Al Gore has lost it

[SUBMAN1]

http://www.wecansolveit.org/

He owns this site. Maybe he hasn't noticed the record cold temps outside lately. Snow in Iraq as first snow there in recorded history, China with the coldest temps in 100 years, worst cold in the US country wide in recorded history. Where is this warming exactly?

I guess he wants to be on top of something since he's failed at anything real. :p

-S

[Tchocky]

Context (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm)

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

[SUBMAN1]

Context (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm)

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.Yes - it has been heating up since the 1800's and our mini ice age. It is now peaked and heading the other direction. No way to stop another Ice Age. Not even if we gave every person on the planet an SUV and told them to drive 25K miles a year each.

-S

[CCIP]

And that's the point. To me any excuse to stop the SUV's is a good excuse :roll:

[AVGWarhawk]

Today's earth warming news....please hand me my parka:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

[SUBMAN1]

And that's the point. To me any excuse to stop the SUV's is a good excuse :roll:Epecially the ones piloted by cell phone talking mommies. And yes, they are piloted - since they are self guided missiles waiting to cause destruction! I have an SUV, but I use it to haul stuff. Besides, it will suck a $100 bill down at one gas stop. I drive my SAAB instead most time. The SAAB pulls in 30 MPG.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Today's earth warming news....please hand me my parka:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stmAnyone that has taken 5th grade science knows that we are headed for an Ice Age. That is why this AL Gore stuff annoys me.

Of course 1 in 4 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth, and I can see some on Subsim think so too.

-S

[August]

And that's the point. To me any excuse to stop the SUV's is a good excuse :roll:Epecially the ones piloted by cell phone talking mommies. And yes, they are piloted - since they are self guided missiles waiting to cause destruction! I have an SUV, but I use it to haul stuff. Besides, it will suck a $100 bill down at one gas stop. I drive my SAAB instead most time. The SAAB pulls in 30 MPG.

-S

Does the increased gas savings of the Saab make up for the 2nd insurance payment?

[Tchocky]

We're seeing short-term cooling due to La Nina, not an Ice Age.
The article makes that more than clear.

[August]

We're seeing short-term cooling due to La Nina, not an Ice Age.
The article makes that more than clear.

"Short term" cooling since 1998?

[SUBMAN1]

Does the increased gas savings of the Saab make up for the 2nd insurance payment?I get a discount. Once you are insuring one more thing with a single company, you pay much less than normal.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

"Short term" cooling since 1998?On top of that, the Arctic generated the record most ever recorded additional Ice Pack ever recorded this year. I'm worried that Ice pack is going to visit my backyard in the future.

-S

[August]

Does the increased gas savings of the Saab make up for the 2nd insurance payment?I get a discount. Once you are insuring one more thing with a single company, you pay much less than normal.

-S

I'm just wondering about the break even point. By having a second vehicle you are saving gas but paying more in insurance and other vehicle related costs. Does the former outweigh the latter?

[SUBMAN1]

I'm just wondering about the break even point. By having a second vehicle you are saving gas but paying more in insurance and other vehicle related costs. Does the former outweigh the latter?I'm sure I'm paying more for the luxury if you figure out the math, but not much more. I feel safer in the Saab anyway. Its saved my bacon a few times by being nimble. I use the SUV for hauling and off-roading. Finding good places to shoot requires good 4x4.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

Today's earth warming news....please hand me my parka:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stmAnyone that has taken 5th grade science knows that we are headed for an Ice Age. That is why this AL Gore stuff annoys me.

Of course 1 in 4 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth, and I can see some on Subsim think so too.

-S
The earth revolves around the sun?????:o Who knew? I posted this up Subman because, like you, I think Al Gore is about as qualified to make his statements on global warming as I'm qualified to make statements on the inner core of Pluto. The earth is doing it's thing naturally. Are humans helping or hindering in some respects? I think so. But not as much as Al seems to think we do as he jets around burning up jet fuel like a Banshi. Do I see us at 100 degrees year around by 2050? No. Al is smart though, he is making mad cash selling books and doing tours. Obama said he can be in his cabinet. How sweet. I just feel so cheery inside.:roll:

[Tchocky]

"Short term" cooling since 1998?On top of that, the Arctic generated the record most ever recorded additional Ice Pack ever recorded this year. I'm worried that Ice pack is going to visit my backyard in the future.

-S
August - Not cooling per se, rather stasis.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory. But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.
The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.
Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.



SUBMAN - can you provide a link for that ice? the most recent I can find says that the recent cold has helped Arctic ice back to "near normal" levels after the lowest ever area recorded in summer 2007.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html

[SUBMAN1]

The earth revolves around the sun?????:o ...Imagine that! :D

-S

[SUBMAN1]

SUBMAN - can you provide a link for that ice? the most recent I can find says that the recent cold has helped Arctic ice back to "near normal" levels after the lowest ever area recorded in summer 2007.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.htmlIts been a month since I read that. Maybe... Its known news though so it shouldn't be hard to find I would think.

-S

[Tchocky]

Something from two weeks ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080318/sc_nm/ice_arctic_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The thickest, oldest and toughest sea ice around the North Pole is melting, a bad sign for the future of the Arctic ice cap, NASA satellite data showed on Tuesday.

"Thickness is an indicator of long-term health of sea ice, and that's not looking good at the moment," Walt Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center told reporters in a telephone briefing.

This adds to the litany of disturbing news about Arctic sea ice, which has been retreating over the last three decades, especially last year, when it ebbed to its lowest level.

[SUBMAN1]

Something from two weeks ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080318/sc_nm/ice_arctic_dc

Could be, but then again, it will be back. AN example is Greenland that has had record levels of melting 6 times in 20 years, but it comes back. Not sure anyone can say new or old ice means anything.

AN example of why I don't trust a lot of this data anymore:

26 minutes agoYesterday, dailytech covered shocking allegations by an esteemed sea-level expert that the IPCC modified climate data and committed other violations in an attempt to falsely portray accelerating sea level rising. Arctic ice melt spurs a dire new warning Boston GlobeGreenland ice melting away at record rate, report finds Houston ChronicleBoise Weekly - Daily Green - Philadelphia Inquirer - AHNall 385 news articles
Pretty sad.

-S

[Tchocky]

AN example of why I don't trust a lot of this data anymore:

26 minutes agoYesterday, dailytech covered shocking allegations by an esteemed sea-level expert that the IPCC modified climate data and committed other violations in an attempt to falsely portray accelerating sea level rising. Arctic ice melt spurs a dire new warning Boston GlobeGreenland ice melting away at record rate, report finds Houston ChronicleBoise Weekly - Daily Green - Philadelphia Inquirer - AHNall 385 news articles
Pretty sad.

-S Sad? It's not even a sentence. Source please.


I went looking for the source, it gives one solitary google result.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22covered+shocking+allegations+by+an+est eemed+sea-level+expert%22&hl=en&filter=0

Here's the article from dailytech, more of the same from Michael Asher..
http://www.dailytech.com/Noted+Sea+Level+Expert+Accuses+IPCC+of+Falsifying+ Data/article9978.htm

Dr. Mörner is and an expert reviewer for the IPCC

Michael Asher is and an journalist :dead:

[Ducimus]

Maybe he hasn't noticed the record cold temps outside lately. Snow in Iraq as first snow there in recorded history, China with the coldest temps in 100 years, worst cold in the US country wide in recorded history. Where is this warming exactly?


I can't say i think much of Al Gore, so im not defending him, but i have to wonder....

How familiar are you with the oceans currents and their effect on the weather?

[SUBMAN1]

Dr. Mörner is and an expert reviewer for the IPCC

Michael Asher is and an journalist :dead:
Oh really?? WRONG!!! THis is the guy reporting it.

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has been studying sea level change for 35 years. He is the former head of Stockholm University's department of Paleodeophysics and Geodynamics. Dr. Mörner is and an expert reviewer for the IPCC, leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project, and past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes.
The point being, there is enough doubt out there and propoganda that makes this all look like crap being shoved down ones throat. This is the problem here.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

The more I read on this stuff, the more I realize this is about control. They are getting our industrialized societies to back off, have us step out of our SUV's, so that they can still drive them and control the rest of us. That is what I see.

Al Gore - a politician. A liar. Has the biggest carbon footprint measured yet. Yet he is the one trying to do this? Is he serious? AM I reading this right? This is ridiculous!

Something big is afoot. Some sort of crap going on behind the scenes and I am not liking what I see.

-S

PS. I feel like one of the last person on the planet that can think for themselves. The news media controls the rest.

[MothBalls]

[quote=AVGWarhawk]
Of course 1 in 4 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth,


The other three think it revolves around them.

[August]

[quote=AVGWarhawk]
Of course 1 in 4 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth,

The other three think it revolves around them.

I know one whose butt is so big it has it's own gravity...

[Tchocky]

Al Gore - a politician. A liar. Has the biggest carbon footprint measured yet. Yet he is the one trying to do this? Is he serious? AM I reading this right? This is ridiculous! He's interested in it, aye. Al Gore is not the be-all and end-all of enviromentalism.
Regarding his carbon footprint, this has been done to death in another thread, long time ago.

[STEED]

Climate change. :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

[SUBMAN1]

He's interested in it, aye. Al Gore is not the be-all and end-all of enviromentalism.
Regarding his carbon footprint, this has been done to death in another thread, long time ago.Short answer - hypocrite. I refuse to take information from someone who fails to practice what he preaches. What a bastard.

Wait to see the fall out - this will be used as an excuse to pull us out of our capability to be mobile, to heating our house. It will have a snowball effect. That is all its good for, and its all a lie.

-S

[Tchocky]

He's interested in it, aye. Al Gore is not the be-all and end-all of enviromentalism.
Regarding his carbon footprint, this has been done to death in another thread, long time ago.Short answer - hypocrite. *sigh* Al Gore is not the be-all and end-all of environmentalism. I refuse to take information from someone who fails to practice what he preaches. What a bastard. *sigh* Al Gore is not the be-all and end-all of enviromentalism.
Go find out about his personal energy usage, if you want to keep concentrating on this. Like I said, it's already been done.
That is all its good for, and its all a lie.

-S I would be fascinated if you could back that up with any credible evidence.

[Sea Demon]

Yeah, except that we have been told that increasing levels of CO2 were causing a relentless and sustained increase in warming temperatures across the scale. And if sustained over time, would cause a runaway in thermal conditions including a massive melt off (which has not occured nor does it seem likely). With continuing increases in CO2 output, we shouldn't be seeing this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

So most of the warming advocates have been so completely wrong to the point that they cannot be relied on as a source for their own flawed theories. Last year, we heard there was to be increased hurricanes as a result of "global warming". Both the hurricanes, and increased warming vs. CO2 output were shown to be completely false.

And on another note. Yes, if Al Gore is taking the leadership role on decreasing energy usage as a way to stop the mythical man-made "global warming", it does matter that he doesn't practice what he preaches. He's out there telling everybody they should massively conserve energy, yet he's a complete energy pig himself. Just look at how much filth spews out of the engines on the private jets he flies in.......very frequently at that. I'm not interested in the spin or excuses, he cannot or will not demonstrate true leadership on this matter he "believes" so much in. Therefore the term hypocrite is being too kind IMO. Since he's a partner in the carbon credit scam, I think con-man is more appropriate.

[SUBMAN1]

*sigh* Al Gore is not the be-all and end-all of environmentalism. *sigh* Al Gore is not the be-all and end-all of enviromentalism.
Go find out about his personal energy usage, if you want to keep concentrating on this. Like I said, it's already been done.
I would be fascinated if you could back that up with any credible evidence.Thats all you have to say? Have you read the thread? You will find your credible evidence not only in this thread but others you have failed in.

I mean, even you are a hypocrite with your silver spoon lifestyle. Correct me if i'm wrong. Home in Ireland? How was school in Boston? How about jetting off to Italy for the hell of it? Your carbon footprint is 10x that of anyone else on this board! How ironic! :D Real nice! Why do I even bother to argue?

The top scientist in the world on the subject tells you it is a lie, and you can't accept it. What now - what label are you going to give him now to discredit him? Are you the one coming for my Land Rover? Tell me, so that I can prepare. Thanks!

-S

[Tchocky]

Thats all you have to say? Have you read the thread? You will find your credible evidence not only in this thread but others you have failed in. Evidence that enviromentalism is only an excuse to take away human mobility and comfort? That's what I asked you for evidence of. I'll ask you again. Can you back it up?
I mean, even you are a hypocrite with your silver spoon lifestyle. Correct me if i'm wrong. Consider yourself corrected. Your carbon footprint is 10x that of anyone else on this board! How ironic! :D Real nice! Why do I even bother to argue? SUBMAN, that's not an argument. So, in answer, you're not bothering to argue, you're making things up. Inventing.
The top scientist in the world on the subject tells you it is a lie, and you can't accept it. What now - what label are you going to give him now to discredit him? I'm not going to label him anything. I do remember that Michael Asher has a tendency to cherrypick sources and statements. My only response was a dig at the awful copy editing of the article. But obviously this means I "can't accept it".
Top scientist in the world? It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. His main specialty is water divining, and he's got a funny habit of pretending to be things he's not (http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf). Does that mean he's wrong here? Of course not. It just makes one wonder why he's out there almost by himself.

[joegrundman]

Snow in Iraq as first snow there in recorded history,


Not true!

There was snow in iraq the year of the first gulf war, but anyway, i think you mean Baghdad where it hasn't snowed since the 40s

[Sea Demon]

Evidence that enviromentalism is only an excuse to take away human mobility and comfort? That's what I asked you for evidence of. I'll ask you again. Can you back it up?

Can you explain the inconsistencies in the planned Kyoto protocols? Why do gross polluters like China and India get a pass on emissions controls? Why is the driving factor in the protocol, large transfers of money from developed nations to developing 3rd world nations as a means to enforce the protocol rather than actual changes in technological means of production? Can you explain why when many alternative sourced energy projects start, environmentalists always seem to be front and center opposing it for some "environmental" reason like the following:

http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8046249&nav=menu192_2


Oh, and just for fun, here's what a leading warming advocate (and Kyoto supporter) has come to realize......he's been wrong, so have basic greenhouse equations as well (duh!):

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wron g/article10973.htm

[Sea Demon]

Snow in Iraq as first snow there in recorded history,

Not true!

There was snow in iraq the year of the first gulf war, but anyway, i think you mean Baghdad where it hasn't snowed since the 40s

And we have alot more CO2 in the atmosphere now then we did back then too, right?;) I don't know why warming advocates cannot see this fundamental and blaring flaw in their theories. It's as obvious as gravity.

[devildog]

never had it to lose.

[Tchocky]

Can you explain the inconsistencies in the planned Kyoto protocols? Why do gross polluters like China and India get a pass on emissions controls? That's a sticky point of Kyoto, the basis of which is that developing countries are not responsible to neary the same extent for the current situation as developed countries are (illustration here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png)), and they are usually substantially below developed countries in per capita emissions.
The third reason, usually quoted, is that Kyoto is just a first step. I think the overall failure and resistance to enforce it invalidates this point, making action on China/India necessary.

Why is the driving factor in the protocol, large transfers of money from developed nations to developing 3rd world nations as a means to enforce the protocol rather than actual changes in technological means of production? AFAIK most of the transfer are technological, but I'm not sure. The general idea is to ensure a clean developmental path for developing countries, to avoid the intense reliance on coal/oil like we can see in China.
As a framework for action, Kyoto seems positive. Sadly, as a practical method, it isn't.
Can you explain why when many alternative sourced energy projects start, environmentalists always seem to be front and center opposing it for some "environmental" reason like the following: A few reasons, some people just like to complain. Also, the term "nuclear energy" translates to "chernobyl" for some people, and that's unfortunate.
Sometimes there are reasonable objections to energy sources/siting.
The environmental movement has a nasty overlap with the "permanent protest" crowd, who'll complain about anything.
How this relates to SUBMAN's hypothesis I don't know.

Oh, and just for fun, here's what a leading warming advocate (and Kyoto supporter) has come to realize......he's been wrong, so have basic greenhouse equations as well (duh!):

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wron g/article10973.htm Oh, cool, our friend Michael Asher again. I've never read an article of his that sided with the IPCC. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but I wonder about confirmation bias.
On the article, I get lost as soon as those equations pop up. It's weird to see the money argument - that those who oppose conventional opinion don't get funding. I wouldn't have thought this would matter in NASA.

[Sea Demon]

That's a sticky point of Kyoto, the basis of which is that developing countries are not responsible to neary the same extent for the current situation as developed countries are (illustration here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png)), and they are usually substantially below developed countries in per capita emissions.
The third reason, usually quoted, is that Kyoto is just a first step. I think the overall failure and resistance to enforce it invalidates this point, making action on China/India necessary.
Yeah, but the flaw in that is that 85% of new emissions coming online will come from these developing nations during the coming decade. Not the developed world. See the flaw there? Basically most of these agreements are transfers of money, from developed nations to developing nations. They call it buying credits. I call it punishing or slowing economic growth using a false made-up tragedy to push it. Kyoto will not solve nor address what they claim they want solved or addressed. But they will tax or slow economic growth as a means to "solve" a non-existent problem.

Let's look at an example from last year. Japan, Italy and Spain all collectively owe $33 billion in fines for failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And why did they fail to meet the requirements? Because they underestimated economic growth and future emissions from factories and utilities. In other words ... their economies grew better than they expected, and therefore, they were punished for it. So now Spain must pass 40% of the cost for extra emissions on to those successful businesses that helped its economy grow. The other 60% will come directly from taxes. The businesses, of course, will pass their fines on to the consumers of whatever it is they provide or produce. In Italy, the taxpayers will pay 75% of the bill for extra permits just to fit into the Kyoto Protocol. And Japanese taxpayers must pay for two-thirds of the nation's excess. See the problem here? Do you see emission reduction vs. economic output being addressed as a means to reduce CO2 output? Ain't happening as a first step, second step or third. And it's not even addressed if it's necessary at all, especially since CO2 output apparently is having little to no effect on warming, as we have seen.

In one more case, taxpayers in Ireland will shell out more than 270 million so that Ireland can "buy its way" into meeting the Kyoto agreement.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/taxpayer-to-foot-bill-if-kyoto-target-not-reached-1231853.html


Here's another hint. Warming stopped a decade ago. Over the past three years it has actually become cooler. Yet, we have increasing CO2 levels. And yet, there are people trying to punish economic growth, push the USA into this redistribution scheme, and still cannot explain the inconsistincies of these theories.

[AdlerGrosmann]

Meh..that's all that guy Al Gore talks about...Global Warming..anything new?:shifty:

[joegrundman]

Snow in Iraq as first snow there in recorded history,

Not true!

There was snow in iraq the year of the first gulf war, but anyway, i think you mean Baghdad where it hasn't snowed since the 40s

And we have alot more CO2 in the atmosphere now then we did back then too, right?;) I don't know why warming advocates cannot see this fundamental and blaring flaw in their theories. It's as obvious as gravity.

Is it?



Is it as obvious as evolution?

[XabbaRus]

I live in the North East of Scotland and when I moved here 20 years ago we would get a winter full of snow for a good 2 months and proper snow at that.

Now we are locuky to get any snow at the right time of year, usually February, March and not that much.

It has become wetter and overall warmer here. Used to be very dry here in the North East.

You're trying to tell me the climate isn't chagning, that it isn't getting warmer.

[STEED]

So daddy, global warming is a commie plot against freedom of movement for individuals and against capitalist economy right ?

Reds under the bed son you can not move for all these reds who make out there green. :lol:

LISTEN UP PEOPLE

SH*T HAPPENS AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO.

Drinks on me. :()1:

[Sailor Steve]

Of course 1 in 4 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth, and I can see some on Subsim think so too.
Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows the world revolves around me.:smug:

[NEON DEON]

Of course 1 in 4 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth, and I can see some on Subsim think so too.
Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows the world revolves around me.:smug:


:hmm:


Were you just continuing SUBMAN1's thoughts steve? ;)

[STEED]

Of course 1 in 4 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth, and I can see some on Subsim think so too.
Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows the world revolves around me.:smug:

I'm with Steve on this one and any how sounds good to me. :up:

[Sea Demon]

Snow in Iraq as first snow there in recorded history,

Not true!

There was snow in iraq the year of the first gulf war, but anyway, i think you mean Baghdad where it hasn't snowed since the 40s

And we have alot more CO2 in the atmosphere now then we did back then too, right?;) I don't know why warming advocates cannot see this fundamental and blaring flaw in their theories. It's as obvious as gravity.

Is it?



Is it as obvious as evolution?

Why yes, it is. The problem here with man-made "warming" advocates, and evolutionists is that they both only understand (or try to understand) the process. They never seek to look at the origin of the processes. Evolution cannot tell you how the process came into existence, yet it seeks to disprove the existence of God. And it fails miserably in that. Man made warming advocates seek to show a narrow trend in weather patterns as a tragedy, yet refuse to look at historical trends, current trends, solar cycles, actual output from natural CO2 sources, and actual output totals from man. They refuse to acknowledge that natural sources of CO2 are not a constant. Therefore, man's small 3% of 3% CO2 totals from all sources, and it's comparison to all greenhouse sources in total is totally negligible in the long run. In fact if humanity doubled our rate of CO2 emissions, it would add a measly .024% to the CO2 overall totals in the atmosphere. Not even making it 3.1% of the total of all greenhouse emissions. I don't know how these "scientists" get away with these blaringly flawed theories with so little questioning from so many. Solar cycles, diminishing solar activity, concurrent cooling cycles with diminishing solar activity, and warming on other planets in the solar system while we saw a warming trend here are other things to look at. When trying to understand 1+3=4, don't forget the "=4" part of the equation. And don't forget to add the "3" to the "1".



I live in the North East of Scotland and when I moved here 20 years ago we would get a winter full of snow for a good 2 months and proper snow at that.

Now we are locuky to get any snow at the right time of year, usually February, March and not that much.

It has become wetter and overall warmer here. Used to be very dry here in the North East.

You're trying to tell me the climate isn't chagning, that it isn't getting warmer.


I don't doubt any of it Xabba. The thing is, the climate has always showed changing conditions historically. Where I live right now, it was both a desert at one time, and had evidence of regular snow cover at another time. Way before the industrial revolution. I wouldn't be surprised if your grandkids are saying the exact opposite of you. They'll probably be saying 80 years from now, "geez, back when I was young, we didn't have all this snow. It used to be much warmer!! Now it's looking like an ice age."

[antikristuseke]

Why yes, it is. The problem here with man-made "warming" advocates, and evolutionists is that they both only understand (or try to understand) the process. They never seek to look at the origin of the processes. Evolution cannot tell you how the process came into existence, yet it seeks to disprove the existence of God.

No it does'nt, it never has and it never will. The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about the existance or nonexsistance of any god or gods, but what it does do is disprove various creation myths. There are people out there who claim to have lost faith in god when they learned about evolution, Richard Dawkins being a well known example here, but the theory itself is silent on the subject.

[Fish]

Of course 1 in 4 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth, and I can see some on Subsim think so too.

-S

More then 40% Americans think the earth is only 6000 years old. :lol:

[Sea Demon]

Why yes, it is. The problem here with man-made "warming" advocates, and evolutionists is that they both only understand (or try to understand) the process. They never seek to look at the origin of the processes. Evolution cannot tell you how the process came into existence, yet it seeks to disprove the existence of God.

No it does'nt, it never has and it never will. The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about the existance or nonexsistance of any god or gods, but what it does do is disprove various creation myths. There are people out there who claim to have lost faith in god when they learned about evolution, Richard Dawkins being a well known example here, but the theory itself is silent on the subject.

No, just that evolutionists discount God's role, or divine creation as a result of watching species adapt over time. They act as though natural processes of adaptation disproves God. Don't pretend it doesn't happen. It does. When they do that it is very short sighted. Just like Man-made "global warming". If it helps you, hardcore Christian fundies do the same in reverse. To them, there couldn't be natural processes helping life on Earth because the bible does not talk about DNA, or genentic mutations directly. They are short-sighted in reverse. DNA and natural adaptation is truly miraculous and divinely created IMHO.

And Fish, I'd love to see your study that proves 40% of all Americans think the Earth is only 6000 years old. I realize there are people who do believe that. But that belief is not restricted to only Americans. And 40% of Americans seems a tad high. I don't buy it. BTW, when I lived in Europe, it was just the same level of stupidity and mass ignorance I saw in the USA, just culturally offset. You may be unaware/ignorant of it, but Europeans are just as dumb as Americans, and in many ways dumber.

[antikristuseke]

No, just that evolutionists discount God's role, or divine creation as a result of watching species adapt over time. They act as though natural processes of adaptation disproves God. Don't pretend it doesn't happen. It does. When they do that it is very short sighted. Just like Man-made "global warming". If it helps you, hardcore Christian fundies do the same in reverse. To them, there couldn't be natural processes helping life on Earth because the bible does not talk about DNA, or genentic mutations directly. They are short-sighted in reverse. DNA and natural adaptation is truly miraculous and divinely created IMHO. Thats what I said, thats to do with individuals and not with the theory. Agree with you on the fundies bit, regardless of what religion they follow a muslim creationist is no less misguided than a christian creationist. As for the divine creation of DNA, I disagree because I have yet to see any evidence for the divine, but everyone is welcome to their own opinions.

And Fish, I'd love to see your study that proves 40% of all Americans think the Earth is only 6000 years old. I realize there are people who do believe that. But that belief is not restricted to only Americans. And 40% of Americans seems a tad high. I don't buy it. BTW, when I lived in Europe, it was just the same level of stupidity and mass ignorance I saw in the USA, just culturally offset. You may be unaware/ignorant of it, but Europeans are just as dumb as Americans, and in many ways dumber.

Allso doubt that the precentage of youn earth creationists is quite that high, mut meh. And yes, there are idiots everywhere in roughly the same concentrations, at least thats what I have seen so far.

[Dowly]

All I say about this is that the 2 last winters have been VERY mild here in Finland where I live. It was in 1980 when there was no snow at Christmas the last time, now, last year, we barely got snow on Christmas and the weather was all around very mild. This year, no snow at all on Christmas and the temperatures havent gone under 15-C. Last year it went way past 20-C and the year before that we had plenty of snow and temperatures of over 30-C. :roll: Let's see what the next winter brings.

[NEON DEON]

Overview (http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/)
Search (http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/photo_query.html)
Documentation (http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g00472_glacier_photos/index.html)
Special Collections
Repeat Photography of Glaciers (http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/repeat_photography.html)
NPS Glacier Survey Reports (http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/glacier_reports.html)
DAHLI IGY Photos (http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/dahli_igy_photos.html)



http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/images/muir_glacier.jpg http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/images/qori_kalis_glacier.jpg http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/images/mc_call_glacer.jpg
Overview

What global warming? :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Sea Demon]

Thats what I said, thats to do with individuals and not with the theory. Agree with you on the fundies bit, regardless of what religion they follow a muslim creationist is no less misguided than a christian creationist. As for the divine creation of DNA, I disagree because I have yet to see any evidence for the divine, but everyone is welcome to their own opinions.


I understand. You are free to see how truly miraculous life is, how wondrous nature is in the world around you, and how truly remarkable the processes of genetic variation and adaptation is in an ever changing world of chaotic systems. You are free to consider it all a cosmic accident if you wish, or you are free to see that divinity(God) must play a role in it. Such order within such chaos confirms to me that there is much more there (God) than what the average evolutionist sees. Evolutionists are definitely short sighted in their views of the world and universe around them.

[Sea Demon]

Overview (http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/)
Search (http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/photo_query.html)
Documentation (http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g00472_glacier_photos/index.html)
Special Collections
Repeat Photography of Glaciers (http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/repeat_photography.html)
NPS Glacier Survey Reports (http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/glacier_reports.html)
DAHLI IGY Photos (http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/dahli_igy_photos.html)



http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/images/muir_glacier.jpg http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/images/qori_kalis_glacier.jpg http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/images/mc_call_glacer.jpg
Overview

What global warming? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Very interesting Neon. But you do know that glacial ice is moving, and never constant, right? :hmm: :D Geez, when did people begin believing that weather patterns from year to year are unchanging and constant? When Al Gore said so?? How come nobody from that side ever questions why the warming trends coincided largely from recent solar activity, and now we are cooling, and ....surprise.....solar activity is decreasing as well. How come they discount global warming on other planets in the solar system? How come they discount the hottest days in the 20th century were in the 1930's, before modern industries began churning out like now? How come they cannot see that with increased CO2, and our current cooling, there may be some questions into their flawed theories concerning CO2 vs. atmospheric warming? How come they never seem to understand that humans put out less than 1% of the totals of CO2 in the atmosphere and how negligible that really is? In regards to that, how come they don't realize that natural emissions aren't always a static figure either, and if their theories were correct, the Earth would have died out long ago do to years where higher levels of natural pollutants soaked the atmosphere? How come the man who tells everyone to change their lifestyle and conserve energy, sells carbon credits and pollutes like a pig himself somehow goes unnoticed by those who promotes these flawed theories? Mr. Gore anyone? Also, have you also seen stories like this for the last few months:

http://www.ottumwacourier.com/local/local_story_093225554.html

There were tons of them. Coldest Winter they've seen in Beijing this year, record snowfalls in the US Midwest, cold and normal from where I sit. Record level snowfalls in the Northern states, the arctic ice has seen more build-ups. These were just a few headlines I saw this winter. The fact that warming advocate's predictions are never right, and there is a history of "global weather tragedy" that has been sold for more than a century, and it has never come true, you truly have an uphill battle. BTW, do you ever actually go out and enjoy nature yourself? Do you actually go to lakes, mountains for hikes, and forests to see how remarkable nature is? Are you aware that it's normally cold in the winter, hot in the summer and milder in between the two. And we've seen no changes whatsoever in that? Other than variation in how much we see. Which is normal I might add. Always has been that way, and always will be. Even if human beings start taking the advice of the craziest in the environmental movement and begin living like it's 1700, variations in weather patterns (hot, milder, cold) will still occur. ;)

[August]

Even if human beings start taking the advice of the craziest in the environmental movement and begin living like it's 1700, variations in weather patterns (hot, milder, cold) will still occur. ;)

In the 1700's people burned wood for heat and cooking. Take the carbon production of that and times it by todays world population and i wonder if we'd be better or worse off...

[Sea Demon]

Even if human beings start taking the advice of the craziest in the environmental movement and begin living like it's 1700, variations in weather patterns (hot, milder, cold) will still occur. ;)

In the 1700's people burned wood for heat and cooking. Take the carbon production of that and times it by todays world population and i wonder if we'd be better or worse off...

Ah. Very good point. :know: Nothing would make em' happy. Maybe if humanity planned it's own extinction, we could save the planet!! :-j I know many in the environmental movement might seriously think that sounds like a good idea. :doh: :lol:

[NEON DEON]

Humans and the subsequent population explosion combined with industrialization and destruction of habitats across the globe have caused increase in co2 levels.

Figure 1: Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide in Geologic Time and in Recent Years

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/atmosph_conc_co2-lg.gif



EPA data.

It is just a cycle my a#$!:p

[Sea Demon]

Right Neon. We all know that human beings are putting more CO2 in the atmosphere. But CO2 is still only 3% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And human contributions to that are still 3% of that 3%. In other words, we contribute less than 1% to the total of all greenhouse gases combined. Your graphs show we are putting more CO2 in the atmosphere. That's true.....but it's still negligible when you look at things mathematically and think a little bit about it. The fact that we are still increasing CO2 and yet, we are cooling right now goes against all theories proposed by warming advocates. Your post above doesn't address that inconsistincy in any way at all. If those theories were correct, we'd be running off the charts. We aren't. Since the 1880's we've seen surface temperatures increase an "alarming" 1 degree F. Woo hoo! What a tragedy. :roll:

Pollution and destruction of animal habitats are a shame, agreed. But those problems will not be solved pushing yet another fraudulent weather scare. Been there, done that. They were wrong then, and it's obvious they're wrong now. And it also doesn't help that one of the prime leaders of the movement is a gross polluter himself, and is a partner in the firm that sells so-called "carbon credits". See something odd in that?

[TheSatyr]

From what I understand,one of the Global Warming indicators is supposed to be sea temperature. According to what I've been hearing that hasn't changed in over a decade.

I wonder how many of the members of the "Church of the Global Warming" were also ones that claimed in the late 60s early 70s that we were heading for a new ice age.

Finally,the former head of the National Hurricane Center basically called Global Warming a fraud perpetrated by climotologists looking for Government hand-outs. The guy was a meteorologist for over 40 years and as far as he is concerned the only thing happening is just the normal rise and fall of earth's temperature, and as he put it in the interview (With the LA Times) the only thing that would worry him is if the temperatures stayed the same and didn't change...THEN he thinks something would be seriously wrong.

And he isn't the only Meteorologist who considers Climotologists to be way off base.

[NEON DEON]

Humans and the subsequent population explosion combined with industrialization and destruction of habitats across the globe have caused increase in co2 levels.

Figure 1: Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide in Geologic Time and in Recent Years

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/atmosph_conc_co2-lg.gif



EPA data.

It is just a cycle my a#$!:p

Add the temp chart.


http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/Temp.gif

[joegrundman]

You are very full of certainty, Seademon, but just because you badly want something to be true, doesn't make it so. I'm sure you are already aware that proposed global warming models predict increasing incidence of extreme weather, including unexpected cold. While this does not therefore prove that global warming is true, it does mean that your assurance that global warming is therefore false does not hold water.

It doesn't really matter anymore, the whole debate about global warming has been touched by the poisonous hand of American partisan politics, of which many of us have become so weary. It is now liberal to believe in global warming and it is conservative to not. And this seems to have become independent of the evidence and the truth.

One can't even hear what people say - all you hear is "liberal lies, liberal lies!" or "conservative lies, conservative lies!", depending on what camp you are in.

What a way to try and assess an important factual situation!

[Sea Demon]

One can't even hear what people say - all you hear is "liberal lies, liberal lies!" or "conservative lies, conservative lies!", depending on what camp you are in.

What a way to try and assess an important factual situation!

Well, that's a whole other issue entirely. You question my sincerity, yet don't see the motivations of mine and many others reasonable skepticism. There are many holes that have been punched through the man-made "global warming" arguments that it is quite reasonable to say that the matter is not certain. I'm surprised you would label me as being "full of certainty" when it is the "certainty" of global doom that I challenge. There simply is many questions that cannot be answered by those who are proponents of man-made "global warming". And alot of real world data that shatters their theories into pieces. And alot of things by warming proponents that are ignored such as CO2 totals from all sources, atmospheric warming on other planets in the solar system that coincides with ours, their inability to deal with simple percentages, increased solar activity during the last decade, decreasing solar activity in conjunction with decreasing temperatures (cooling) etc. etc. etc. You should direct your questions to those who will not address these things.

Seriously, if you're trying to prove a theory, it is for you to prove. Not for me to disprove. And when real world data seems to go against your theories, ignoring that data will not save you. It will only work to discredit you. That is not liberal or conservative. That is just getting to the heart of the matter. It's too bad that issues become politicized, because the things that happen are the things that you describe. Unfortunately, when Mr. Gore decided global warming was his baby, the writing was on the wall. And now those who follow Mr. Gore simply will not address those things which prove their theories wrong. Take a look at the graph above showing a temperature increase of around 1 degree since 1880. Does anybody truly believe that this is Earth shattering? Especially considering that we've seen larger variations and other swings historically? Oh well, I understand some people will take this belief in man-made global warming to their graves. I consider it unneeded worry, and ultimately a waste of time. I do sometimes wonder where these "climatologists" who "study" this stuff actually got their educations from. From where I was educated, if you field a study, sample some data, derive a theory, test your data, and then see different results than what your theory states, you normally go back to the drawing board. These "climatologists" don't do any of that. It's seems they simply think it's easier and more efficient, politically expedient, and popular to just ignore the results that differ from what they originally hyped. As a result, I think skepticism is highly warranted. And I'm glad skepticism in these flawed theories is growing.

[Tchocky]

That humans contribute a very small amount of greenhouse gases is rather telling.

The planet has warmed and cooled for the last few billion years, with no major trouble.
We come along and relocate a chunk of carbon dioxide from under the ground to the atmosphere. It's still about 1%, yes. But it's over the usual amount, which is why we see warming etc etc.

[bradclark1]

http://www.wecansolveit.org/

He owns this site. Maybe he hasn't noticed the record cold temps outside lately. Snow in Iraq as first snow there in recorded history, China with the coldest temps in 100 years, worst cold in the US country wide in recorded history. Where is this warming exactly?

I guess he wants to be on top of something since he's failed at anything real. :p

-S
Where did you get your info for Iraq? I believe it's the first in Bagdad not the country. Notice it melted as soon as it hit so it's a :roll: happening.

China: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

[bradclark1]

Take a look at the graph above showing a temperature increase of around 1 degree since 1880.
What happens at 32 degrees and what happens at 33 degrees? So yes one degree is a big deal.

And when real world data seems to go against your theories, ignoring that data will not save you. It will only work to discredit you.
You have it backwards. Real world data goes against your theories. Or just check all the major scientific organizations.

[Sea Demon]

What happens at 32 degrees and what happens at 33 degrees? So yes one degree is a big deal.

Yeah, except ice is currently building up in the arctic. It's freezing up there. Way below 32 degrees. 1 degree up there is negligible. Use a little thought for once.

You have it backwards. Real world data goes against your theories. Or just check all the major scientific organizations.

Nope, the real world data has gone against the fact that continuous and sustained build ups of CO2 would lead to increasing CO2 temperatures including potential thermal runaway and melt offs. With our current CO2 levels increasing we're actually seeing the opposite. Just ask people in the Midwest, Northern California, and the Northern states where record cold occured this winter. Ask people at JPL that have been watching surface temperature during the last decade rise on other planets in the solar sytem, which coincided with warming here. Gee, how did we get our CO2 from automobiles over to Mars? Your science organizations have been pushing flawed theories, and now they refuse to correct themselves. I smell money, and loss of funds if they retract themselves. I guess you're waiting for a retraction from them to change your mind. I realize you allow them to think for you, so I guess you'll just have to ignore actual scientific data, and look for people in internet articles to continue feeding you your tragedy. Skepticism is building, because many others who actually think for themselves are waking up to this scam.

[Sea Demon]

And now something from the past:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010131931.htm

NOAA predicted warmer weather this winter. They were wrong. If you are a warming advocate, sucks to be you I guess. :)

[Tchocky]

Weather != Climate



The idea that global warming means that everywhere is going to get warmer at the same time is rubbish. It's a misleading label.

[Sea Demon]

Weather != Climate



The idea that global warming means that everywhere is going to get warmer at the same time is rubbish. It's a misleading label.

Weather is intertwined with your climate. Weather conditions directly relate to changes in your climate. Climate refers to meteorological conditions such as temperature, wind conditions, moisture in the air, etc. for a particular region of a defined size. Your climate does not change without changes in weather conditions. I love the spin you guys try to put on it. And I at least commend you for acknowledging the obvious. Everywhere is not getting warmer right now. Thank you!!!! I do see another possible redefining of terms seems to be in order for the hardcore though. I guess "global warming" just ain't cutting the mustard anymore.

[Tchocky]

Weather is intertwined with your climate. Weather conditions directly relate to changes in your climate. Climate refers to meteorological conditions such as temperature, wind conditions, moisture in the air, etc. for a particular region of a defined size. Correct, but you forget an important variable: time. Climate refers to the observed characteristics of a particular region over a particular time, usually no less than ten years. This immedialtely problematises the "it was cold today" argument.

Your climate does not change without changes in weather conditions. Of course, long-term weather is climate. That means we can't forecast perfectly from contemporary data. Which is where models and a level of uncertainty comes in.
I love the spin you guys try to put on it. And I at least commend you for acknowledging the obvious. Everywhere is not getting warmer right now. Thank you!!!! I do see another possible redefining of terms seems to be in order for the hardcore though. I guess "global warming" just ain't cutting the mustard anymore. Hang on. enough with the straw men here.
It's clear to anyone who bothers to think, that the labelling of events/issues is never fully descriptive. Unfortunately, through an interaction of division and easy media access, the epithet "global warming" has gained supremacy over the more correct tag of "climate change". So acknowledging the truth on (lets use some inverted commas) "global warming" is not spinning. It's not redefining. That the planet will not get warmer everywhere at the same time is not new information. A literal interpretation of an innacurate phrase may give the impression that something revelatory is rolling over the horizon, not so.

[Sea Demon]

Hang on. enough with the straw men here.
It's clear to anyone who bothers to think, that the labelling of events/issues is never fully descriptive. Unfortunately, through an interaction of division and easy media access, the epithet "global warming" has gained supremacy over the more correct tag of "climate change".

.....is not spinning.

So "climate change" is the correct term, hmmm? Climate change, my friend Tchocky, has been an ongoing climate process since Humans walked the Earth. There are many factors that determine climate and weather patterns, not just CO2 output (natural or otherwise). CO2 is but one small part. And man's part of that is very small. In that regard, it's almost comical that Mr. Gore and his flock assert that only the human produced (less than 1% of all totals of greenhouse gases) CO2 is what's determining warming or cooling factors today. Simple percentages will tell you that's bunk. Mr. Gore would have to assume that natural emissions are a constant level as well. Not to mention that if we doubled current man-made output, all CO2 levels compared to the overall totals wouldn't even break 3.1% of all greenhouse gases. It's really simple mathematics. Mr. Gore and others like him are so short sighted it's about as comical as you can get. Don't speak like Al Gore and pretend that climate variations have only begun since man started producing CO2 from automobiles. Mr. Gore and his minions using the term "climate change" is as disingenous and innacurate as you can get. Weather variations are natural, normal, and have been occuring throughout Earth's history. And don't give me the old "rates of increases" are what drives the alarm either, that won't work. We're cooling. And our current increased levels of CO2 are not driving sustained and out of control temperature increases as the theories espoused have told us would happen.

[NEON DEON]

updated charts showing corelation between co2 and temperature.




http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008_HistTemp.GIF




http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008_HistCO2.GIF



Woot Der it is!:D


Source:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008.htm

[August]

World population. See the correlation?


http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/surp/surp96/laughlin/stat/3D_tutor/world_pop.gif

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/surp/surp96/laughlin/stat/3D_tutor/world_pop.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/surp/surp96/laughlin/stat/3D_tutor/world_pop.html&h=90&w=126&sz=65&tbnid=1DeK8RVKd9AJ:&tbnh=90&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Bpopulation%2Bgraph&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=3

[NEON DEON]

World population. See the correlation?


http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/surp/surp96/laughlin/stat/3D_tutor/world_pop.gif

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/surp/surp96/laughlin/stat/3D_tutor/world_pop.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/surp/surp96/laughlin/stat/3D_tutor/world_pop.html&h=90&w=126&sz=65&tbnid=1DeK8RVKd9AJ:&tbnh=90&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Bpopulation%2Bgraph&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=3

and yet the USA has 3 times the CO2 output of china while having less than a third of its population.

There are other factors to consider than just population alone.

Just breathing and pooping does not account for the extra co2 levels it is also directly linked with man efing up the planet's habitat and industrialization.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita

[Tchocky]

Don't speak like Al Gore and pretend that climate variations have only begun since man started producing CO2 from automobiles. Mr. Gore and his minions using the term "climate change" is as disingenous and innacurate as you can get. Weather variations are natural, normal, and have been occuring throughout Earth's history. And don't give me the old "rates of increases" are what drives the alarm either, that won't work.

Awright.

1 - Argh.
2 - Grrr.
3 - Read my previous post, in which I state "The planet has warmed and cooled for the last few billion years, with no major trouble."

4 - Enough with the straw men already

[August]

and yet the USA has 3 times the CO2 output of china while having less than a third of its population.
In other words their total outputs are the same, and therefore as China continues it's headlong rush into modernization (read less people living like 14th century peasants) they will soon outstrip (iirc they already have) the US, making the problem far worse.

[Tchocky]

Funny, China's citizens contribute far less pollution than US citizens (high auto ownership etc), but the Chinese government & industry contribute more than America's (coal-fired plants, lax enviro legislation, etc). Different societies, same result.

On per capita levels.

[bradclark1]

Yeah, except ice is currently building up in the arctic. It's freezing up there. Way below 32 degrees. 1 degree up there is negligible. Use a little thought for once.

Oh it's cold today! Must mean GW is bull! Give me a break! Try and be a little more scientific then that. I wouldn't call part of the ice-shelf breaking off last month as part of a freeze. All the data I've found on 2007 temps show a withdrawal of ice not a growth. I'd like to see this data you say shows growth.

"Trends in Arctic temperature, 1880-2006. A history of Arctic land temperature anomalies from 1880 through 2006 is shown in this figure. The zero line represents the average temperature for 1961–1990. In the late 1800s the Arctic was relatively cold, although there is some uncertainty around these early temperature estimates. The Arctic warmed by about 0.7ºC over the 20th century. There was a warm period in the 1920s to 1940s and cold periods in the early 1900s and in the 1960s. Over the last decade the temperatures were about 1.0ºC above the 20th century average."

http://maps.grida.no/library/files/trends-in-arctic-temperature-1880-2006.jpg (http://maps.grida.no/library/files/storage/3_arctictemperatures_003.png)
http://maps.grida.no/library/files/arctic-temperatures-in-the-20th-century-modeled-and-observed.jpg (http://maps.grida.no/library/files/storage/3_6a_observedarctictemp_005.png)
"Arctic temperatures in the 20th century, modeled and observed. Observed Arctic winter land temperatures and IPCC model recreations for the 20th century. Note that although these model runs are able to capture the range of Arctic warm and cold periods, the timing of the peaks varies, suggesting that the early 20th century warming was due to random causes, while the increases at the end of the century shown by all the models supports CO2 as an external forcing of the Arctic climate system.
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20071212/_MG_8834_400x284.JPG

Nope, the real world data has gone against the fact that continuous and sustained build ups of CO2 would lead to increasing CO2 temperatures including potential thermal runaway and melt offs. With our current CO2 levels increasing we're actually seeing the opposite. Just ask people in the Midwest, Northern California, and the Northern states where record cold occured this winter. Ask people at JPL that have been watching surface temperature during the last decade rise on other planets in the solar sytem, which coincided with warming here. Gee, how did we get our CO2 from automobiles over to Mars? Your science organizations have been pushing flawed theories, and now they refuse to correct themselves. I smell money, and loss of funds if they retract themselves. I guess you're waiting for a retraction from them to change your mind. I realize you allow them to think for you, so I guess you'll just have to ignore actual scientific data, and look for people in internet articles to continue feeding you your tragedy. Skepticism is building, because many others who actually think for themselves are waking up to this scam.

Look, try this. Yes the universe could very well be warming but man is accelerating the change in temperatures on earth. I don't think there is anyone who says global warming is only man made. I think thats wishful thinking on your part. I haven't seen any growing "skepticism building" I see more accepting the data however. What is growing is the interest in the subject which is good pro or anti as it widens the debate. One Bush site that says there is no global warming doesn't make a growing skepticism.
What is a little humorous is that you say the earth is cooling then turn around and say the universe is warming. You are so wrapped into rejecting GW that you are tripping over yourself. So much for your actual scientific data. If you do some actual research instead of trying to find a page on the internet that says what you want it to say you could learn something.


Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

[Sea Demon]

Look, try this. Yes the universe could very well be warming but man is accelerating the change in temperatures on earth. I don't think there is anyone who says global warming is only man made. I think thats wishful thinking on your part. I haven't seen any growing "skepticism building" I see more accepting the data however. What is growing is the interest in the subject which is good pro or anti as it widens the debate. One Bush site that says there is no global warming doesn't make a growing skepticism.
What is a little humorous is that you say the earth is cooling then turn around and say the universe is warming. You are so wrapped into rejecting GW that you are tripping over yourself. So much for your actual scientific data. If you do some actual research instead of trying to find a page on the internet that says what you want it to say you could learn something.

Universe warming??:hmm: That's funny. Gee I wonder if we're responsible for that too. :lol: :roll: Take a look at this recent article:

http://www.physorg.com/news125845912.html

The more people know, the less they care or feel responsible for it. The funniest part is that the author and people who made the study can't figure out why. Could it be that the more people understand the issue, the more they understand it's a fraud? Yes, skepticism is building everywhere. This past winter has shown many that the theories of increased CO2 levels does not drive atmospheric conditions like what the global warming hysterics assert. The theory is fraudulent, and many people see it for what it is.

I think you're one of the last brainwashed people who still don't understand that warming and cooling are natural, and normal. And there are many factors that determine it. CO2 is but one small part of it. Yes, solar output is another:

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360


Dr. Baliunas' work with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics astronomer Willie Soon suggests global warming is more directly related to solar variability than to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an alternative view to what's been widely publicized in the mainstream media.
And there are more factors as well. Do you know what they are? I don't think you do. Do you know how much CO2 we actually produce? I know you don't know. And I think you probably believe natural emissions are a static figure as well. Mr. Gore seems to. So does the IPCC. Do you know what the largest contributor to greenhouse effect is? A clue is, it's not CO2. I've come to the conclusion that if you're a warming proponent you have to ignore CO2 totals from all sources, atmospheric warming on other planets in the solar system that coincides with ours, knowledge of atmospheric percentages, increased solar activity during the last decade, decreasing solar activity in conjunction with decreasing temperatures (cooling), weather patterns of the last 100 years, and more. You're so wrapped and invested into believing in man-made warming, that you cannot see the flaws in it that are staring you straight in the face. You're data above is obsolete now. You're sources need to go back to the drawing board and redo their theories. They will not do it though. Maybe it's because they're afraid of losing their funding.

[Sea Demon]

Nine lies of global warming:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

Enjoy!

[NEON DEON]

Nine lies of global warming:




http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

Enjoy!


Written by a businessman who graduated with a degree in Electrical engineering.


Okay now my foot is screwed up.

Quick call the Dentist.:D

[Tchocky]

His f-ing premise even on point #1 is rubbish.

"Lie #1 - Carbon dioxide is a pollutant"

Totally missing the point. It could clean your dishes, bring your hair back and shove fifties into your wallet, and COO2 would still absorb infrared radiation.

not bothering with the rest.

[SUBMAN1]

Funny, China's citizens contribute far less pollution than US citizens (high auto ownership etc), but the Chinese government & industry contribute more than America's (coal-fired plants, lax enviro legislation, etc). Different societies, same result.

On per capita levels.You forgot to include that power plants account for more than 80% of what you are describing as a problem. Way to skip the details.

[Sea Demon]

His f-ing premise even on point #1 is rubbish.

"Lie #1 - Carbon dioxide is a pollutant"

Totally missing the point. It could clean your dishes, bring your hair back and shove fifties into your wallet, and COO2 would still absorb infrared radiation.

not bothering with the rest.
How is that point rubbish? Warming advocates have totally equated CO2 as a pollutant emission, even though it is what we exhale, and it occurs naturally from other varied sources. If it would be causing the problems they say, would it be a pollutant? That's for you to say. And we've already heard from the IPCC on the matter. Heck, Al Gore made a whole movie on it. And to Neon, I think this guy is just putting out common knowledge. Is it impossible for an Electrical Engineer to be able to see a flawed theory, and inconsistent results from a theory when its this obvious? I think so. What is your credentialing that gives you the foresight that any of the man-made science is correct, especially considering that climate predictions are looking to be so wrong? And CO2 levels are not looking like the driving factor in warming from the last decade.

Funny, China's citizens contribute far less pollution than US citizens (high auto ownership etc), .........
Does CO2 come from the back of a car Tchocky? :D

[Tchocky]

Well, yes. The two are deeply interconnected. The average Chinese person contributes quite little, yet probably works in a heavily polluting industry that allows the West to lead heavily polluting lifestyles. The power plants that pollute so much have their direct genesis in Western lifestyles.

@ Sea Demon - It's rubbish because he focuses on how CO2 acts at our altitude. Which is not where the focus should be.

[bradclark1]

Universe warming?? That's funny. Gee I wonder if we're responsible for that too. Take a look at this recent article:
Wow! A survey by two A&M political scientists of 1,093 people. That really gives a feeling of accuracy. No wonder you get mixed up between between planets warming and earth cooling.
http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20...WS08/802130360

Quote:
Dr. Baliunas' work with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics astronomer Willie Soon suggests global warming is more directly related to solar variability than to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an alternative view to what's been widely publicized in the mainstream media.
Dr. Baliunas serves as senior scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute. Well that sounds prestigious doesn't it. Lets look at the Marshall Institute. Oh look Exxon is a major contributor. Funny how the scientist's you quote and have been quoting belong to these institutes that seem to be funded by Exxon and other oil companies. Senior Scientist no less.
And there are more factors as well. Do you know what they are? I don't think you do. Do you know how much CO2 we actually produce? I know you don't know. And I think you probably believe natural emissions are a static figure as well. Mr. Gore seems to. So does the IPCC. Do you know what the largest contributor to greenhouse effect is? A clue is, it's not CO2. I've come to the conclusion that if you're a warming proponent you have to ignore CO2 totals from all sources, atmospheric warming on other planets in the solar system that coincides with ours, knowledge of atmospheric percentages, increased solar activity during the last decade, decreasing solar activity in conjunction with decreasing temperatures (cooling), weather patterns of the last 100 years, and more. You're so wrapped and invested into believing in man-made warming, that you cannot see the flaws in it that are staring you straight in the face. You're data above is obsolete now. You're sources need to go back to the drawing board and redo their theories. They will not do it though. Maybe it's because they're afraid of losing their funding.
So you think because water vapor is higher than Co2 that negates it?
So you think it's been cooling for the last 100 years and my data is obsolete? How can a thirty percent loss of ice in the last seventeen years be cooling and obsolete data?
The 25 square mile Ayles Shelf breaking off in 07 is because of cooling? A 160 square mile ice shelf collapsing this year from the Wilkins Ice shelf is from cooling? How in your face can that be. Man made gases are accelerating the warming. Man made gases are not the sole cause. I've said that I don't know how many times. You can't even find anything that claims CW is purely caused by man.

[Sea Demon]

@ Sea Demon - It's rubbish because he focuses on how CO2 acts at our altitude. Which is not where the focus should be.

Absolute spin, and nonsense. If CO2 is emitted at "our altitude" then it's not a problem? Should he not focus on how weather acts at our altitude as well? Should we focus solely on what happens in the Ionosphere? Think carefully here.

[Tchocky]

@ Sea Demon - It's rubbish because he focuses on how CO2 acts at our altitude. Which is not where the focus should be. Absolute spin, and nonsense. If CO2 is emitted at "our altitude" then it's not a problem? No, I didn't say that, it's a different issue.
At our level CO2 is sometimes beneficial, but it's mostly further up in the atmosphere where the IR radiation is absorbed rather than emitted. Which is where climate change comes in, which is supposed to be the focus of his article.
Should he not focus on how weather acts at our altitude as well? Should we focus solely on what happens in the Ionosphere? Think carefully here. Focusing only on one area is not a good idea, which is why his analysis is not worth reading.

[Sea Demon]

Dr. Baliunas serves as senior scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute. Well that sounds prestigious doesn't it. Lets look at the Marshall Institute. Oh look Exxon is a major contributor. Funny how the scientist's you quote and have been quoting belong to these institutes that seem to be funded by Exxon and other oil companies. Senior Scientist no less.

And the scientists you quote don't know that weather variations are a natural and normal occurence. :lol: If I were Exxon, or other people delivering needed sources of energy to the nation to power the economy, I would fund those who show that those people who push fraudulent weather scare theories are frauds as well. In regards to the study which shows people are not concerned as they learn more, looks about accurate to me. I knew all along that if people would actuallyu get informed how meteorology works, atmospheric percentages, solar output, and a range of other things that relate, they would find these theories to be trash. The more people are learning, the worse it will get for you doomsayers.

So you think because water vapor is higher than Co2 that negates it?
So you think it's been cooling for the last 100 years and my data is obsolete?

Think carefully here, if it's possible for you. CO2 is only a small part of what drives temperature increase or decrease over time. There are so many other factors that drive weather, that this miniscule amount of CO2 we put in the air is negligible. You don't seem to know atmospheric percentages, and if you did, you don't have common sense. You obviously don't have any credentialing or experience in research of any kind. It hasn't been cooling for the last 100 years. It has been both warming and cooling, like it should be doing naturally. The problem is, you moonbats equate it to theories of man-made "global warming" hysterics.

How can a thirty percent loss of ice in the last seventeen years be cooling and obsolete data?

For the sake of argument, how do you know that's not a cycle in arctic geography related to normal warming cycles. Do you think the ice shelf has always had the same amount of ice? I guess you didn't know that not only have we seen ice losses in the arctic, but we've also seen recent ice buildups.

The 25 square mile Ayles Shelf breaking off in 07 is because of cooling? A 160 square mile ice shelf collapsing this year from the Wilkins Ice shelf is from cooling? How in your face can that be. Man made gases are accelerating the warming. Man made gases are not the sole cause. I've said that I don't know how many times. You can't even find anything that claims CW is purely caused by man.

No, your whole assertions are like Mr. Gore's and the IPCC. You used them in I don't even know how many posts. They and yourself have highlighted CO2 being the single, sole, largest contributor to warming from a decade ago and in atmospheric sciences in general. That assertion is bunk. And now, the world around you in actual weather patterns show you that. And now, even you have to pretend that it's not what you have been asserting all along.

[Sea Demon]

No, I didn't say that, it's a different issue.
At our level CO2 is sometimes beneficial, but it's mostly further up in the atmosphere where the IR radiation is absorbed rather than emitted. Which is where climate change comes in, which is supposed to be the focus of his article.

Right, and have we seen more or less radiance from the sun in the last decade? And if CO2 at that altitude is such a problem, do you seriously think that less than 1% of the total in greeenhouse CO2 is ultimately the problem?

Focusing only on one area is not a good idea, which is why his analysis is not worth reading.

I think you don't like the analysis because what he's saying is upsetting to your belief in this stuff. The fact that we've seen different weather patterns than what we've been told it should be like with increased CO2 is already devastating enough.

[Sea Demon]

Bill Clinton in late January told us what we already know about some of the motivations here:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bill-we-just-ha.html

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."
At least he came back and said this could ultimately increase jobs and wages later. Double speak on the issue after he got caught with his pants down? (pardon the pun);)

[NEON DEON]

Bill Clinton in late January told us what we already know about some of the motivations here:




http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bill-we-just-ha.html

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."
At least he came back and said this could ultimately increase jobs and wages later. Double speak on the issue after he got caught with his pants down? (pardon the pun);)



"Tapper falsely suggested Bill Clinton proposed "slow[ing] down our economy" to fight climate change"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310009


Typical see what you want to see and if you dont make it up.

[Sea Demon]

"Tapper falsely suggested Bill Clinton proposed "slow[ing] down our economy" to fight climate change"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310009


Typical see what you want to see and if you dont make it up.
OK. I didn't see this. In fairness to Mr. Clinton, I concede this point. The guy who wrote this one obviously took Mr. Clinton's words out of context completely. Yes, it totally takes on a whole new meaning once you post his whole statement. :-? I'd still like to know how Mr. Clinton would intend to "get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics" though. When everything proposed so far has been nothing but slowing or punishing economic growth. Mr. Clinton does alot of vague speaking there.

[NEON DEON]

"Tapper falsely suggested Bill Clinton proposed "slow[ing] down our economy" to fight climate change"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310009


Typical see what you want to see and if you dont make it up.
OK. I didn't see this. In fairness to Mr. Clinton, I concede this point. The guy who wrote this one obviously took Mr. Clinton's words out of context completely. Yes, it totally takes on a whole new meaning once you post his whole statement. :-? I'd still like to know how Mr. Clinton would intend to "get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics" though. When everything proposed so far has been nothing but slowing or punishing economic growth. Mr. Clinton does alot of vague speaking there.

You are not the first person to fall victim to bad info in a blog. Take at look at what happened to this guy. ;)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133039

Post 5

In reference to Bill being vague, You have a limited time when speaking to get your point across without losing the audience. So, in a way, I would have to agree he was vague. Maybe when giving a speech, you should reference yourself by providing seperate detailed info in printed form for the audience to look at later.

[bradclark1]

And the scientists you quote don't know that weather variations are a natural and normal occurence. If I were Exxon, or other people delivering needed sources of energy to the nation to power the economy, I would fund those who show that those people who push fraudulent weather scare theories are frauds as well.
All the notable scientist and notable organizations are wrong and you are right?
Forgive me while I fall on the floor laughing. Not even a nice try. Try someone who knows something or at isn't paid for by big oil.
Think carefully here, if it's possible for you. CO2 is only a small part of what drives temperature increase or decrease over time. There are so many other factors that drive weather, that this miniscule amount of CO2 we put in the air is negligible. You don't seem to know atmospheric percentages, and if you did, you don't have common sense. You obviously don't have any credentialing or experience in research of any kind.
This from someone who thinks a one degree shift is no big deal. Whats the difference between freeze and thaw? Whats been happening to the ice? You've shown your area of expertise in credentialing or experience in research. I'll take the word of actual scientists not a wannabe.
I'll tell you what pull out a temperature graph from anywhere and see if there is a steadily growing spike in temperature above normal deviations.
For the sake of argument, how do you know that's not a cycle in arctic geography related to normal warming cycles. Do you think the ice shelf has always had the same amount of ice? I guess you didn't know that not only have we seen ice losses in the arctic, but we've also seen recent ice buildups.
For the sake of argument earth does not work that fast. Simple as that. Nowhere that I've read mentions that much of a temperature difference in such a short amount of time. Mother Nature works in fractions over long term. Take the ice melt over 17 years. Thats not even an eye blink. Lets look at respiratory disease for example. It can't be argued that respiratory disease has skyrocketed due to carbon monoxide levels being the main cause. You claim man made Co2 is not at high levels when matched with natural Co2 yet that small amount is having a major affect on our respiratory system. If it's doing that to us what makes you think it's not affecting GW. To think it does not affect the earth is so ................... These examples show what unnatural small amounts can do. One degree can cause ice shelves to melt and a little man made Co2/carbon monoxide is causing harm to living creatures. Of course it's going to affect the planet and any fool can see that by adding two and two together.


The 25 square mile Ayles Shelf breaking off in 07 is because of cooling? A 160 square mile ice shelf collapsing this year from the Wilkins Ice shelf is from cooling? How in your face can that be. Man made gases are accelerating the warming. Man made gases are not the sole cause. I've said that I don't know how many times. You can't even find anything that claims CW is purely caused by man.

No, your whole assertions are like Mr. Gore's and the IPCC. You used them in I don't even know how many posts. They and yourself have highlighted CO2 being the single, sole, largest contributor to warming from a decade ago and in atmospheric sciences in general. That assertion is bunk. And now, the world around you in actual weather patterns show you that. And now, even you have to pretend that it's not what you have been asserting all along.
Dude, I've not changed one thing in any of my positions from day one. You are the only one on this board that supposedly knows what Gore says because you are the only person that brings him up. I will say this however it could be called Co2, man made gases, laughing gas or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't change a thing. Man is causing unnatural change.

[Sea Demon]

All the notable scientist and notable organizations are wrong and you are right?
Forgive me while I fall on the floor laughing. Not even a nice try. Try someone who knows something or at isn't paid for by big oil.

Oh, it's not just me. I'm not alone in seeing how fraudulent these so called "scientists" are. There are alot of credible scientists out there who disagree with these nuts. I guess you forgot about that US Senate report. I'm not even sure that all these people you trust so much are credible scientists at all. Especially how they treat their own data, and the innacuracies of their predictions. It's not that they're just wrong in their predictions, it's that they never seem to correct themselves when their results differ from their premises. Anybody who has done any research can see these people don't operate like scientists. More like paid politicians. I also find it funny and a disservice to their own names that they make it a routine to eliminate anybody within their ranks that disagree with them. That's the only way they could get their so called "consensus" we kept hearing about last year from them.

This from someone who thinks a one degree shift is no big deal. Whats the difference between freeze and thaw? Whats been happening to the ice? You've shown your area of expertise in credentialing or experience in research. I'll take the word of actual scientists not a wannabe.
I'll tell you what pull out a temperature graph from anywhere and see if there is a steadily growing spike in temperature above normal deviations.

Yeah, except that when your're at 40 below zero, 1 degree isn't even noticeable. I guess you think it hovers around 32-33 degrees up in the arctic ice? I notice you can't even answer the questions about whether or not any ice loss or gains may be natural and normal. As far as who's word you take, you seek internet articles to feed your beliefs, and do no thinking on your part. You can't even see how mathematically challenged some of these theories are. Like I said, I question some of these people whoi claim to be "scientists". If they are scientists, they're either lazy, or they simply expound theories without mathematics. As far as your temperature graph, at what point will the curve trend down? Right now, the indicators show cooling, despite CO2 levels increasing steadily. Your like a cultist because you haven't even noticed the recent cooling. We've just had one of the coldest winters when your organizations were telling us to prepare for a warm winter. They were completely wrong. They don't have a clue. In other words, what you're saying here is junk.

For the sake of argument earth does not work that fast. Simple as that. Nowhere that I've read mentions that much of a temperature difference in such a short amount of time. Mother Nature works in fractions over long term. Take the ice melt over 17 years. Thats not even an eye blink. Lets look at respiratory disease for example. It can't be argued that respiratory disease has skyrocketed due to carbon monoxide levels being the main cause. You claim man made Co2 is not at high levels when matched with natural Co2 yet that small amount is having a major affect on our respiratory system. If it's doing that to us what makes you think it's not affecting GW. To think it does not affect the earth is so ................... These examples show what unnatural small amounts can do. One degree can cause ice shelves to melt and a little man made Co2/carbon monoxide is causing harm to living creatures. Of course it's going to affect the planet and any fool can see that by adding two and two together.

Well, you get one thing right here. It takes a while to see things happen in climate patterns. In that regard, your assuredness that global warming in general is a certainty cannot be so readily ascertained. Seeing that, I guess you don't realize that throughout Earth's history, it has warmed, cooled, warmed again, cooled again, ad nauseum. If CO2 was that harmful to the balance of the planet, Earth would have BBQ'd long ago. Well that is unless you believe that natural CO2 levels are static and unchanging decade after decade. There have also been periods of increased solar radiation that have been contributing factors in atmospheric warming. And the main thing you will not discuss is the warming we have seen in the solar system on other planets including the melting on the martian ice cap that happened around the same time as Earth's period of warming. Gee, facts are stubborn things, aren't they? ;)



Dude, I've not changed one thing in any of my positions from day one. You are the only one on this board that supposedly knows what Gore says because you are the only person that brings him up. I will say this however it could be called Co2, man made gases, laughing gas or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't change a thing. Man is causing unnatural change.

Wrong again. The argument has always been that the CO2 coming out of the back end of your car, factories, and people exhaling is killing the planet. You have supported that in three major threads. It's the whole reason the argument exists. Don't try to backpeddle because now you understand just how little humanity outputs compared to the whole. It does matter what the gas in this argument is. It's what warming advocates have been talking about for the past few years as the gas of doom. Man simply doesn't produce enough to affect that much change. The current cooling proves it. If the assertions of man-made warming advocates, and "scientists" were correct, we'd be cooking. And we're not. These people who get funding got lots of splainin' to do.

[joegrundman]

lol

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[Sea Demon]

This is what has happened to the global warming movement. What are they so afraid of? :

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513

One of bradclark's scientists. :lol:

Mr. Suzuki said that politicians should be held legally accountable for ignoring the science. In fact, he went as far to say that it is an "intergenerational crime." And then the back pedaling began. A spokesman has now said that the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally. Uh huh. Yeah, right. Ya know, the same could be said about their nuttiness over global warming. Here's the exact quote. from Suzuki,

"What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act."

Basically, if you look into this nonsense, you'll see that the whole global warming scam is all about pushing junk science to weaken Western capitalist economies and slow free enterprise. That seems to be the way the so called "fixes" are set up as. These are major contributors to this fraud. You know something smells rotten when you want to arrest people for not believing in your causes. When your arguments can stand on their merits, and your theories can stand on the evidence, there's no need for such insanity. This is what the warming movement has become...desperate.

@joegrundman-----Funny

[Sea Demon]

You are not the first person to fall victim to bad info in a blog.


Well it's not the first time I've had to retract either. I will always happily retract when incorrect. I should have sourced that article a little better. They totally minced Clinton's word unfairly. It was after all from a personal blog. Nice catch. Oops. :oops:

[NEON DEON]

SD

What current cooling are you talking about?

Has the average global temperature dropped below 14.0 c while I was having dinner and I missed it?

All time high:

:sunny: 14.76 c set in 2005

Last year of record:

14.73 c in 2007

Previous highs:

14.71 c in 1998

14.49 c in 1990

14.42 c in 1988

14.40 c in 1981

14.27 c in 1980

Last time temp was below 14.0 c

:cool: 13.79 c in 1976

Since 1880 the avg temp has closed below 14.0 c 15 times.

We have not seen below 14 in 31 years! :damn:

The longest period above 14 before this was 5 years set in the 1940s.

So my thoughts are what cooling trend do you speak of?

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008_data.htm#table1

[August]

Interesting date range choices. How come carbon numbers go back to medieval times but temperatrure only to 1880? Could previous temp calculations (assuming they're accurate) not reflect the Earth Policy Institutes line of argument?

[mrbeast]

Interesting date range choices. How come carbon numbers go back to medieval times but temperatrure only to 1880? Could previous temp calculations (assuming they're accurate) not reflect the Earth Policy Institutes line of argument?

Carbon content of the atmosphere can be measured from core samples of ice. Accurate temperature readings have only been taken from relatively recently, prior to that they would not be precise. These tables show projections back 200 years and 1000 years respectively. 10 Different sources are included in each table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7333/2000yeartemperaturecomprs9.png

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/7651/1000yeartemperaturecompyw9.png

[August]

If they're projections they're pretty much useless i'd think Mr Beast.

[bradclark1]

Oh, it's not just me. I'm not alone in seeing how fraudulent these so called "scientists" are. There are alot of credible scientists out there who disagree with these nuts. I guess you forgot about that US Senate report.
Funny, I haven't heard of any credible scientists let alone lots. In regards the Senate report it said 450 scientists showed up. It doesn't say anything about them being all anti-GW. There is nothing that says they were anti-GW. No anti-GW site has crowed about that report at all let alone being anti-GW. I would think that if any notable scientists had been there that would have been news worthy itself. What makes the whole report forgettable is that news organizations did not take any notice of it. I'm sure that if it was that anti at least fox would have run the story. They didn't and I don't take just a bunch of scientist just showing up as testament to anything.
Yeah, except that when your're at 40 below zero, 1 degree isn't even noticeable. I guess you think it hovers around 32-33 degrees up in the arctic ice? What I am attempting to do is show you what a one degree shift is capable of. That seems to be lost on you. A 30% loss of ice in seventeen years certainly seems lost on you.
Right now, the indicators show cooling, despite CO2 levels increasing steadily. Your like a cultist because you haven't even noticed the recent cooling. We've just had one of the coldest winters when your organizations were telling us to prepare for a warm winter. They were completely wrong. They don't have a clue. In other words, what you're saying here is junk.
There is nothing that says 2007 has been one of the coldest winters. Hell, even this February has been the wettest month in Connecticut recorded history. It is usually our month with the most snow this year it was with the most rain.
The 25 square mile Ayles Shelf breaking off in 07 and the 160 square mile ice shelf collapsing this year from the Wilkins Ice shelf doesn't happen from being a record cold year it's from thaw. That one degree you so easily want to ignore. The regions that did experience colder temps were because of the Nina winds as I showed a few comments back. If it will make you feel better they say 08 will be cooler. That will fall under the weather variance not a shift to beginnings of colder temperatures.
If CO2 was that harmful to the balance of the planet, Earth would have BBQ'd long ago. It's comments like this that show where you come from as well as the one below.
And the main thing you will not discuss is the warming we have seen in the solar system on other planets including the melting on the martian ice cap that happened around the same time as Earth's period of warming. Gee, facts are stubborn things, aren't they? Look let me try and make this simpler for you. Hell, I can't make it simpler than I already have so I'll say it again. The solar system is warming thats a given that we both can agree on. What is wrong on this planet is the speed with which we are warming. A good thing you can check is the rate of melt of the Martian ice cap melt if you want. Obviously there are temp differences so I would say at a comparable rate. I bet it won't be close to the ice melt earth has experienced over the last 17 years. If it is I'll shut up about global warming from now on. If thats not an incentive......................
Wrong again. The argument has always been that the CO2 coming out of the back end of your car, factories, and people exhaling is killing the planet. You have supported that in three major threads. It's the whole reason the argument exists. Don't try to backpeddle because now you understand just how little humanity outputs compared to the whole. It does matter what the gas in this argument is. It's what warming advocates have been talking about for the past few years as the gas of doom. Man simply doesn't produce enough to affect that much change. The current cooling proves it. If the assertions of man-made warming advocates, and "scientists" were correct, we'd be cooking. And we're not. These people who get funding got lots of splainin' to do.What are we arguing about? I don't care what you think I've said or what Gore said. Take it as man made gases in whatever terms suits you. Co2 however is the major pollutant. Does it change anything? Not at all. So whats the argument?
You haven't mentioned why such small quantities of whatever you want to call it has caused respiratory diseases at epidemic proportions yet you don't think it affects the planet.

[Sea Demon]

Funny, I haven't heard of any credible scientists let alone lots. In regards the Senate report it said 450 scientists showed up. It doesn't say anything about them being all anti-GW. There is nothing that says they were anti-GW. No anti-GW site has crowed about that report at all let alone being anti-GW. I would think that if any notable scientists had been there that would have been news worthy itself. What makes the whole report forgettable is that news organizations did not take any notice of it. I'm sure that if it was that anti at least fox would have run the story. They didn't and I don't take just a bunch of scientist just showing up as testament to anything.

So, I guess you believe your organizations when they tell you that there is total and complete consensus?? Yeah, you're not delusional. :roll: I think it's because you and many of the other global warming moonbats just simply dismiss out of hand anybody who has an opinion that differs. You not only dismiss scientific fact, inconsistent flaws in your theories, but you dismiss people who point out that there may be some problems in how your theory is derived. I guess, that's consensus if you work that way. Those scientists who showed up at the Senate were there for one purpose. To show that there is another side to the issue. You don't like the report, so just do like you normally do and dismiss it out of hand. I know the Senate did not. We still are not doing what your loonies want to address this made up problem. And we won't. That's what makes it funny.


What I am attempting to do is show you what a one degree shift is capable of. That seems to be lost on you. A 30% loss of ice in seventeen years certainly seems lost on you.

And what seems lost on you is the fact that the ice shelf, global temperatures, naturally emitted CO2 sources, and solar radiation have never been constants. You fail to realize that the Earth has naturally warmed and cooled for eons. But I think for brainwashed people like you, you are incapable of seeing such things for what they are. We see avg. temperatures increasing over time and that's a tragedy to you. Meanwhile, we see cooler temperatures with increasing CO2. You're doing nothing but spinning.

There is nothing that says 2007 has been one of the coldest winters. Hell, even this February has been the wettest month in Connecticut recorded history. It is usually our month with the most snow this year it was with the most rain.
The 25 square mile Ayles Shelf breaking off in 07 and the 160 square mile ice shelf collapsing this year from the Wilkins Ice shelf doesn't happen from being a record cold year it's from thaw. That one degree you so easily want to ignore. The regions that did experience colder temps were because of the Nina winds as I showed a few comments back. If it will make you feel better they say 08 will be cooler. That will fall under the weather variance not a shift to beginnings of colder temperatures.

Yes there has. I guess you don't pay attention to weather forecasts, and compare them to actual world data. It was record cold in many places this year. Up in the arctic itself it was close to -100. But of course you're worried about latitudes that hover near 32-33 degrees and believe it plays havoc on the arctic. Up in the arctic, that's not significant at all. Ice breaking off the arctic shelf is really frightening to you? Do you think it's the first time it's ever happened? You know, "The Day After Tomorrow" was only a movie. And it will not make me feel any better if "they" say that 08 will be cooler. "They" said that this winter would be warm....alarmingly warm. "They" were wrong. It may be warmer, it may be colder. Either way, we won't see the disaster your politically motivated "scientists" "warn" us about.

Look let me try and make this simpler for you. Hell, I can't make it simpler than I already have so I'll say it again. The solar system is warming thats a given that we both can agree on. What is wrong on this planet is the speed with which we are warming. A good thing you can check is the rate of melt of the Martian ice cap melt if you want. Obviously there are temp differences so I would say at a comparable rate. I bet it won't be close to the ice melt earth has experienced over the last 17 years. If it is I'll shut up about global warming from now on. If thats not an incentive......................

Oh, trust me when I say I don't want you to shut up about warming. The more you talk, the more your theories stay out there, the more people see what nonsense it is. The difference between my side and yours is that we don't want nor need you to shut up. It's your side that is afraid of dissent, facts, scientific data which puts yours in doubt, etc. See above, one of your scientists wanting to arrest people for being in disagreement. :lol: Your theories do not stand up to actual scrutiny. It took years for your "scientists" to acknowledge the warming happening on other planets during the same period as ours. Even you yourself, dismiss a scientist from yesterday who studied the issue and theorized that solar radiance has a larger impact on warming than man-made CO2 levels. I know you have no basic research skills based upon what you're speculating here. That the rate of warming on Earth and Mars should be the same. That in and of itself is flawed entirely. It doesn't take into account many things like atmospheric compositions, atmospheric densities, planetary magnetic fields, periods of rotations, and hello.....distance to the sun among others. You have no clue whatsoever.

What are we arguing about? I don't care what you think I've said or what Gore said. Take it as man made gases in whatever terms suits you. Co2 however is the major pollutant. Does it change anything? Not at all. So whats the argument?
You haven't mentioned why such small quantities of whatever you want to call it has caused respiratory diseases at epidemic proportions yet you don't think it affects the planet.

The whole argument is based on the asumption that CO2 is a pollutant and man's tiny amount is the primary driver of global increased temperatures. You've argued it. Gore has made a movie on it. The IPCC supports it. And many of these politically motivated/ government funded scientific organizations have driven thoeires about them. They have been shown to be wrong on many accounts. They have shown they cannot even figure out if hurricanes are caused by global warming or diminished by them. They cannot actually forecast one winter to the next. They have all ignored historical trends, and any other data that doesn't fit into their theory. They probably started out with an actual working theory, but since then, they have refused to change their tune when things aren't exactly working out for them. They may nmow acknowledge wqarming on other planetary bodies and other things like that, but it is always acompanied by drivel and spin. Much like what you provide in the forms of excuses. The bad part is, they have people like you thinking we're all doomed to boot. It's all nonsense. CO2 is naturally occuring, belongs in our eco-system, plants use it, humans and animals exhale it, the oceans need it, the soil needs it, and we emit hardly any of it compared to the total sum. You can keep arguing that it is the sole driver in warming all you want, then deny it in your last parting shots. But it reflects poorly on you.

[Sea Demon]

Relating to this:

You haven't mentioned why such small quantities of whatever you want to call it has caused respiratory diseases at epidemic proportions
Here's some more comedy from the global warming issue....read this. It rings so true:

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2008/04/global-warming-causing-increased-tooth.html

:rotfl::rotfl::up:

Dr. William F. Green, Senior Project Chemist and a member of the Australian Academy of Sciences, revealed the results of an 8-year study on dental health associated with high natural fruit consumption in children at the annual meeting of the Australian Dental Association in Sydney on March 13, 2008. The problem, says Green, is that the increasing world temperatures have significantly changed the ratio between two types of sugar associated with common fruits: Fructose and Galactose. Galactose, which usually combines with Glucose to form Lactose, is normally associated with dairy products and typically not found in large amounts in common fruits, which characteristically are Fructose-dominant in sugar content. But increasing temperatures in the fruit bearing regions of Australia have apparently caused a significant shift in the ratios, with Galactose levels rising in both fruits and grains, whose predominate sugar is Maltose.

......continues.........read the punch line at the bottom.

[VipertheSniper]

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

The solar activity in the last 30 years has also changed less than one percent, and yet it should contribute more to global warming than the 3% of the 3% of the greenhouse gases? Don't make me laugh. That the sun contributes as much to global warming like you make it out to be has already been disproven this year.

Btw you dismiss the credibilty of climatologists because they are funded by people who sell carbon credits, but the climatologists who are funded by oil companies in their research are perfectly credible, as if the oil industry has nothing to loose? What screwed up logic is that? How long did it take the tobacco companies to admit that smoking is harmful to your health? They also funded scientists to prove that smoking does no harm, yet were they right?

[VipertheSniper]

Relating to this:

You haven't mentioned why such small quantities of whatever you want to call it has caused respiratory diseases at epidemic proportions
Here's some more comedy from the global warming issue....read this. It rings so true:

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2008/04/global-warming-causing-increased-tooth.html

:rotfl::rotfl::up:

Dr. William F. Green, Senior Project Chemist and a member of the Australian Academy of Sciences, revealed the results of an 8-year study on dental health associated with high natural fruit consumption in children at the annual meeting of the Australian Dental Association in Sydney on March 13, 2008. The problem, says Green, is that the increasing world temperatures have significantly changed the ratio between two types of sugar associated with common fruits: Fructose and Galactose. Galactose, which usually combines with Glucose to form Lactose, is normally associated with dairy products and typically not found in large amounts in common fruits, which characteristically are Fructose-dominant in sugar content. But increasing temperatures in the fruit bearing regions of Australia have apparently caused a significant shift in the ratios, with Galactose levels rising in both fruits and grains, whose predominate sugar is Maltose.

......continues.........read the punch line at the bottom.



Wohoo april fools... what exactly has that to do with respiratory diseases?

[Fish]

NASA's Top Climate Scientist Says Big Oil is Hiding a "Planet in Crisis"

Global warming has plunged the planet into a crisis and the fossil fuel industries are trying to hide the extent of the problem from the public, NASA's top climate scientist says.

"We've already reached the dangerous level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," according to James Hansen, 67, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. "But there are ways to solve the problem" of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which Hansen said has reached the "tipping point" of 385 parts per million.

Hansen calls for phasing out all coal-fired plants by 2030, taxing their emissions until then, and banning the building of new plants unless they are designed to trap and segregate the carbon dioxide they emit.

The major obstacle to saving the planet from its inhabitants is not technology, insisted Hansen, named one of the world's 100 most influential people in 2006 by Time magazine.

"The problem is that 90 percent of energy is fossil fuels. And that is such a huge business, it has permeated our government," he maintained. "What's become clear to me in the past several years is that both the executive branch and the legislative branch are strongly influenced by special fossil fuel interests," he said, referring to the providers of coal, oil and natural gas and the energy industry that burns them.

"You need a new Kyoto protocol with all the major emitters committed to it. Then you are cooking with gas."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/nasas-top-clima.html (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/nasas-top-clima.html)

[bradclark1]

Relating to this:

You haven't mentioned why such small quantities of whatever you want to call it has caused respiratory diseases at epidemic proportions
Here's some more comedy from the global warming issue....read this. It rings so true:

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2008/04/global-warming-causing-increased-tooth.html

:rotfl::rotfl::up:

Dr. William F. Green, Senior Project Chemist and a member of the Australian Academy of Sciences, revealed the results of an 8-year study on dental health associated with high natural fruit consumption in children at the annual meeting of the Australian Dental Association in Sydney on March 13, 2008. The problem, says Green, is that the increasing world temperatures have significantly changed the ratio between two types of sugar associated with common fruits: Fructose and Galactose. Galactose, which usually combines with Glucose to form Lactose, is normally associated with dairy products and typically not found in large amounts in common fruits, which characteristically are Fructose-dominant in sugar content. But increasing temperatures in the fruit bearing regions of Australia have apparently caused a significant shift in the ratios, with Galactose levels rising in both fruits and grains, whose predominate sugar is Maltose.

......continues.........read the punch line at the bottom.


When you are caught out and don't have a logical answer try and dazzle them with bs huh. Some things never change.

[Skybird]

When you are caught out and don't have a logical answer try and dazzle them with bs huh. Some things never change.

Here, have a drink, I pay.

[bradclark1]

So, I guess you believe your organizations when they tell you that there is total and complete consensus?? Yeah, you're not delusional.
Funny, one of the last rounds we had you were bitching because they didn't have full consensus(which I openly showed you) so their data was no good and now you turn around and say they say they have total and complete consensus. Make up your mind. And you call me delusional? Gimme a break.
Those scientists who showed up at the Senate were there for one purpose. To show that there is another side to the issue..........You don't like the report, so just do like you normally do and dismiss it out of hand. They called you and gave a heads up did they? I don't think so. What it was was a group of scientist showed up for a panel report. That Bush site was a little light on details though wasn't it. Nothing new in that department either. I dismiss nothing out of hand on this subject unless it's a glaring play like using oil paid scientists which is the only thing you ever show. You talked about that panel report and I said that bared watching. I looked into it and came to the above conclusion. If you have anything further you'd like to share I would be more than happy to look.
You fail to realize that the Earth has naturally warmed and cooled for eons. Where have I failed to realize? The spike is too fast to be natural. What can't you understand in that? I've said it in every way I can think of. Every time you try to deflect or just plain out ignore whatever I say that you can't come up with a logical answer that you want.
Yes there has. I guess you don't pay attention to weather forecasts, and compare them to actual world data. It was record cold in many places this year. Up in the arctic itself it was close to -100. But of course you're worried about latitudes that hover near 32-33 degrees and believe it plays havoc on the arctic. Up in the arctic, that's not significant at all. Ice breaking off the arctic shelf is really frightening to you? Do you think it's the first time it's ever happened? You know, "The Day After Tomorrow" was only a movie. And it will not make me feel any better if "they" say that 08 will be cooler. "They" said that this winter would be warm....alarmingly warm. "They" were wrong. It may be warmer, it may be colder. Either way, we won't see the disaster your politically motivated "scientists" "warn" us about.
I suggest you research(you know that which you insinuate you are so good at) ice shelfs. I think you will find that nothing of that magnitude has happened in your lifetime.
In fact lets look at some of your research skills:

2007 Another Near-Record Warm Year <<< Fox news no less!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316848,00.html

Netherlands Has Another Record Warm Year in 2007
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/46218/story.htm

Cooler than normal temperatures were observed over less than 15% of the globe, and nowhere did the cooling exceed 3� C (Figure 1). Record warmth was particularly noteworthy over land areas of the Northern Hemisphere poleward of 45� latitude, where temperatures a remarkable 5�C (9�F) above normal were common.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/2007winter.asp

The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, and neighboring high latitude regions. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. Snow and ice reflect sunlight; when they disappear, so too does their ability to deflect warming rays. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low geographic extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/earth_temp.html

Record Warm Summers Cause Extreme Ice Melt In Greenland
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/record-warm-summers-cause-extreme-ice-melt-in-greenland/

NOAA: 2007 a Top Ten Warm Year for U.S. and Globe - December 13, 2007
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/20071213_climateupdate.html
I know you have no basic research skills based upon what you're speculating here.
So much for your pathetic lies and your pathetic attempts at research. My no basic research skills seem to be good enough to show your what your paid for research skills are worth.
Much like what you provide in the forms of excuses.
Show me an excuse I've made about anything. What I want to know is what is your excuse.

Forgot
Oh, trust me when I say I don't want you to shut up about warming.
No what you are saying is your superior research has failed to find anything on the Mars ice melt that is "comparable" to earths. If you don't know what comparable means look it up in the dictionary. Good luck on finding anything on Mars ice melt beyond the seasonal changes or axis shift.

[Sea Demon]

Funny, one of the last rounds we had you were bitching because they didn't have full consensus(which I openly showed you) so their data was no good and now you turn around and say they say they have total and complete consensus. Make up your mind. And you call me delusional? Gimme a break.


Nope. I'm quite happy they don't have full consensus. I actually questioned you thinking that they do have consensus. Because you talk like they do. And they do not. But I forgot, you don't know how to read. And yes, you are a very delusional person. I say that with 100% certainty.

They called you and gave a heads up did they? I don't think so. What it was was a group of scientist showed up for a panel report. That Bush site was a little light on details though wasn't it. Nothing new in that department either. I dismiss nothing out of hand on this subject unless it's a glaring play like using oil paid scientists which is the only thing you ever show. You talked about that panel report and I said that bared watching. I looked into it and came to the above conclusion. If you have anything further you'd like to share I would be more than happy to look.

No, but I also took a look myself. There's much more to it than what you present. Just a couple of examples:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=283132359155277

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

But I see that you are again making things up as normal. The panel of scientists, some of them dismissed from IPCC because they disagreed with the so called "consensus", got the message out just fine. And the Senate will not take the recommendations of the IPCC. They just aren't going to do it. No matter how much you push the BS here, like a frothing at the mouth desperate lunatic, your wants and desires will be ignored. The US government, I assure you, is not going to allow the environmentalist ""global warming" hysterics to prevent energy companies from delivering the needed resources to drive our economy over junk science. You lose. It's ultimately that simple. You show alot of contempt over energy companies, yet your family would have a hard time making it without them. You couldn't power that computer your wastring electricity on without them. That's cold hard reality for you.

Where have I failed to realize? The spike is too fast to be natural. What can't you understand in that? I've said it in every way I can think of. Every time you try to deflect or just plain out ignore whatever I say that you can't come up with a logical answer that you want.

Dude, the spike leveled off. We are not burning up. The only spike we see is increased CO2 due to increased production and economic activity. We don't see the theorized associated warming to coincide with it. I know you're so concerned over an average of 1 degree, but that hysteria is totally unfounded.

So much for your pathetic lies and your pathetic attempts at research. My no basic research skills seem to be good enough to show your what your paid for research skills are worth.

Your research skills do suck. Your idea of research is to plop your rear end down in front of a computer and google like there's no tomorrow. Anybody can do that. Then you base your conclusions on what other people say is true. You seem to have no ability to make heads or tails of it for yourself. All your articles above have articles that refute them. For every article I've seen that says this year or that year was the warmest ever, there will be others talking about results using different averages or using other data. What you want is a world of doom and gloom. You can have it. It actually takes a little research to actually understand what lies beneath. Seriously, I doubt those projections many of your politically based "scientists" make are true. The theories of CO2 vs. sustained and increased warming over time didn't work out this year. Nor do hardly any other projection or forecast they make. Sometimes you have to look at the results to see just how well the assertions made were. You don't seem to want to look at the end results because they don't work out for you.

Show me an excuse I've made about anything. What I want to know is what is your excuse.

Everything is spin. From the extreme cold temperatures we've seen this winter, to temperature anomalies in the solar system that coincides with warming on Earth, to spinning record heat in the 20th century, to spinning the current spike of 1 degree as troubling, to spinning CO2 as a pollutant. Your entire belief in this junk is spin and excuses.

[Sea Demon]

When you are caught out and don't have a logical answer try and dazzle them with bs huh. Some things never change.


Oh this ain't BS. This is spot on comedy. The loons blame everything on global warming. Now they're telling us we won't be able to get our beer because we won't be able to grow the resources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24011745/ :lol: :lol:

Just plain stupid!

Oh, and don't forget, Ted Turner (liberal Democrat and global warming advocate) says we'll all be living in Somalia eating eachother in 30 years. :rotfl:

[Sea Demon]

No what you are saying is your superior research has failed to find anything on the Mars ice melt that is "comparable" to earths. If you don't know what comparable means look it up in the dictionary. Good luck on finding anything on Mars ice melt beyond the seasonal changes or axis shift.

Actually theories are abundant on what is actually causing the warming on Mars and other planetary bodies. From what I see right now, there is no consensus on anything totally conclusive. There are scientists who dismiss eachother's theories on the issue from more than one camp, but we do know one thing. It's natural. Just like here on Earth, warming and cooling is natural. And each is driven by many factors. That's why it's almost ludicrous to be so certain of the primacy of the CO2 factor during warming trends by some of these IPCC "scientists". Or that the impact is as devastating as they say it is.

[Sea Demon]

The solar activity in the last 30 years has also changed less than one percent, and yet it should contribute more to global warming than the 3% of the 3% of the greenhouse gases? Don't make me laugh. That the sun contributes as much to global warming like you make it out to be has already been disproven this year.


Here's a question for you. What do you think will have more impact from an energy standpoint? 1 cubic meters worth of superheated, highly energetic solar plasma, or 1 cubic meters worth of a static atmospheric gas in a planetary system such as Earth's(ie from energy absorbtion)? Think energy propagation per volume, not just volume here. It's pretty easy to see solar output would be much greater using this simple example.

I'm hoping you don't mind the question Viper. According to bradclark, we're not allowed to use our own knowledge of science or mathematics to gain any insight. Independant research is not allowed. Especially if it goes against IPCC "scientists" theories. We have to sit and wait for an opinion to be created for us. And it has to come from those making projections based on many assumptions, even if forecasts they make don't turn out to be true. We simply have to sit and wait for some political hack at IPCC to form an opinion for us. Well, I post this to you because I'm at least hoping you can think and analyze for yourself Viper. Feel free to question the premise. This post is not intended for sheep like Mr. google up there.

[NEON DEON]

What data showing a cooling trend?

Where is it?

And dont show stuff written on climate change from someone who has a degree in proctology.

Data.

I want to see global data (not one town where it happened to have below average temperatures) that shows we are now in a cooling trend.

:D

[Graf Paper]

Climate, like all other natural processes on Earth, is something that can only be accurately measured over eons, not the mere decades of data the Global Warming camp uses.

The Earth's climate has changed so much over time that it is very questionable that man is having as drastic an impact on climate as environmentalists argue. Emissions from machinery and industry still make up less than 1% of the gases and particulate matter in the atmosphere.

During the eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in 1994 and Mt. St. Helens in 1981, each dumped 5,000 times more CO2, methane, and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, in a matter of minutes, than the entire span of man's industrial history.

The Earth's tilt, relative to the Sun, changes over time due to a wobble in its spin. Roughly every twenty thousand years or so, the North Star changes from being Polaris to Vega and then back again. This change in tilt has dramatic alterations in climate that occur gradually over millenniums.

There are 5,000-yr old cave paintings in the Sahara Desert which depict that region as fertile grasslands where cattle and sheep were herded. Geologic and archaeological evidence show that Greenland was once temperate and Antarctica was once devoid of an icecap, along with many other examples.

The carbon dioxide levels were actually higher during the Ice Age than they are today. Ice core samples dating back to 100,000 years ago support this.

Graphs of sunspot activity have a direct correlation to global temperatures. CO2 does not. Scientists have known this since the 1950s and meteorologists used to utilize this to predict weather trends for hotter or cooler seasons with a fair degree of certainty.

Even with the billions invested in climate technology yearly, weather predictions are only 95% accurate two hours into the future. This drops drastically over time to a mere 10% accuracy when projecting a forecast out to 24 hours. The accuracy for a 72-hour forecast is a mere 1%.

Computer models are considered unreliable at best and only give a very generalized indication that is more often interpreted with intuition and experience, rather than exact data.

The only certain facts are that Global warming has gone from being a fringe theory, born during the 1970s environmental movement's birth, to a political and social trend that has little to do with hard science and more to do with personal power and money.

"Fiddling" with climate data to support their arguments is fascism, at best, not science.

There is an old truth that goes, "If you shout a lie with authority long enough, people will grow to believe it is the truth."

Hitler knew this.
So did Stalin.

It has been the tool that all men who seek power and political influence have know about since before civilization began.

[Sea Demon]

What data showing a cooling trend?

Where is it?

And dont show stuff written on climate change from someone who has a degree in proctology.

Data.

I want to see global data (not one town where it happened to have below average temperatures) that shows we are now in a cooling trend.

:D

Hi NEON. I don't think it would be accurate to dismiss data from this past winter to simply skew results that would make a warming trend appear imminent. There were broken cold records in many places, not just small isolated towns. I admit, it may be a little early to judge what will happen next year. I already said that long ago. But I don't believe it will cause any significant change one way or the other. Show me the data that says we will warm up next year definitively. I don't believe you can. Yes, you may find an article that says so, but we did see how that worked out. Has there been warming trends in the past? yes. Significant as to cause untold panic? No. Proven to be caused solely by man's CO2 output? While theories discuss it as though it's fact, current CO2 climbs with temperature rates not significantly continuing it's rise in out of control temperatures, puts alot of doubt into it. (Your own data kind of shows that). And there is alot of factors not even discussed by the proponents of these theories, merely dismissals. It's all been man-made CO2 emissions by these theories and nothing but. Makes me raise an eyebrow or two. For the last few years I have become much more doubtful.

BTW, there are people who study solar physics, meteorology, and other related sciences who do not agree with the theories regarding man-made warming. And despite the claims they are all funded by Exxon, I find that hard to believe. That may make a good, uneducated one-liner, but it is merely that.

Nevertheless, I still think that reducing pollution, and finding better ways to recycle resources and developing alternative sources of energy is a good idea. From both an ecological standpoint, and an economic one. Don't give me the government mandates and economic control by government. Put the free enterprise system to work. I don't believe in the cult of doom, but I sure as heck want to reduce pollution and continue man's knowledge in developing newer, better, and more efficient means of energy.

[Skybird]

I only make a short jump-in-and-out, since discussions of this type are proven useless.

Global warming has been predicted to produce paradox effects that give the impression of that actually a cooling is taking place , and years in advance, long before climasceptics observed them in reality and started enthusiastically yelling about them. the thickening of ice in the arctic for example: it is a very old story. there is a raise in temperature, the total temperature nevertheless still staying below freezing point, due to higher temperature more moisture from evaporation is in the air, this meets the ice, you get condensation, then it freezes et voila: you have thicker ice for the imminent future because it is warmer. At the same time you make observations that the ice gets more brittle, and more and more often huge parts break off, while glacier disappear faster and faster due to the melting water creating almost a sldiing chute beloiw the ice so that it moves faster and gets additionally pierced from top to down, letting warmer air circulate and melt the ice even faster. the thickening of the ice: is a predicted, temporary effect that will reverse more sooner than later. It is a delayed effect, so to speak.

Same with models saying that CO2 increase helps to foster the green. This too is a long predicted, temporary effect, which will be followed by an even greater devastating desertification once the green has grown beyond a certain threshold level. I linked it at least two times over the past year. It is known. It is not sensational. It does not support that CO2 is good and we must not mind about how much there is. It is predicted an effect. There is nothing in it supporting that global warming does not take place or CO2 is good for the atmosphere. It is a poisoning that shows its poisenous effect with a delay.

Methane: many made ridicule of suddenly methane being considered a threatening variable for climate. they argued by a scheme of "if now methane is an argument, than the arguments before obviously must have been proven wrong". That is Quatsch. It only means that a new, an additional threat has been identified. I do not judge it, since I have not read enough on methane. but that there is a high concentration in areas where for example rice is cultivated, is self-explanatory. At least it seems to me that methane maybe is an even greater accelerating agent for climate change, than some others.

We have had temperature records in recent years, last winter was very cold in America, two winters ago we had such a record in Germany and Europe. At the same time we see records in high temperature during summer. 2003 was a pain over here, and meteorologists predict with a 70% chance that this summer will become the hottest in the past 16 years, they say. The general trend of global temperature also points upwards, not downwards, we see a massive warming of the oceans. We see a raise in weather extremes, both frequency and intensity - this is what it all is about, and again: this has been predicted, because the higher temperature increases the energetic activity in the atmosphere and speeds up evaporation and condensation cycles. more cloud activity. more thermal activity. More winds. Faster transportation of temperature fields. We see far more storms, and wee see them taking place at higher intensity. In Germany, it has multiplied by a factor of five over the past 20 years. We see more and bigger floodings worldwide. In Germany, statistics show us that floodings now take place 3-4 times as often as before. Hurricanes happen more often, and tornadoes, especially hurricanes showing a trend to increase in intensity.

we see the equatorial deserts expanding to the south and north, and the huge deserts becoming bigger, we see new species in our countries that before were not here because it was too cold. We see pathogens from the tropics moving north. We see desertification speeding up, and expanding. we see sweet water becoming a rare good, and a shrinking of farming lands in equatorial regions, one reason is "Überweidung" (over-farming?), the other is climate change making the ground infertile. We see on land and in the ocean animals travelling into Northern waters and lands that before were too cold for them. We see plants and micro-organisms doing the same. We see - if only we want to.

Some even say their data shows them that the activity of the gulf stream has lost 15-20% in activity already. Hooray, if that activity falls below a certain threshold level, it becomes cold in Europe - global warming? nonsense, a new ice age! Nevertheless, this loss in activity is due to a process called "Entsalzung", it means that too much sweet water from the melting ice at the poles has made the mechanism by which sweet water and salt water create maritime tidings like a huge pump is no more efficient. It is global warming creating this.

Now, a word on microcycles and macro-cycles. People need to learn to separate them, espeically climate sceptics who often show up with observations regarding micro-cycles and think that is an argument to question an unwelcomed macro-cycle, and vice versa. the changes of Earths climate of time frames of hundreds of thousands of years, and millions of years, are macrocycles. changes in sun activity, and the yearly differences in weather and mean temperature, are microcycles. Macrocycles in earth's climate in the past have often been due to fundamental changes of atmosphere composition. Fundamental means not necessarily massive and voluminous, but sufficient changes. there were times when existing life forms on earth almost completely ere wiped out due to sudden changes of atmosphere composition, making it almost poisonous. Also, there have been massive temperature differences, resulting in long times of ice ages, and tropical heat around all the globe. But we talk about things here that lasted usually over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. If the intensity of changes in earth's present atmosphere and temperatures are calculated against the amount of time in which they took place, you see a sudden speed increase of the process that is calculated in the range of factor between 500 and 1000. Some give even higher numbers, in the five-digit-range, but let's not doing academic hair-splitting, the point is: it has accelerated beyond reason and madness. And that has nothing to do with sun activity and changes in the solar system and weather on Mars anymore. Such a sudden acceleration means there has been an artificial variable interfering that before was not there. And this variable strangely corresponds with the time table of human history. In science there is the principle of picking the explanation that makes sense and is the less complicated. Man's activity has caused the global warming, that is. Voilá, you're done, lets switch from the theory on why it happened to the practise of how to survive it.

the IPCC has been wrong in one major thing: that they painted a picture of as if we still could delay and maybe prevent global warming and climate change if only we implement the correct measures over the next 15 years. That is total BS to not worry the crowds and make them vote for the correct party. They also based their projections on hopelessly optimistic assumptions on future energy needs declining, and the willingness of nations to reduce polluting levels. they have been criticised for this by I think American scientists and former IPCC members, I linked the article just days ago.

Not every "solution" Greens propagate is reasonable and realistic, and sometimes their thoughts even backfire and even increase the mess instead of reducing them. But to make that an argument to mock at climate change in general and argue: if their solutions are wrong, then the whole idea of global warming must be wrong, disqualifies for any further debate.

I again point out that there is a a very strong economic lobby that spends hundreds of millions of dollars on projects and PR campaign whose only purpose is to discredit scientists, make ridicule of their data, and replace their theories (sending reminders for changes) with more welcomed theories of that no changes need to be done, and the level of distortion of sometimes most elemental principles of scientifically working and data analysis is nothing less than hair-raising. I live by the impression that the profit-greedy industry was successful in making the climate debate an almost religious issue in which you either believe, or not. That's why I for the most do not debate these things anymore - there is nothing to debate, for the facts are clear and lay in the open for everybody to see - if he wants to see. And if he deliberately chooses not to look at them and instead turn his back and telling jokes to enjoy his audience cheering and laughing, then discussion is both impossible and pointless. It's waste of time.

But that does not free us from the facts of the situation we are in. We already pay the price for how we live. Our children will get hit by the consequences multiple times as hard. As parents, our generation is an almost criminal failure, for we steal our children's chances and make our living by eating up their future. Shame on us being haughty at the same time and celebrating ourselves for how responsible and civilised we are. We are cannibals.

[bradclark1]

When you are caught out and don't have a logical answer try and dazzle them with bs huh. Some things never change.


Oh this ain't BS. This is spot on comedy. The loons blame everything on global warming. Now they're telling us we won't be able to get our beer because we won't be able to grow the resources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24011745/ :lol: :lol:

Just plain stupid!

Oh, and don't forget, Ted Turner (liberal Democrat and global warming advocate) says we'll all be living in Somalia eating eachother in 30 years. :rotfl:
Still can't answer the question huh. You think if you say something stupid and throw up some smiley faces it will deflect from the question. At least explain why you think it's stupid. That should be a good one. Put some of that paid college educated research you have to work.

[Rockstar]

What causes me to believe this global warming phenomenon is a load of tripe? It is the politicians, as soon as they became the leading force in promoting it, it immediately became suspect. To use general consensus, feeling or open mindedness convey a global enviromental problem is not science it proves nothing. Couple that with a politician/government leading the way it is something to be wary of. But some will be sheep.

So far all that has happened is, they have promoted warming to attain power, raised my taxes, and travelled the world in their private jets and talk.

Can you imagine what the earth would have been like if the politician and so called scienctists had there way back in the seventies? I was old enough to hear the ice age scare. Cover the polar caps with soot was their answer, start planting crops and storing food ice is going to cover the earth!

[bradclark1]

Nope. I'm quite happy they don't have full consensus. I actually questioned you thinking that they do have consensus. Because you talk like they do. And they do not. But I forgot, you don't know how to read. And yes, you are a very delusional person. I say that with 100% certainty.
How pathetic can you be?
No, but I also took a look myself. There's much more to it than what you present. Just a couple of examples:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...83132359155277
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem....=rep&id=257909

Those links are talking about Gores movie! Whoop-die do!
You show alot of contempt over energy companies, yet your family would have a hard time making it without them. You couldn't power that computer your wastring electricity on without them. That's cold hard reality for you.
What contempt am I supposedly showing?
Dude, the spike leveled off. We are not burning up. The only spike we see is increased CO2 due to increased production and economic activity. We don't see the theorized associated warming to coincide with it. I know you're so concerned over an average of 1 degree, but that hysteria is totally unfounded.
Show me! Show me!! The links I showed you above show you don't know what you are talking about. So show me one thing that says the spike leveled off. You can't simple as that. I've already shown you what that one degree accomplished. I even put it in bold fonts so even you should have no problem reading it or is it another example of it's not saying what you want to hear so you ignore it?
Your research skills do suck. Your idea of research is to plop your rear end down in front of a computer and google like there's no tomorrow. Anybody can do that.
Well you sure as hell can't do it so it must not be that easy. Is the data wrong that I show you? No it's not. So tell us how you do your research. You don't! You pull some crap out of your butt and expect people to believe it. If you haven't figured it out already I research every point you attempt to make and no surprise, there is nothing that supports your "facts", or you grossly exaggerate. I suggest you do the same to me and research what I say. You might actually learn something.
All your articles above have articles that refute them.
Show me. That should be simple enough with your superior research skills.
It actually takes a little research to actually understand what lies beneath. Seriously, I doubt those projections many of your politically based "scientists" make are true.
So now it's whats underneath huh. It's a read between the lines type thing? Show me! I have no problem showing you all the data you want to see even if you ignore it. Do the same for me with your superior research skills.
This is funny. I'm glad you finally see that what you are putting out is spin.
Everything is spin. From the extreme cold temperatures we've seen this winter,
Cooler than normal temperatures were observed over less than 15% of the globe, and nowhere did the cooling exceed 3 C.
to temperature anomalies in the solar system that coincides with warming on Earth
I won't say one way or another. It depends on the data you read and there are too many different theories out there. If you are basing on Mars ice you are wrong.

to spinning record heat in the 20th century,
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/images/gltemp.gif

to spinning CO2 as a pollutant.
I'm more than a little surprised your high school education didn't cover this let alone your college education. Must be the same people who taught you how to research.
Carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2)
Carbon dioxide is generated as a byproduct of vegetable matter, the combustion of fossil fuels and other chemical processes.

[Sea Demon]

When you are caught out and don't have a logical answer try and dazzle them with bs huh. Some things never change.

Oh this ain't BS. This is spot on comedy. The loons blame everything on global warming. Now they're telling us we won't be able to get our beer because we won't be able to grow the resources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24011745/ :lol: :lol:

Just plain stupid!

Oh, and don't forget, Ted Turner (liberal Democrat and global warming advocate) says we'll all be living in Somalia eating eachother in 30 years. :rotfl: Still can't answer the question huh. You think if you say something stupid and throw up some smiley faces it will deflect from the question. At least explain why you think it's stupid. That should be a good one. Put some of that paid college educated research you have to work.

What an absolutely impotent response. It's stupid because they've been doing this for over 50 years. Not only weather scares, but opposite outcomes of their failed assertions. You're oblivious to any of it obviously. From false mass erosions, to acid rain scares, to false ocean depletions, to increased hurricane activity etc.. They never come true. This story looks exactly like that particular april fool's piece. I love how people are now making fun of how the warmers will blame everything on global warming. Comedy is funniest when there's a drop of truth in it. It deserves the ridicule it receives. They just seem to throw everything and anything out there. Weather alarmists are like the boy who cried wolf, with no wolf at the end of the story. There need not be any "paid college research" you so readily and clearly dismiss. Education is not your enemy brad. Perhaps it's only independant thought that troubles you. Maybe you want to have everyone who disagrees with you arrested like your lazy scientist warming friend. The fact that they're now trying to appeal to the guy at the bar who wants his beer on football Sunday is obvious. I need not explain the ludicrous. I know there are many people who smell the rat. Mass cannibalism and no beer!!! Geez. Someone who wants to ridicule the warming movement couldn't have planned it better. That's as scaremongering and playing to false fears as you can get. You're being played once again.

[Sea Demon]

Those links are talking about Gores movie! Whoop-die do!

Oh, they talk about alot more than that. It's too bad for you as well, that so many use Gore's movie as a basis in the belief in man-made warming. Somehow, this graduate school failure is a climate expert? Gore's movie will go down in history as a flop. Within 20 years it will be an example of false alarm, political scare-mongering, and false data manipulation.

What contempt am I supposedly showing?

More delusion? I think so. ;) You show nothing but contempt for independant thought. And you rail against oil companies, and energy partners as though they were the devil himself. These people make your life possible.

Show me! Show me!! The links I showed you above show you don't know what you are talking about. So show me one thing that says the spike leveled off. You can't simple as that. I've already shown you what that one degree accomplished. I even put it in bold fonts so even you should have no problem reading it or is it another example of it's not saying what you want to hear so you ignore it?

It's your problem if you can't look at all the data and see that increasing levels of CO2 are not giving you what you think it's giving you. You've shown, nor have you proven nothing. You have shown that there are people who think one degree is Earth shattering, but in the real world, there is no devastation occuring. You are the one who appears to believe that warming and cooling (even naturally occuring???) is a harmful event.

Y Well you sure as hell can't do it so it must not be that easy. Is the data wrong that I show you? No it's not. So tell us how you do your research. You don't! You pull some crap out of your butt and expect people to believe it. If you haven't figured it out already I research every point you attempt to make and no surprise, there is nothing that supports your "facts", or you grossly exaggerate. I suggest you do the same to me and research what I say. You might actually learn something.

You're not worth the time. Nor the effort. You don't research squat. You google up articles. Alot of them obsolete. Alot of them with assertions made in the past, but the conclusion now looks to be incorrect. You don't look further than google for your answers.

Show me. That should be simple enough with your superior research skills.

Been done in three major threads. But you are only receiving of knowledge that gives you the doom and gloom you love. It doesn't take anything to really see how crazy you are on this issue.

So now it's whats underneath huh. It's a read between the lines type thing? Show me! I have no problem showing you all the data you want to see even if you ignore it. Do the same for me with your superior research skills.
This is funny. I'm glad you finally see that what you are putting out is spin.

Been done several times. You are apparently incapable of understanding anything other than what some politically motivated "scientists" from some article says. "Reading between the lines" is not necessary. Your inability to absorb any explanation beyond a google article that says what you like is your problem not mine. I've seen plenty of your rehashed "data". I need not see more.

Cooler than normal temperatures were observed over less than 15% of the globe, and nowhere did the cooling exceed 3 C.

That doesn't give you what you've been asserting all along. Nor does it prove anything conclusively from IPCC. As a matter of fact, in direct correlation to CO2 averages and increasing(potentially out of control) temperatures are concerned it tells you something different. It tells you that there is more to look at than CO2 (natural or man-made). If man-made CO2 were the driver, the theory would have worked out.

I won't say one way or another. It depends on the data you read and there are too many different theories out there. If you are basing on Mars ice you are wrong.

Your own certainty on that is funny Mr. google. The fact that you haven't displayed the knowledge necessary as to what changes the climate of a given system, I don't know how you can know that. Oh, maybe your googled up IPCC "scientist" gave you your talking point spin. That's all it is.



Carbon dioxide is generated as a byproduct of vegetable matter, the combustion of fossil fuels and other chemical processes.

The fact that it comes out of the back of a car in trace amounts does not make it a pollutant. But I'm glad to se you admit you think it is. Water vapor comes out of your car in trace amounts too. Is that a pollutant? You would be the first person I know who would label water as a pollutant.

[Sea Demon]

Oh come on Sea Demon, you believe in creation and you're giving lessons to Bradclark on "being played" ? :lol:

Disprove creation (or intelligent design if you will). Prove the cosmic accident theory. I assure you, you will be unsuccessful.

[antikristuseke]

Provide evidence for Creation and inteligent design. And what exactly is this cosmic accident you refer to, is that your strawman construct of various theories of science you refer to evolutionism?

[Skybird]

Comes a man to a doctor and is constantly snipping his fingers. Asks the doctor: "Hey, why are you doing that?" The patient: "it scares the pink elephants away, else they would trample on our feet!" The doctor: "But I beg you, there are no pink elephants, or what!" Says the patient: "You see, it works!"

As I said before: some here discuss climate issues as if it were a religion. By SD's latest comment I must conclude he is rejecting global warming evidence only for one reason: because it collides with his religious views that have no space for man-made global warming.

Religious motivation is the most dangerous of all types of ignorrance, and the most stubborn one and impossible one to convince of somethign that is not covered by the dogma. Any argument is wasted, and every word is one word in vein, every discussion is doomed to be useless, and the only reply you'll ever get is "but I believe different". There is only one thing a man can do: leave such a guy alone and let life roll over him. And if he considers life rolling over hom being possible or not, is of no interest for life itself - it just rolls over him nevertheless, and nobody cares, or must care.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Here's my opinion. If the earth is warming or cooling, I dont think its because of us. And due to this, I think that all these schemes that no-one else seems to be joining the British Government in enforcing to 'reduce environmental impact' wont do a danged thing.

[Sea Demon]

Provide evidence for Creation and inteligent design. And what exactly is this cosmic accident you refer to, is that your strawman construct of various theories of science you refer to evolutionism?

No. There is no strawman in that. There are theories abundant into how Earth was created. There is scientific proof in how Earth was created and when. I don't discount any of it. I think there is alot of evidence to support natural evolution of species over time. However none of that disproves the hand of God in any of it. Other than Skybird's little joke, he nor the original poster of this point can disprove God's hand in creating the process of life, or in Earth's creation over billions of years. Another poster on another thread poijnted out something good. While belief in God's role, religious perspective is a matter of faith, disbelief also is. God and science are not exclusive of one another.

[SUBMAN1]

Woo Hoo! I think I created a thread to compete with the bump thread! :D :up:

I can't beleive this thread is still going on!



And my two cents to the global warming crowd - I don't understand how scientists run around and tell me that a million years is a short time, even as compared to climates, and then try and convince me that 10 years of global warming data is catastrophic?

Nice, but I'm not buying it.

-S

[Sea Demon]

As I said before: some here discuss climate issues as if it were a religion. By SD's latest comment I must conclude he is rejecting global warming evidence only for one reason: because it collides with his religious views that have no space for man-made global warming.



Nope. Religious beliefs do not play on my opinion of this issue in any way. The religious like views of global warming come from advocates because they are deriving their views on blind faith. When they see a warming trend, they find the one small role man plays into it so as to assign blame to it, and ignore all other factors which pertain to climate change. Not only that when the theories derived don't work as advertised, they change labels, but don't redraw their theories. There is actual evidence which shatters many of their assertions. No such evidence exists to disprove God's existence or role.

[bradclark1]

When you are caught out and don't have a logical answer try and dazzle them with bs huh. Some things never change.

Oh this ain't BS. This is spot on comedy. The loons blame everything on global warming. Now they're telling us we won't be able to get our beer because we won't be able to grow the resources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24011745/ :lol: :lol:

Just plain stupid!

Oh, and don't forget, Ted Turner (liberal Democrat and global warming advocate) says we'll all be living in Somalia eating eachother in 30 years. :rotfl: Still can't answer the question huh. You think if you say something stupid and throw up some smiley faces it will deflect from the question. At least explain why you think it's stupid. That should be a good one. Put some of that paid college educated research you have to work.

What an absolutely impotent response. It's stupid because they've been doing this for over 50 years. Not only weather scares, but opposite outcomes of their failed assertions. You're oblivious to any of it obviously. From false mass erosions, to acid rain scares, to false ocean depletions, to increased hurricane activity etc.. They never come true. This story looks exactly like that particular april fool's piece. I love how people are now making fun of how the warmers will blame everything on global warming. Comedy is funniest when there's a drop of truth in it. It deserves the ridicule it receives. They just seem to throw everything and anything out there. Weather alarmists are like the boy who cried wolf, with no wolf at the end of the story. There need not be any "paid college research" you so readily and clearly dismiss. Education is not your enemy brad. Perhaps it's only independant thought that troubles you. Maybe you want to have everyone who disagrees with you arrested like your lazy scientist warming friend. The fact that they're now trying to appeal to the guy at the bar who wants his beer on football Sunday is obvious. I need not explain the ludicrous. I know there are many people who smell the rat. Mass cannibalism and no beer!!! Geez. Someone who wants to ridicule the warming movement couldn't have planned it better. That's as scaremongering and playing to false fears as you can get. You're being played once again.
Err. What story? I never ran any story. What I said was:
One degree can cause ice shelves to melt and a little man made Co2/carbon monoxide is causing harm to living creatures. Of course it's going to affect the planet and any fool can see that by adding two and two together.

You haven't mentioned why such small quantities of whatever you want to call it has caused respiratory diseases at epidemic proportions yet you don't think it affects the planet.

So let me get this thing on research down. You think
There need not be any "paid college research"
Perhaps it's only independant thought that troubles you.
So what you are saying is it's okay for you to pull crap and of your butt with not a shred of evidence to show where you got your information because it's independent thinking? :rotfl:

[Skybird]

It also is not proven that the universe is not framed by a wall of 5-dimensional licorice, and God is no flying spagetti monster. Thus it must be true: the universe is surrounded by 5-dimensional licorice, and God is a flying spagetti monster.

Logical.

[Sea Demon]

And my two cents to the global warming crowd - I don't understand how scientists run around and tell me that a million years is a short time, even as compared to climates, and then try and convince me that 10 years of global warming data is catastrophic?

Nice, but I'm not buying it.

-S

Careful, bradclark might have you arrested. :rotfl:

[antikristuseke]

No. There is no strawman in that. There are theories abundant into how Earth was created. There is scientific proof in how Earth was created and when. I don't discount any of it. I think there is alot of evidence to support natural evolution of species over time. However none of that disproves the hand of God in any of it. Other than Skybird's little joke, he nor the original poster of this point can disprove God's hand in creating the process of life, or in Earth's creation over billions of years. Another poster on another thread poijnted out something good. While belief in God's role, religious perspective is a matter of faith, disbelief also is. God and science are not exclusive of one another.

While science cant disprove god, nor is that its goal, neither can you prove a god.
Disbelief in dieties is a lack of faith not a matter of faith. As hard as this may be for you to understand some of us do not need to atribute the unknown to the supernatural.

[Sea Demon]

It also is not proven that the universe is not framed by a wall of 5-dimensional licorice, and God is no flying spagetti monster. Thus it must be true: the universe is surrounded by 5-dimensional licorice, and God is a flying spagetti monster.

Logical.

You have not disproven God's existence or role in Earth's creation or natural processes.

[Sea Demon]

So what you are saying is it's okay for you to pull crap and of your butt with not a shred of evidence to show where you got your information because it's independent thinking? :rotfl:
The difference is, I'm not pulling crap out of my rear end. Unlike you, I'm not an internet junkie, mr. google. I am thinking directly to the mathematics of your junk science. And can see the flaws, and inconsistencies for what they are. It doesn't add up. It's not easy to see it if you're incapable of it.

[Sea Demon]

While sceince cant disprove god, nor is that its goal, neither can you prove a god.
Disbelief in dieties is a lack of faith not a matter of faith. As hard as this may be for you to understand some of us do not need to atribute the unknown to the supernatural.

True, but while religion is grafted in personal faith, and devotion to spirituality, some people simply discount religious beliefs because of scientific principles. If you believe in God, it doesn't mean you cannot adhere to science. And vice versa.

[antikristuseke]

Agreed Sea Demon, but personaly I discount religious belief because its irrational, regardless of which religon you belive in.

[Sea Demon]

Agreed Sea Demon, but personaly I discount religious belief because its irrational, regardless of which religon you belive in.

OK. That's the decision you made for your own life. You're free to believe that way if you wish. I am a Christian who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And I still acknowledge scientific evidence. And I'm awed at humanity's application of it.

Got to go to work. Got to be in meetings by 9:30 this morning. I'm already running late. Good day to you.

[Skybird]

It also is not proven that the universe is not framed by a wall of 5-dimensional licorice, and God is no flying spagetti monster. Thus it must be true: the universe is surrounded by 5-dimensional licorice, and God is a flying spagetti monster.

Logical.

You have not disproven God's existence or role in Earth's creation or natural processes.
And you have not disproven the existence of pink elephants, 5-dimensional licorice and flying spagetti monsters that I conclude to exist by 1:1 the same "logic" you argue with. ;) Show me where the pink elephants are sleeping, and I show you where the spagettis are flying.

And always remember: that you cannot see the pink elephants does not mean that they do not exist, so keep digging!

[bradclark1]

What contempt am I supposedly showing?
More delusion? I think so. You show nothing but contempt for independant thought. And you rail against oil companies, and energy partners as though they were the devil himself. These people make your life possible.

No, I show contempt for people who don't do research to prove there point because they are too lazy to look. I show contempt for people who don't research anything, just pull ideas out of there butt like 2007 record cooling or ice isn't melting because its -100 degrees and try and cover it with something like "independent thought". Your laziness isn't independent thought it's just laziness pure and simple.
I also haven't railed against oil companies and energy partners whoever or whatever they are. I plainly pointed out that scientist who are vocal about GW have been paid by oil companies. Am I wrong in that? No I'm not. I've shown you often enough. With all these thousand of scientists you say oppose GW you would think they would band together and be under one voice. There are no voices except for your oil paid scientist which is the only thing you ever show.
It's your problem if you can't look at all the data and see that increasing levels of CO2 are not giving you what you think it's giving you.
Wrong! Its your problem to show your theory which you won't do because you are too lazy to research anything and just want to use the term "independent thinking" to cover whatever you pull out of your butt. Wrong answer!
You've shown, nor have you proven nothing.
Yes I've shown which is a sight more then you do with your "independent thinking". With all this independent thinking you must have some data to come to that independent thought. Show it!
You're not worth the time. Nor the effort.
There you go! But you should change it to Sea Deamon is just too lazy which would more accurately cover it.
Cooler than normal temperatures were observed over less than 15% of the globe, and nowhere did the cooling exceed 3 C.

That doesn't give you what you've been asserting all along. Nor does it prove anything conclusively from IPCC. As a matter of fact, in direct correlation to CO2 averages and increasing(potentially out of control) temperatures are concerned it tells you something different. It tells you that there is more to look at than CO2 (natural or man-made). If man-made CO2 were the driver, the theory would have worked out.
The hell it doesn't. You say record cooling I say record warming showing the proof to include FOX news which you swear by. More of your "independent thought" which should be "independent of reality".
Your own certainty on that is funny Mr. google. The fact that you haven't displayed the knowledge necessary as to what changes the climate of a given system, I don't know how you can know that. Oh, maybe your googled up IPCC "scientist" gave you your talking point spin. That's all it is.
Thats a laugh! You made an assertion that the Martian ice is melting because of solar warming. You were to lazy to research and find out it thaws and refreezes every single year Mr independent thinker.
Carbon dioxide is generated as a byproduct of vegetable matter, the combustion of fossil fuels and other chemical processes.

The fact that it comes out of the back of a car in trace amounts does not make it a pollutant. But I'm glad to se you admit you think it is. Water vapor comes out of your car in trace amounts too. Is that a pollutant? You would be the first person I know who would label water as a pollutant.
Well if that doesn't show your lack of intelligence I don't know what does.:rotfl:

[bradclark1]

The fact that it comes out of the back of a car in trace amounts does not make it a pollutant. But I'm glad to se you admit you think it is. Water vapor comes out of your car in trace amounts too. Is that a pollutant? You would be the first person I know who would label water as a pollutant.
Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.
China's recorded emissions for 2006 beyond those from the US already. It says China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about 600m tonnes
To work out the emissions figures, Dr Oliver used data issued by the oil company BP earlier this month on the consumption of oil, gas and coal across the world during 2006, as well as information on cement production published by the US Geological Survey. Cement production, which requires huge amounts of energy, accounts for about 4% of global CO2 production from fuel use and industrial sources. China's cement industry, which has rapidly expanded in recent years and now produces about 44% of world supply, contributes almost 9% of the country's CO2 emissions. Dr Olivier calculated carbon dioxide emissions from each country's use of oil, gas and coal using UN conversion factors. China's surge beyond the US was helped by a 1.4% fall in the latter's CO2 emissions during 2006, which analysts say is down to a slowing US economy.
The new figures only include carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. They do not include sources of other greenhouse gases, such as methane from agriculture and nitrous oxide from industrial processes. And they exclude other sources of carbon dioxide, such as from the aviation and shipping industries, as well as from deforestation, gas flaring and underground coal fires.
Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial volcanic eruptions is carbon dioxide. According to the best estimates, volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
It is estimated that about half of all the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have been taken out of the air and absorbed by natural carbon "sinks" on the land and in the sea. Many computer models of the climate predict that as the Earth continues to get warmer, these sinks will become less able to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

[Graf Paper]

Actually, those who discount God merely have their faith placed in Self, Science, Money or some other material thing as their god.

Everyone believes in something. You take many things on faith without even realizing that's what it is.

Just as a bird in the deep forest exists whether you're aware of it or not, God knows He exists.

No matter who's right, we'll all know who's wrong in the end.

That goes for Global Warming as well. Time will tell.

It's time to lock this thread as it has simply degenerated into a flame war over whether God exists or not and attacking each others' beliefs and ignorance, or lack thereof on either count.

[VipertheSniper]

The solar activity in the last 30 years has also changed less than one percent, and yet it should contribute more to global warming than the 3% of the 3% of the greenhouse gases? Don't make me laugh. That the sun contributes as much to global warming like you make it out to be has already been disproven this year.


Here's a question for you. What do you think will have more impact from an energy standpoint? 1 cubic meters worth of superheated, highly energetic solar plasma, or 1 cubic meters worth of a static atmospheric gas in a planetary system such as Earth's(ie from energy absorbtion)? Think energy propagation per volume, not just volume here. It's pretty easy to see solar output would be much greater using this simple example.

I'm hoping you don't mind the question Viper. According to bradclark, we're not allowed to use our own knowledge of science or mathematics to gain any insight. Independant research is not allowed. Especially if it goes against IPCC "scientists" theories. We have to sit and wait for an opinion to be created for us. And it has to come from those making projections based on many assumptions, even if forecasts they make don't turn out to be true. We simply have to sit and wait for some political hack at IPCC to form an opinion for us. Well, I post this to you because I'm at least hoping you can think and analyze for yourself Viper. Feel free to question the premise. This post is not intended for sheep like Mr. google up there.

You know it's funny, I've read a paper which claimed that the sun plays a major role in global warming, yet it said, that even if the CO2 content of the atmosphere was doubled 1% more cloud coverage would cancel out the warming effect... I don't doubt that, more clouds means less sun and thus cooler temps... BUT more solar activity and more energy coming from the sun would mean more clouds... very contradicting IMHO.

[Skybird]

Actually, those who discount God merely have their faith placed in Self, Science, Money or some other material thing as their god.

Everyone believes in something. You take many things on faith without even realizing that's what it is.

Just as a bird in the deep forest exists whether you're aware of it or not, God knows He exists.

No matter who's right, we'll all know who's wrong in the end.


:arrgh!:

Translates into: all your talking is nice and well, but in the end we theists are right, no matter what - and you know it.

And then some people wonder why they trigger aggressive reactions to such claims, for example from people like me. but I have no problem with people believing something that I find weired - as long as they keep their beliefs a private issue and do not demand others to follow them or take their beliefs serious - not even in disucssions like here. Like I also have no problem with people painting their appartement in a colour that I find terrible - as long as I must not sit inside of it and tell them how beautiful it looks.

Some of what you say is simply wrong, btw. especially the first paragraph says less about the ultimate truth you think you own, and more about your most personal and subjective beliefs. One ould at least label it a question of politeness that you name it as that, a private opinion, instead of generalizing it and claiming you speak for the only truth on earth that ever could be.

You may want to make yourself familiar a bit with the concept of atman and anatman, as an alternative to your daring generalisation in the first paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atman_%28Buddhism%29

Theists - so many of them convinced of themselves defining the nature of all mind and universe, and making the laws of nature bending to their precious beliefs, and declaring their own little being something the universe has to take note of, and has to save and to deal with. Theism is the greatest ego-trip ever, me thinks.

Keep your precious wonderful religions to yourself. They are your very personal and intimate business, and nobody else's. Directly or indirectly referring to them, and making them known in public, or even forcing them down some foreigner's throat, is not wanted.

Strange, just some days ago I was locked in anasty thread were sombody out of the blue started about religion and how much I defend it, and when I told him I hate relgions and do not defend them at all and that he should leave it out and better treat me as just this: a normal mortal human being, next he even accused me of mysticism. :dead: If that isn't queer.

[August]

Jesus loves even you Skybird. Just remember that... :up:

[SUBMAN1]

Jesus loves even you Skybird. Just remember that... :up:He is young. Sometimes you must drift away before you are able to see the truth.

Just my 2 cents.

-S

[Graf Paper]

Allow me to clarify.

Skybird, you know you exist, regardless of whether anyone else has proof of your existence.

God, should he exist, knows He exists in spite of those who refuse to acknowledge this and any contrary arguments put forth against this would not alter that.

Using Buddhism, a religious philosophy, to back up your refutation of my statement that everyone lives by faith in at least one respect of their lives does seem a bit queer in itself.

As for "triggering an aggressive reaction", well, that's not justification for poor manners and lack of respect. Reason and argue like a rational adult all you want but try to restrain your passion or it will be your undoing.

Avoid making assumptions as well. I do not "own" the truth, be that whatever each perceives. My statement about everyone knowing the real truth in the end has nothing to do with espousing any particular philosophy. It was a very straightforward and simple statement into which you read a great deal.

As for myself, I must point out the hypocrisy of your own remarks. I merely stated arguments of logic, not religion or theism. Yet you feel free to insult and criticize me for sharing my viewpoint and how offensive it is to you that I have done so in public while you, apparently, feel it is your right to very publicly state your own beliefs or lack thereof. If I must keep mine private, then do be so kind as to shut your own mouth as well.

[August]

He is young

C'mon, Subman, no way Skybird is young. Just look at all the stuff he's done in his life! World traveller, clinical psychologist, college professor, samurai sword sensei, veteran warehouse worker, Buddhist priest, not to mention a self taught expert in such disparate subjects as world politics, global warming, military affairs and American society, heck, thats not even including probably a dozen other subjects he has opined on over the years.
Now that extensive experience set would take, at least, 50-60 years for any single person to gather, so stop dissin the man. At this rate he might be our President some day, maybe even President of the world! :yep:

[Konovalov]

Give it a rest you two. :roll: This thread was about Al Gore and not Skybird.

[NEON DEON]

Even if human beings start taking the advice of the craziest in the environmental movement and begin living like it's 1700, variations in weather patterns (hot, milder, cold) will still occur. ;)

In the 1700's people burned wood for heat and cooking. Take the carbon production of that and times it by todays world population and i wonder if we'd be better or worse off...

If all the people of earth burned wood and no fossil fuel they would have to reproduce a whole bunch of new growth trees to do it. Thus pulling the co2 back out. On the other hand. Burning fossil fuels that have been stuck in the ground for millions of years have no recipricating level of co2 removal.

[mrbeast]

Actually, those who discount God merely have their faith placed in Self, Science, Money or some other material thing as their god.

Everyone believes in something. You take many things on faith without even realizing that's what it is.

Just as a bird in the deep forest exists whether you're aware of it or not, God knows He exists.


Nonsense I have no 'faith' in science whatsoever.

I don't believe in god because like the tooth fairy and Santa Claus I see no convincing evidence for its existance unlike science which provides evidence.

This is a common mistake; science is not a 'secular religion', its not down to belief; its an approach to the universe which relies on quantifyable and testable evidence or hypotheses.

There is no equivalence between science and faith.

There is as much evidence for god as there is for a giant teapot orbiting the galactic centre......more infact.....that teapots exist is a testable fact.

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

Now you disprove the teapot theory....it knows it exists even if you try to deny it.

[August]

If all the people of earth burned wood and used fossil fuel they would have to reproduce a whole bunch of new growth trees to do it. Thus pulling the co2 back out. On the other hand. Burning fossil fuels that have been stuck in the ground for millions of years have no recipricating level of co2 removal.

I see your point but those trees certainly wouldn't be grown first, so if we're as close to the "tipping point" as some claim surely such a move would put us over right?

[August]

Give it a rest you two. :roll: This thread was about Al Gore and not Skybird.

Neither is it about Skybirds often repeated religious beliefs or lack thereof so why don't you tell him to give it a rest as well?

[NEON DEON]

If all the people of earth burned wood and used fossil fuel they would have to reproduce a whole bunch of new growth trees to do it. Thus pulling the co2 back out. On the other hand. Burning fossil fuels that have been stuck in the ground for millions of years have no recipricating level of co2 removal.

I see your point but those trees certainly wouldn't be grown first, so if we're as close to the "tipping point" as some claim surely such a move would put us over right?

My statement was in reaction to yours. Not some ideology sporting a new form of energy consumption with wood burning as the way out.

However.

84 % of U S emissions of co2 are the direct result of burning fossil fuel which has no return method. The US alone pushed out 20 % of total co 2 emmissions globaly while only containing 5% of the worlds population.

Source EPA:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html

[August]

84 % of U S emissions of co2 are the direct result of burning fossil fuel which has no return method. The US alone pushed out 20 % of total co 2 emmissions globaly while only containing 5% of the worlds population.

Source EPA:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html

Well that's odd. I read the entire page you linked and don't see where it says that Neon.

[NEON DEON]

84 % of U S emissions of co2 are the direct result of burning fossil fuel which has no return method. The US alone pushed out 20 % of total co 2 emmissions globaly while only containing 5% of the worlds population.

Source EPA:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html

Well that's odd. I read the entire page you linked and don't see where it says that Neon.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/ES05.gif

Little orange pie chart thingy showing 84 Percent.

and

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/globalco2emission.gif
Reference: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm)

Big blue area is us.(over 20%)


Use the navigation tool under Global emmisions.



If you need anymore help finding stuff let me know.

[August]

Use the navigation tool under Global emmisions.


If you need anymore help finding stuff let me know.




Ah, I see now, thank you.

So what do you think Neon?, should we take away everyones electricity and/or cars to make up for this 20/5% disparity or go the direct route and just kill off 95% of our population?

[Skybird]

Allow me to clarify.

Skybird, you know you exist, regardless of whether anyone else has proof of your existence.

God, should he exist, knows He exists in spite of those who refuse to acknowledge this and any contrary arguments put forth against this would not alter that.

Using Buddhism, a religious philosophy, to back up your refutation of my statement that everyone lives by faith in at least one respect of their lives does seem a bit queer in itself.

You gave it as an undeniable fact that God exists, and I perceived your generalization as being haughty indeed. You minimized everybody not believing in God, and raised the impression you think such a poor being necessarily believes in something of inferior rank and quality, but still does believe in SOMETHING. And that is not necessarily so. That'S why I did not refer you to buddhism in general, but the specific item of atman and anatman, but I think you have not understood the point of it: that it indeed argues that it makes no sense at all to believe in a self if that self is illusory and bound to the realm of what is passing by, and is transitory. This kind of self people tend to see as the real "self", and it makes them believing, and mixing up ego and their true inne self, the first of the two again being just an illusion created by the transitory world. This is atman, of which people think it is their true self, and to which neurologists and psychologust refer to all the time as well. It is the Western condensate of the body-soul-problem. But the true self people yearning for to become aware of, is all this not, but is beyond, and only by giving up to keep your atman alive, you can realise that, which is a bit paradoxical because it compares to an eye trying to see itself - it is not possible for the eye to see itself. Not before the eye manages to leave itself behind, and go beyond itself, it can step back and have a look at itself, so to speak. Same is true for anatman and Atman. As long as you stick with your atman and play all the tricks of life in order to care for it, which includes typical religious practices, you cannot realise your "self". You need to focus on the "non-self", at least in theory, because in practise the tighter your grab for it the more is escapes between your fingers. Its not about what you shpould do, but what you should let go, without even wanting that letting go. If man wants to become aware of his self, he must no longer care for it, and must not even desire not to care for it: he must oversee himself, forget himself, and no longer being himself, leaving all that behind. In other words, as I repeatedly said: self-realisation is only possible at the price of self-transcendence.

This I linked you too just to counter your minimizing generalisation, not to propagate buddhism. Buddhist models of consiousness and how the elements of perception are working together to create our self-awareness and what we consider to be the world in our brain, and how the creation feeds back on ourselves, simply is by far the most complex and complete model of psychology I know of, beating everything western psychology has to offer.

As for "triggering an aggressive reaction", well, that's not justification for poor manners and lack of respect. Reason and argue like a rational adult all you want but try to restrain your passion or it will be your undoing.
The thing on manners you better listen to yourself. I perceived your attitude in which you wrote your posting before as extremely haughty, and very typical for a certain kind of people considering themselves "religious" - and being very proud of it. As if that is no contradiction!

Avoid making assumptions as well. I do not "own" the truth, be that whatever each perceives. My statement about everyone knowing the real truth in the end has nothing to do with espousing any particular philosophy. It was a very straightforward and simple statement into which you read a great deal.

the general tone in the context of your posting, and the complete posting in itself, speaks differently.

As for myself, I must point out the hypocrisy of your own remarks. I merely stated arguments of logic, not religion or theism. Yet you feel free to insult and criticize me for sharing my viewpoint and how offensive it is to you that I have done so in public while you, apparently, feel it is your right to very publicly state your own beliefs or lack thereof. If I must keep mine private, then do be so kind as to shut your own mouth as well.What you consider logic - was statements of believing something, not knowing something. Sorry. and that you did so in a gesture of minimizing those not agreeing with you, did not make it any better or less haughty.

This is what you said:

Actually, those who discount God merely have their faith placed in Self, Science, Money or some other material thing as their god.
Everyone believes in something. You take many things on faith without even realizing that's what it is.

And that I took queer, really. It backfired on the latter two passages, which with plenty of good will maybe and eventually could have been understood as staements of whoch you now claim they did not represent your relgious ideas at all.

Just as a bird in the deep forest exists whether you're aware of it or not, God knows He exists.
No matter who's right, we'll all know who's wrong in the end.

As long as there is not something getting lost in translation, I am not surprised that i take your comments queer.

If you think I still get something totally wrong in what you said or mean, let me know.

[Rose]

"Short term" cooling since 1998?On top of that, the Arctic generated the record most ever recorded additional Ice Pack ever recorded this year. I'm worried that Ice pack is going to visit my backyard in the future.

-S


haha read this. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/NASA:_Old_Arctic_sea_ice_continues_to_melt


Climate change is real. get over it man and stop being stubborn for stubborns' sake.

[bradclark1]

"Short term" cooling since 1998?On top of that, the Arctic generated the record most ever recorded additional Ice Pack ever recorded this year. I'm worried that Ice pack is going to visit my backyard in the future.

-S


haha read this. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/NASA:_Old_Arctic_sea_ice_continues_to_melt


Climate change is real. get over it man and stop being stubborn for stubborns' sake.
Well thats just peachy. Sea Demon and I are arguing over two different things at the same place.:roll:

[bradclark1]

So what do you think Neon?, should we take away everyones electricity and/or cars to make up for this 20/5% disparity or go the direct route and just kill off 95% of our population?
Seeing as we're being silly I think we should kill off 95% of the worlds population using high-impulse thermobaric weapons.

[Graf Paper]

Okay, Skybird, you're absolutely right beyond all doubt and I agree wholeheartedly with you.

Now let's put this train back on the Global Warming tracks.

Do any of the Global Warming climate models take into account the wobble in Earth's spin, which changes its tilt relative to the sun?

Also, what about the periodic variance in its apogee and perigee while orbiting the sun?

[FIREWALL]

Today's earth warming news....please hand me my parka:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stmAnyone that has taken 5th grade science knows that we are headed for an Ice Age. That is why this AL Gore stuff annoys me.

Of course 1 in 4 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth, and I can see some on Subsim think so too.

-S:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[joegrundman]

Sorry for this ignorant question,

there appears to be the following arguments

1) Global warming isn't happening
2) Global warming is happening but it's not (US) man-made
3) Global warming is happening, but it's nothing to be alarmed about

which we can group under the category Climate Change Skeptisism

Without making any claim regarding the truth of climate change/ global warming, why does Climate Change Skepticism appeal to adherents of evangelical christianity in particular? Is there something in the Bible about this?

[FIREWALL]

All laughing aside. I live in Southern California and I have to wear a coat and I see everyone else wearing coats and or sweaters. It's 60 degrees here.

Now 60 degrees might seem like a summer day to those of you that live in Smashballs Minnisota or Gooeyduck Maine.

But for those of us that live in the Sunshine State this is unseasonabley COLD.

[antikristuseke]

Regional temperature variation really is not an accurate mesaure of wether the global climate change is taking place or not. But this winter was the warmest winter in my lifetime, hell, the average temperature for the winter months was 1.5C usualy its well bellow zero. Hell, this is the only winter anyone I know who has lived in the town i live in can remember when the river runing on the edge of town has not frozen.

As a ssidenote, 60F and you are complaining? Arround here 60F is a warmish spring day where most people dont bother to put on more than a tshirt unless there is a strong northern wind. :P

[August]

Seeing as we're being silly I think we should kill off 95% of the worlds population using high-impulse thermobaric weapons.

Ugly American! In your MTV, cheeseburger fed arrogance you don't realize that those weapons would hurt innocent, non polluting wildlife as well! If we're ever going to actually cure global warming we'll just have to get rid of our excess human population in a manner that is both ecologically sound and carbon-neutral. So there.

[NEON DEON]

All laughing aside. I live in Southern California and I have to wear a coat and I see everyone else wearing coats and or sweaters. It's 60 degrees here.

Now 60 degrees might seem like a summer day to those of you that live in Smashballs Minnisota or Gooeyduck Maine.

But for those of us that live in the Sunshine State this is unseasonabley COLD.

5 day LA forecast for highs.

83,89,89,80,75

avg highs per day.

73,73,73,73,73

5 day Lows forecsast.

56,56,55,55,53

avg lows per day.

54,54,54,54,54

Unseasonably cold in Los Angeles does not appear to be the case.

http://weather.msn.com/local.aspx?wealocations=wc:USCA0638

http://weather.msn.com/daily_averages.aspx?wealocations=wc:USCA0638&weai=4

Maybe Catalina Island is different.

[NEON DEON]

Seeing as we're being silly I think we should kill off 95% of the worlds population using high-impulse thermobaric weapons.

Ugly American! In your MTV, cheeseburger fed arrogance you don't realize that those weapons would hurt innocent, non polluting wildlife as well! If we're ever going to actually cure global warming we'll just have to get rid of our excess human population in a manner that is both ecologically sound and carbon-neutral. So there.

Oh stop trying to blame us really really good looking Americans. You must be Chinese. If you are then let me throw the blame right back at your polution laden bunns. In a couple of years, china will exceed the US in co 2 emissions. Of course with all those Chinese peops running around pooping you should be far ahead of US Americans in Methane gas production;) . Hmmmm:hmm: . Wait a minute. That gives me an idea:sunny: . Lets convert to methane and leave the Earl in the ground:p

Yeah Yeah Barter Town!

[August]

Lets convert to methane and leave the Earl in the ground:p

They'd first have to do something about the smell. NASCAR rallys are gassy enough. Besides, too late! Oil done been already struck BIG along the North Dakota / Saskatoon border so I hear.

[FIREWALL]

Maybe here's something we can all agree on.:D


AL GORE is a ASSHAT :p

[NEON DEON]

Lets convert to methane and leave the Earl in the ground:p

They'd first have to do something about the smell. NASCAR rallys are gassy enough. Besides, too late! Oil done been already struck BIG along the North Dakota / Saskatoon border so I hear.

Ahh nutz! 200 billion barrels more to worry about:damn:

Back to the solutions end.

Require all building roof tops across the US to be painted white. :D

Plus every home has to have a solar heating system and ground cooling system if the land is available. Everyone in the US over 18 is required to pedal 30 minutes a day to generate electricity back to the grid. This will also help in lowering health care costs because all Americans will now get some exercise. :up:

Tax the crap outta people who drive more than 12k a year. :roll:

Give them a break if they drive less than 6k.

Thats right Palmdaleians take the train to LA!:p

Give a tax break for everyone who uses public transit.
Restrict the amount of cars to one per licensed driver.:arrgh!:

Invest in off world harnesing of solar power.

Get a really big geo sync satelite armed with massive solar collectors and position it somewhere over Nevada (preferably over Wayne Newtons house) and beam it down to a collection site on the ground.

Require Skybird to recycle all that hot air into a useable energy source;)

And do like Grand Sir said. Stop burning a hole in daylight by shuting off lights during the day.

Oh yeah. Use those squigly neon light bulbs:yep:

[FIREWALL]

Require Skybird to recycle all that hot air into a useable energy source;)



:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Graf Paper]

There's only one, carbon-neutral method I can think of to dispose of 95% of the world's people...

Soylent Green. :D

[bradclark1]

Everyone plant a tree. Keep cows in close cages like they do chickens and plug hoses up their butts to pump methane into a central tank which can be used to power 18 wheelers as a source of fuel. Everyone in prisons are put in giant gerbal wheels and make them run to supply a power grid.

[August]

Ahh nutz! 200 billion barrels more to worry about:damn:

Back to the solutions end.

Require all building roof tops across the US to be painted white. :D

I like this idea, however you'll need a non polluting paint that can stand up to rooftop weather and temperature conditions.

Plus every home has to have a solar heating system and ground cooling system if the land is available.

I like this idea as well but the huge cost would likely drive a lot of people out of their homes, so be prepared to deal with discrimination against the poor complaints.

Everyone in the US over 18 is required to pedal 30 minutes a day to generate electricity back to the grid. This will also help in lowering health care costs because all Americans will now get some exercise. :up:

Would you make your 80 year old grandparents pedal? How about those with bad knees or arthritis or any number of ailments?

Tax the crap outta people who drive more than 12k a year. :roll:
Give them a break if they drive less than 6k.
Give a tax break for everyone who uses public transit.

They already tax the crap out of drivers. Gas and excise taxesfor example.
Restrict the amount of cars to one per licensed driver.:arrgh!:

This one i don't understand. A person can only drive one car at a time so how does this restriction help anything?

Invest in off world harnesing of solar power.

Here we also agree, although there are issues with transporting the electricity to the user once it's created.

Require Skybird to recycle all that hot air into a useable energy source;)

Bam! Problem solved. Both the energy crisis AND global warming in one fell swoop.

And do like Grand Sir said. Stop burning a hole in daylight by shuting off lights during the day.

When you pay the electric bill you tend to notice little stuff like that. Of course you run the risk of being accused as a cheapskate by your kids.

Oh yeah. Use those squigly neon light bulbs:yep:

See above.

[NEON DEON]

Restrict the amount of cars to one per licensed driver.:arrgh!:

This one i don't understand. A person can only drive one car at a time so how does this restriction help anything?

This goes with the givem a tax break if they drive less than 6k and abuse of the 12k tax up the wazoo plan. You cant just because your rich and can buy 3 cars drive them each 5,999 miles. Jay Leno would not like this law at all. It is also a sneaky Illegal Alien law. Mr. Garcia who is a US citizen can not go buy 4 extra cars for his illegal cousins. Also no CDL no car. Lose your license, sell it or lose it. MADD would like this because DUI maniacs have to come up with a new game plan. More of a loop hole law.

[Fish]

ound this on the JREF forums.;)

You might wonder if you should be a Global Warming Sceptic and I thought it might be useful to show you how easy it is.

Just choose any combination of the following beliefs.
Don't worry if you choose the "wrong" ones to start with: you can change any time and as often as you like.
Don't worry if your choices contradict one another or any that you had previously.
If any of your claims are shown to be false or irrelevant, don't apologise or even admit it: just move onto another one!
Go back to ones previously discredited whenever you like.
----

Global Warming is a creation of the media and they keep ramming it down our throats.

Global Warming is just a scare tactic thought up by governments to make us use less coal and oil.

Governments don't really believe it or they would ban thirsty cars.

Belief in GW is a religion with fanatical followers. It is almost impossible to reason with them.

Anyone who doesn't believe in the GW consensus is a heretic. Heretics are usually right in the end. Just look at Galileo and Darwin.

In the 1970s climate scientists said that we were heading into an Ice Age. Why should we believe them now?

Weather forecasters can't predict the weather a week in advance so how can anyone predict the climate 10, 20, or 50 years ahead?

GW is a conspiracy created by the left-green elite to tax and control us all.

Climate scientists are part of this conspiracy. They all know one other so they can get away with this quite easily.

The scientists invented the GW theory so they can keep getting research grants.

Other scientists, and especially the national bodies such as the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, are part of the conspiracy.

Most scientists are honest. The real conspiracy is in the IPCC, which distorts and misrepresents their work for ideological reasons. There is no real scientific consensus.

Climate models are just a collection of formulae tweaked to produce results that are close to measurements.

Climate models might be based on physics but it's all so uncertain that the results are meaningless.

It's not getting warmer at all. The figures and graphs produced by the climate scientists are all doctored and can't be trusted.

The figures don't need to be doctored: lots of the weather stations are unreliable. Garbage in, garbage out.

The warming seems to have levelled off so the figures and graphs might be OK after all.

China is having the coldest winter for 50 years so obviously GW can't be happening.

Temperatures have stopped increasing so GW must be a hoax.

It has got warmer but it's nothing to do with us. It's all to do with natural cycles.

It was much warmer millions of years ago and we weren't around then so how can we be the cause now?

The Medieval Warm Period was at least as warm as it is now. The Vikings colonised Greenland and grapes were grown in Britain.

Mars has been getting warmer too, so it must be something outside the Earth.

It's electrical heating caused by the solar wind interacting with the Earth's magnetic field.

It's caused by increases in the sun's output.

It's all to do with sunspots. Or cosmic rays.

It's caused by changes in the Earth's core.

The so-called greenhouse gases don't cause warming. It's a lie told by the scientists. What really happens is that the temperature rises first and the CO2 follows.

It can't be caused by greenhouse gases because they are only a small part of the atmosphere and can't have much effect.

Cows produce more greenhouse gas than anything we do.

CO2 is measured on Mauna Loa, an active volcano that spews out CO2, so how can the measurements be accurate?

Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories and cars and planes and other sources of man-made carbon dioxide put together so how can we make any difference?

Greenhouse gases are the cause and global warming is a good thing. More CO2 means that plants will grow faster and who likes being cold? We should increase CO2 output!

Global warming is happening but we have no idea if it will be a good or bad thing. We should just wait and see.

Global warming is happening and it's mainly our fault but we can't do anything about it anyway. Even if we cut our emissions, China and India will more than make up the difference.

========================================




The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed!


Three recent examples of manufactured controversy are global warming skepticism, AIDS dissent in South Africa, and the intelligent design movement’s “teach the controversy” campaign. The first of these has been called an “epistemological filibuster” because it magnifies the uncertainty surrounding a scientific truth claim in order to delay the adoption of a policy that is warranted by that science. Languaging expert Frank Luntz admitted as much in his now infamous talking points memo on the environment, leaked to the public in 2002, where he confessed that the window for claiming controversy about global warming was closing, but he nonetheless urged Republican congressional and executive leaders “to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.” ExxonMobil was doing this when it published its “Unsettled Science” advertisement about climate science on the editorial pages of the New York Times in March 2000. A more recent guest editorial by a reader made the same claim in the pages of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in January 2008. All three seemed to be following the playbook of the tobacco industry when scientists discovered that their products cause cancer; when a threat to their interests arises from the scientific community, they declare “there are always two sides to a case” and then call for more study of the matter before action is taken.

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/

[SUBMAN1]

Good post Fish

-S

[Skybird]

The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed!


Three recent examples of manufactured controversy are global warming skepticism, AIDS dissent in South Africa, and the intelligent design movement’s “teach the controversy” campaign. The first of these has been called an “epistemological filibuster” because it magnifies the uncertainty surrounding a scientific truth claim in order to delay the adoption of a policy that is warranted by that science. Languaging expert Frank Luntz admitted as much in his now infamous talking points memo on the environment, leaked to the public in 2002, where he confessed that the window for claiming controversy about global warming was closing, but he nonetheless urged Republican congressional and executive leaders “to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.” ExxonMobil was doing this when it published its “Unsettled Science” advertisement about climate science on the editorial pages of the New York Times in March 2000. A more recent guest editorial by a reader made the same claim in the pages of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in January 2008. All three seemed to be following the playbook of the tobacco industry when scientists discovered that their products cause cancer; when a threat to their interests arises from the scientific community, they declare “there are always two sides to a case” and then call for more study of the matter before action is taken.

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/

Good find. Im preaching this since two years here. the only reaction ever was to stubbornly go on with filibustering. As I use to think about it in German now: "Wenn er in die Hölle will, laß ihn gehen", and: "Wer nicht hören will muß fühlen."

[bradclark1]

Good post Fish

-S
Did you read the bottom paragraph? Just wondering.

[SUBMAN1]

Good post Fish

-S Did you read the bottom paragraph? Just wondering.Yes. The real question is, did you? Basically says that they created controversy where there is none. I put this in my view that there is none. Its all hype. I know it says there is, but this can be taken two ways for people that can see both sides of the issue.

Global Warming is exactly that hyped up BS where none should be. The data doesn't back it and has been proven to have been manipulated prior to being posted!

Lets put it this way - I hope you aren't dressing for summer since you are gonna be left out in the cold.

-S

[bradclark1]

Ok. Just checking. Dont forget your sun block.

[NEON DEON]

Ok. Just checking. Dont forget your sun block.

:up:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: