams me. :D
Pisses me off too.
But when certain Christians blame hurricanes on God does that mean you deny His existence? :p There is no cause so right or so wrong you won't find vocal idiots shouting about it. But that doesn't automatically invalidate the cause itself.
My problem is not with Janos disagreeing with me, that's his prerogative, my problem is with the whole 'Oh noes! He questions the Panel!'[/qoute]
If that's all you have a problem with then little more need be said. His reply was unnecessarily rude.
Edit: And, I hate to say it, but if I can post anonymously to a bulletin board and get my credibility vehemently attacked, when I never even pretended to have any, it does make me wonder how accurate that report is about scientists who are afraid to mention their own personal concerns about the alarmism.
cf my reply to WeatherOp. :D
But seriously I tend to be very skeptical about the skeptics. How many of them are the same people who 20 years ago were trying to tell us that the world wasn't warming at all? Cause the argument about it not being man-made is actually newer than whole Greenhouse Effect/Global Warming debate.
For the 5 years there were a whole bunch of scientists lined up to tell us that the world wasn't actually getting any warmer. They had graphs and charts to prove it too. They were lots of scientists from all kinds of disciplines saying that the world wasn't warming up. Unfortunately for them after a few years the level of proof because sufficient that only a crackpot would continue to claim that the world wasn't getting warmer. Then we saw a sudden change in the sceptics views to the position that yes, the world is getting warmer but mankind isn't to blame for it.
I find it very suspicious that someone can do a complete 180 on their point of view that quickly.
-
Then you might like this. ;)
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)
Read it when I was writing the paper. As I said, I've benn very methodical in my research. I spent 2 months just reading trough materials from 2 pages worth of sources.
For the 5 years there were a whole bunch of scientists lined up to tell us that the world wasn't actually getting any warmer. They had graphs and charts to prove it too. They were lots of scientists from all kinds of disciplines saying that the world wasn't warming up. Unfortunately for them after a few years the level of proof because sufficient that only a crackpot would continue to claim that the world wasn't getting warmer. Then we saw a sudden change in the sceptics views to the position that yes, the world is getting warmer but mankind isn't to blame for it.
It wouldn't surprise me if 5 years from now we see the same thing regarding man-caused Global Warming. :lol:
-
You think they'll blame alien death rays next? :P
-
You think they'll blame alien death rays next? :P
Lol, but shivans is non-canon for the rest of world who don't play FS.
-
My second major beef with global warming is not really global warming but it's supporters. Now I've seen several times where someone gets a heat wave, "it's global warming!", if someone gets hit by a hurricane, "it's global warming", but sometimes if you get a freak winter blast you get this answer, "No single event can prove support for or against global warming" :p
Now that steams me. :D
Pisses me off too.
But when certain Christians blame hurricanes on God does that mean you deny His existence? :p There is no cause so right or so wrong you won't find vocal idiots shouting about it. But that doesn't automatically invalidate the cause itself.
Yeah, but you must admit you hear much more people saying every departure of temp, hurricanes, ice melting, is caused by global warming, than you hear people saying a hurricane hit a city because everyone was un-godly.
So there are a lot more idiots in your camp, than mine. :p
cf my reply to WeatherOp. :D
But seriously I tend to be very skeptical about the skeptics. How many of them are the same people who 20 years ago were trying to tell us that the world wasn't warming at all? Cause the argument about it not being man-made is actually newer than whole Greenhouse Effect/Global Warming debate.
For the 5 years there were a whole bunch of scientists lined up to tell us that the world wasn't actually getting any warmer. They had graphs and charts to prove it too. They were lots of scientists from all kinds of disciplines saying that the world wasn't warming up. Unfortunately for them after a few years the level of proof because sufficient that only a crackpot would continue to claim that the world wasn't getting warmer. Then we saw a sudden change in the sceptics views to the position that yes, the world is getting warmer but mankind isn't to blame for it.
I find it very suspicious that someone can do a complete 180 on their point of view that quickly.
And I'm very skeptical about how global warming is portrayed to the everyday people who really have no clue about how the atmosphere works. It would be very easy to twist around things. Like this for example:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)
I could easily point to the huge spike at the end and say it's man's global warming. But, the truth is if you look at the map and lets assume it is correct, you see that temps were below avg. for the past 1000+ years and the Medieval warm spike was avg.
But, then again I can't blame them for confusing and using the stupid public. :p
-
Yeah, but you must admit you hear much more people saying every departure of temp, hurricanes, ice melting, is caused by global warming, than you hear people saying a hurricane hit a city because everyone was un-godly.
So there are a lot more idiots in your camp, than mine. :p
Ah but the quality of your camps stupidity is so much better.
*points at Fred Phelps*
I doubt that there is anything as good as that in the global warming camp.
And I'm very skeptical about how global warming is portrayed to the everyday people who really have no clue about how the atmosphere works. It would be very easy to twist around things. Like this for example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
I could easily point to the huge spike at the end and say it's man's global warming. But, the truth is if you look at the map and lets assume it is correct, you see that temps were below avg. for the past 1000+ years and the Medieval warm spike was avg.
But, then again I can't blame them for confusing and using the stupid public. :p
It has to be presented simply though. A graph like that is understandable to the average public. More importantly it's understandable to politicians. Who lets face it couldn't find their arse with both hands.
-
Yeah, but you must admit you hear much more people saying every departure of temp, hurricanes, ice melting, is caused by global warming, than you hear people saying a hurricane hit a city because everyone was un-godly.
So there are a lot more idiots in your camp, than mine. :p
Ah but the quality of your camps stupidity is so much better.
*points at Fred Phelps*
I doubt that there is anything as good as that in the global warming camp.
Phelps a good idiot, but there was the politician that said global warming skeptics should be treated like traitors. I can't remember his name though.
-
Let's face it, he may play in the same league as Phelps but he's at the bottom facing relegation in comparison. :D One utterly stupid comment can't compare with a lifetime of them. :D
-
Go read this: here (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html). Then come back and talk about it.. will be interesting. Just keep it nice, will ya? XD Ya, riiiiiight... Hmm... people are actually being civilized here. /me likes. But did anyone read the link? XD
-
I sometimes feel guilty in posting these things but...
US Scientists have 'proven' that global warming is not due to the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, but because of Earth itself. The scientists claimed that the Earth is rotating faster, and therefore the core of the earth is also heating up.
I bet all you played Blue Planet right? That would happen one day...except there is no Knossos portal AND there is no Delta Serpantis AND there are no Vasudans AND ther is no subspace.
Who when and where?
-
I would have to disagree on the subspace thing. though im quite sure it works quite diferantly from the subspace in freespace ;) And, delta serpentis does exist :p
-
I like where this thread started, and where it is going. It reminds me a lot of why I don't read this board anymore.
Little known fact: The United States also invented breast, lung and prostate cancer. The US also put the AIDS into Africa to kill off all the Colored people. The fact that the gay community caught it as well was only icing on the cake.
-
I like where this thread started, and where it is going. It reminds me a lot of why I don't read this board anymore.
Little known fact: The United States also invented breast, lung and prostate cancer. The US also put the AIDS into Africa to kill off all the Colored people. The fact that the gay community caught it as well was only icing on the cake.
Ohh, I thought you were talking about Kara and I debating idiots. My bad. :p
-
I like where this thread started, and where it is going. It reminds me a lot of why I don't read this board anymore.
Little known fact: The United States also invented breast, lung and prostate cancer. The US also put the AIDS into Africa to kill off all the Colored people. The fact that the gay community caught it as well was only icing on the cake.
Ohh, I thought you were talking about Kara and I debating idiots. My bad. :p
No. I usually don't usually read long debate posts with quotes and dick waving, especially about asinine controversial topics like global warming.
But I do like your signature quote.
-
I like where this thread started, and where it is going. It reminds me a lot of why I don't read this board anymore.
Little known fact: The United States also invented breast, lung and prostate cancer. The US also put the AIDS into Africa to kill off all the Colored people. The fact that the gay community caught it as well was only icing on the cake.
Yes, because commenting on the policies of the United States is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Damn us for committing this heinous sin! Damn us for having a ****ing opinion! Damn us all... well, except those of us like yourself who are obviously above it all. :)
-
Basically.
Because, you know, the United States created Global Warming to defeat the Communists in the Cold War and to try to keep the European economy down. That's why nobody else in the world pollutes or contributes to any world wide CO2 / Toxin problems. Especially not the UK, China, France, Germany, or Russia.
But you have opinions, and ideas, and shivan jokes. So you already knew that.
-
Because, you know, the United States created Global Warming to defeat the Communists in the Cold War and to try to keep the European economy down. That's why nobody else in the world pollutes or contributes to any world wide CO2 / Toxin problems. Especially not the UK, China, France, Germany, or Russia.
This may be a silly question, but why exactly would you be expecting to see a protracted discussion of the global warming-related policies of China, France, Germany, Russia or the UK in a thread titled "US Governments' attitude towards global warming"? :)
Not that i'm implying any of us should have an opinion about the US Government, because that'd be stupid and wrong. I'm just wondering is all.
-
Go read this: here (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html). Then come back and talk about it.. will be interesting. Just keep it nice, will ya? XD Ya, riiiiiight... Hmm... people are actually being civilized here. /me likes. But did anyone read the link? XD
I don't think anyone with half a brain is really claiming that we'd all drown or that Earth would turn into Waterworld so I really don't know who he thinks he's arguing with.
-
No, but it could turn into venus given enough time x.x
-
Possible but I doubt we could actually do that much damage before Earth successfully wiped us out and managed to restore the balance.
-
Basically.
Because, you know, the United States created Global Warming to defeat the Communists in the Cold War and to try to keep the European economy down. That's why nobody else in the world pollutes or contributes to any world wide CO2 / Toxin problems. Especially not the UK, China, France, Germany, or Russia.
But you have opinions, and ideas, and shivan jokes. So you already knew that.
You know what?
People were debating, and if you are not interested in this then stay out of the thread. We are not here to serve you and whatever your preferences were and we are most definitely not interested if you think all global warming threads suck dick. On one other forum what you are doing would be called thread****ting, and it is.
You come in here, obviously do not read the thread and then post a strawman or two. High quality posting indeed.
-
You know what?
People were debating, and if you are not interested in this then stay out of the thread. We are not here to serve you and whatever your preferences were and we are most definitely not interested if you think all global warming threads suck dick. On one other forum what you are doing would be called thread****ting, and it is.
You come in here, obviously do not read the thread and then post a strawman or two. High quality posting indeed.
I was just going to stick with the passive-aggressive route, but okay then. What he said! :yes:
-
Ohh, I thought you were talking about Kara and I debating idiots. My bad. :p
You saying anyone disagreeing with you or Kara is an idiot? :wtf:
Pray tell me, what happens if you and Kara disagree on something? Which one is the idiot then? :lol:
-
Read back a few pages.
-
Alright, back to the discussion.
I think it's interesting you say I am a conspiracy theorist for saying pretty much the exact opposite you are.
While I understand what you're saying, the point I was trying to make in the difference between the two is that a conspiracy suggests that it is something they are trying to keep hidden. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with you being a conspiracy theorist. I'm saying that on the green side, there is no conspiracy, since they're not (for the most part) trying to keep their sources of money a secret. Thus no conspiracy.
A LOT less than the big companies.
How many of those cases do they win? Who pays for the procedure? Do they sue for money or to force some action? If for money, check what that money is used for.
Nah, I don't know where you get this from, but there is no consistent increase on all solar planets. The temperature on Mars has risen somewhat, but is has actually fallen on some other planets. That said, given how little we know of those planets and their cycles, any increase/drop of temperature could very well be a part of their cycle, so any "evidence" derived from that is on shaky legs (to put it very mildly).
Big companies, however don't pour all of their money into global warming. In fact, in every instance I've heard of so far, companies are putting more money into research on how to lower carbon emissions than they are into the actual research of global warming (by an extremely large amount, too). On the other side, most environmentalist groups (especially the bigger ones) would be putting most or all of their funds into it (as would seem likely). And again, its not just the green groups. In fact, I would guess that only a very small percentage of the total funding comes from them.
----
I'm not sure about the environmentalist groups suing thing. All I know is that they sue A LOT. I'm going to go ahead and assume based off of the sheer amount of cases they make that they're not entirely unsuccessful in winning them. You'd think if it wasn't working that they wouldn't do it as much.
----
You make a good point, but the key factor in the 'planet warming' phenomenon is that the planets and moons without an atmosphere are warming on a similar trend, strongly suggesting solar cause. Still, like you said, it is "on shaky legs" considering there are more factors than just atmosphere which we don't fully understand. But the general warming is, nonetheless, a hint towards solar activity.
----
Aaaaand back on the topic of the IPCC. It seems some people missed the link that I so rudely posted a few pages back thereby resurrecting this thread. Here it is again. Pretty good evidence against defending it as a "international huge scientific organization" when only 52 of them that supported the consensus were actual scientists. I'd go further in bashing the IPCC consensus, but hey - I'm lazy and its my birthday. :p
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
-
And all the 400 that singed the other document you mentioned were world-renowned, honorable, trustworthy scientists?
-
Because, you know, the United States created Global Warming to defeat the Communists in the Cold War and to try to keep the European economy down. That's why nobody else in the world pollutes or contributes to any world wide CO2 / Toxin problems. Especially not the UK, China, France, Germany, or Russia.
This may be a silly question, but why exactly would you be expecting to see a protracted discussion of the global warming-related policies of China, France, Germany, Russia or the UK in a thread titled "US Governments' attitude towards global warming"? :)
Not that i'm implying any of us should have an opinion about the US Government, because that'd be stupid and wrong. I'm just wondering is all.
Oh don't get me wrong. I don't have any beef with your having opinions, no matter how misguided they are. That's your God-given, evolutionarily divined right. Especially if you're American. My real beef is with the general Eurotard level of intelligence around these parts. It's rather prevalent in the first page of the topic. I'm pretty sure Flip was the only one to have anything intelligent to say.
And to Janosman, grats on finding your balls buddy. I don't know what "thread****ting" is, but I'm glad to hear that you don't care that I don't care about what you have to say. I was beginning to think someone was going to let me openly not be interested in this topic in peace, which would have been a travesty.
-
And to Janosman, grats on finding your balls buddy. I don't know what "thread****ting" is, but I'm glad to hear that you don't care that I don't care about what you have to say. I was beginning to think someone was going to let me openly not be interested in this topic in peace, which would have been a travesty.
I don't care that you don't care, but you are a crappy poster who loudly announces his disinterest and comes into a thread to do it
maybe you could seek attention elsewhere
-
And to Janosman, grats on finding your balls buddy. I don't know what "thread****ting" is, but I'm glad to hear that you don't care that I don't care about what you have to say. I was beginning to think someone was going to let me openly not be interested in this topic in peace, which would have been a travesty.
I don't care that you don't care, but you are a crappy poster who loudly announces his disinterest and comes into a thread to do it
maybe you could seek attention elsewhere
Crappy poster? Owch. You don't have to make it personal. You're starting to hurt my feelings. I honestly thought someone should know how ridiculous you guys are being. I guess that's what I get for trying to do a public service.
-
it is the most horrendous of all accusations
-
Possible but I doubt we could actually do that much damage before Earth successfully wiped us out and managed to restore the balance.
Thats what I worry about. The plane will survive us but will we survive the planet? Or if we do what will society look like.
-
Why does that concern you? If you are a natural process, your actions and their consequences are also natural.
-
Why does that concern you? If you are a natural process, your actions and their consequences are also natural.
What's that supposed to mean? :confused:
-
I'm a little bit late about this, but Christmas is Christmas
As someone who has a foot in both academia and the oil industry, can I just call bull****, please? You get idiots and geniuses in both camps, to be sure, but it is a helluvalot harder for the idiots to hide in academia. You are expected to publish peer reviewed articles; lots of them. If you don't, you will not get tenure. If your science is shoddy, it will eventually get caught (re: Hwang Woo Suk, cold fusion, etc.) In industry, there are usually few to no peer-reviewed papers. Your work will NOT receive public scrutiny. It frequently won't receive much scrutiny within the company itself. It is EASY to hide the fact you are incompetent when there is no one in contact with you who could also do your job.
You of course can call it whatever you want. I have a foot in both camps also. The thing about working in the company is that if you screw up, it is not only your job, but many other peoples' jobs that are in the line of fire. In the University, it is pretty much your research and job only.
What you said is probably true for large sized companies where it is possible to hide yourself under the radar. In medium sized or small sized companies this is simply not possible. But I'm not so sure about the infallibility of the scientific method, if you check the Ig-Nobel winners and their topics... Wasn't it sometime ago when several scientists published a bull**** article in a peer-reviewed study? Also, I have heard some rumours about a bull****-article generator generated article that was actually accepted in a symposium or conference?
Mika