Visual evidence for global warming

[Skybird]

Finally, undisputable!

http://www.henryk-broder.de/foto_des_tages/

Currently reading a small book by this guy, "Hurra, wir kapitulieren! Die Lust am Einknicken." Bitter black humour, compact, and right up to the point. Recommended.

[Dowly]

I saw a documentary about the effects that smoke from chimneys and all that has to the global warming. The guy said that if everything would stop (factories, air traffic, car traffic etc.) the sun could heat up our planet more effieciently. But the result was only a few celsius higher than now.

[Skybird]

"Only"...? :lol: 2 degrees already make monumental differences for the spreading of zoological and botanic species, measured in hundreds of thousand of kilometres, and changes in the oxygene production of maritime botanic species, algas, and krill - go figure. Deseases and epidemics, extreme weather phenomenons also intensifies, and move further noth and south of the equator, as well as growing desertification (all global deserts currently increase at speeds unknown in earth's history of the last 20000 years at least. Figure aboiut sweet water, willows and farmlands - and the interhuman conflicts that will be casued by these addtionally to the war for prosperity, ressources, energy and ideological dominance). "Only"? ;)

[Dowly]

Only. :yep:

:rotfl:

[Konovalov]

Another global warming debate might just be heating up on Subsim. :sunny:

[CB..]

yes this "only" 2 degrees thing is laughable...i'm told it "only" takes a temperature rise of 5 - 8 degrees to effectively render extinct a huge proportion of life on earth...and as we all ready have two of that rise we now only need 3 - 6....

and of course this does not have to be pernament....it need only last a few decades to do the job...completely destroying the food chain and everything that depends on it...(ie us)..not to mention rendering vast tracts of the earths surface inhospitable to life even if it is habitable still...

the chain reaction of events stemming from this would finish the job off...

and this is without any natural or un-natural distasters adding to the effect...one Krakatoa and the job is done over night

[HunterICX]

:up: then the global warming has its good sides

[CB..]

:up: then the global warming has its good sides

"We are Borg ..you will be assimilated":smug:

[STEED]

Thanks Skybird. :up: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Any way to the point the ice caps are melting so us lot will need too wrap up and why? The next Ice Age is coming!!

[HunterICX]

Thanks Skybird. :up: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Any way to the point the ice caps are melting so us lot will need too wrap up and why? The next Ice Age is coming!!

YEAH I SEEN THE MOVIE!!! its cool

Ow...you mean that sort of Ice Age...
:rotfl:

[CB..]

perhaps what they are relying on is that once the Oil runs out any futher contribution to global warming will be neglible as we won't have any industry left to produce it...:up:

they (the powers that be or not be that is the question) are equaly casual about both the need for Oil and Global climate change...

this way they get to use one to solve the other..they'l certainly meet their emmisions quota once all the factorys cars and domestic applaince are gone..yup that must be what they are doing...

can i have my lobotomy now nurse..:lol:

[Bum]

Global warming is coming? Or an Ice Age? Which is it? Make up your minds.

Last year here in the US you were saying Hurrincaes Rita and Katrinia were proof of global warming. This year no major storms, is that proof global warming is over?

I don't see what all fuss is over, a little global warming should offset the nuclear winter we are going to have as countries like iran and north korea start WWIII. :damn:

[CB..]

I don't see what all fuss is over, a little global warming should offset the nuclear winter we are going to have as countries like iran and north korea start WWIII. :damn::up: that was going to be my next possible explanation for the bizaare lack of concern..

[IceGrog]

Last year here in the US you were saying Hurrincaes Rita and Katrinia were proof of global warming.

hey Stuka, how many Hurricanes did you get in Death Valley?

[moose1am]

Two key words here that one must understand fully to understand the global warming issue.

AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE

Take a temperature reading every hour in 100,000 places all over the earth each hour for one year. Take them at the North Pole, South Pole, Equator and everyone in between at all latitude and a equally spaced longitudes. Take them on top of mountains as well as in the deserts. Take them in the amazon along the mighty river and in the forest. Take them out over the oceans too.

Now take all the temperature measurements and average them.

That's what they are talking about 2 deg C AVERAGE GLOBAL INCREASE in world wide temperature.

That's why the North Pole's ice is shrinking. Over the year the amount of heat is getting greater on average than the amount of cooling. The net result is the melting or more and more of the Polar Ice Caps at BOTH the North and the South Pole.


Ice and Glaciers don't melt easily and when they start loosing ice mass that tells everyone that the Earth is heating up SIGNIFICANTLY. Most of the world fresh water is tied up in ICE at the North and South Pole Areas. IF all that ice were to melt it would raise the average sea level by 100 METERS. That's 300 feet for all you English measurement guys.

Once the earth starts heating up can we stop it from speeding up the heating process? We don't really know the answer to that question. But we may be about ready to find out the hard way.




I saw a documentary about the effects that smoke from chimneys and all that has to the global warming. The guy said that if everything would stop (factories, air traffic, car traffic etc.) the sun could heat up our planet more effieciently. But the result was only a few celsius higher than now.

[Bum]

Last year here in the US you were saying Hurrincaes Rita and Katrinia were proof of global warming.

hey Stuka, how many Hurricanes did you get in Death Valley?

My old lady is about the only hurricane around here, pal.;)

[Sulikate]

/:rotfl:/:rotfl:\:rotfl:\

[STEED]

Another global warming debate might just be heating up on Subsim. :sunny:
My pants are on fire. :eek:

[Skybird]

One only needs to limit the timespan of observation short enough - then one does not see that anything goes on, and one says with honest conviction that one doies not know what all the fuss should be about. maybe better chnage your observation habits.This thread started as a joke, btw. ;)

[NefariousKoel]

Ahhh!!! We're all going to die!!!!!

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/paulbubel/tinfoil-hat.jpg

[August]

This thread started as a joke, btw. ;)

I wonder how many of the posters in this thread actually looked at the picture...

BTW good find!

[Dowly]

This thread started as a joke, btw. ;)
I wonder how many of the posters in this thread actually looked at the picture...

BTW good find!

I did! :stare:

[Fish]

:up: then the global warming has its good sides

Yeah, still a nice 17 degrees celcius here in the Netherlands. :up:

[CB..]

.......at this point in time we may as well be a hedgehog crossing a main road for all the difference it makes..sublimely arrogant and oblivious to even the most obvious of details...one of which is that is doesn't matter whose fault it is it is allready too late...we may make it across the "road" relatively unscathed but it will be pure luck...then we'll run out of oil and blow our selves up...even the hedgehog would have had sense enough not for fall for that old trick..

scratch one monkey based species..monkey based species allways end up thinking they are god and jump out the airplane wthout a parachute in an attempt to prove it..dunno why the universe bothers sometimes...:rotfl:

[joea]

CB it was a joke! Laugh and relax a bit.:arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

<smacks Joea> IT'S NOT FUNNY! <smack> You have no right to say that! <smack> Don't you know we're all going to die?

[CB..]

CB it was a joke! Laugh and relax a bit.:arrgh!:

if only it was!!;)

[Coda]

<smacks Joea> IT'S NOT FUNNY! <smack> You have no right to say that! <smack> Don't you know we're all going to die?
At least we'll all have clean underwear.



I think global warming is being caused by political hot air. There's just so much of it the planet can take.

Maybe Earth v2.0 will be better when released.

[ASWnut101]

Ive got no problem with the planet warming up a bit! Just more chances for me to wear shorts in sunny/rainy Florida!:-j

[Sailor Steve]

CB it was a joke! Laugh and relax a bit.:arrgh!:

if only it was!!;)
Of course global warming isn't a joke. Of course it needs to be taken seriously, and what can be done needs looking into.

The original post, however, was a joke, and every mention of anything relating to any major issue hardly needs to be answered with yet another tirade or rant.

[CB..]

Of course global warming isn't a joke. Of course it needs to be taken seriously, and what can be done needs looking into.

The original post, however, was a joke, and every mention of anything relating to any major issue hardly needs to be answered with yet another tirade or rant.

i see.....parody then:oops:

[joea]

<smacks Joea> IT'S NOT FUNNY! <smack> You have no right to say that! <smack> Don't you know we're all going to die?

Sorry missed my slapping around. :oops: Anyway I am far from perfect but I do some small things like biking everywhere or walking. Saving electricity where I can and stuff like that.

[Narcosis]

Scientist are theorist not factualists.


A few hundred years ago millions belived the World was Flat because scientist said it was. Just as they said on the day the first Car was produced “The human body could not tolerate speeds beyond 100 miles an hour”.

It is interesting to observe that the todays doom day merchants, who all began the Global warming theory with the Ozone layer, Showing us all those nice colurful pictures of it slowly eroding, have never once mentioned or used the example of the state of the ozone layer since.

WHY?

Because the Ozone layer is recovering. Not getting worse.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06300_Ozone.html
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/ozone_layer_healing.html?3052006


To keep every one thinking that there is a problem helps fund the massive growing billion dollar industry which it gains from the Echo manic population. It also prevents countries in Asai and Africa with growing econimies to grow, while the west keeps strong. It keeps control of the Oil reserves that are left on the Planet, which Scientist estimate will all run out within 100 years

There is a bigger game being played here, and with questions from scientist who are against the theory of Global warming asking, How do Ice ages, which act as a pendulum through out Earth History keep disappearing and appearing, if man was not around with his deodarant can and car ?
There has been many global warming periods all in evidence through the geolocial structure of our planet.

After Kyoto, one of the most eminent scientists involved in the National Academy of Sciences study on climate change, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, blew the whistle on the politicised rubbish that was being spouted. Since his article was so significant, I reproduce it in full here:
'The National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."
'As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.
'As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.
'Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).
'But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.
'One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.
'Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.
'We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.
'What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.
'The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater.
'The panel was finally asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.
'The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.
'Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.'
As Professor Philip Stott (http://www.greenspin.blogspot.com/)wrote in the Wall Street Journal on April 2 2001:
'"Global warming" was invented in 1988, when it replaced two earlier myths of an imminent plunge into another Ice Age and the threat of a nuclear winter. The new myth was seen to encapsulate a whole range of other myths and attitudes that had developed in the 1960s and 1970s, including "limits to growth," sustainability, neo-Malthusian fears of a population time bomb, pollution, anticorporate anti-Americanism, and an Al Gore-like analysis of human greed disturbing the ecological harmony and balance of the earth.
'Initially, in Europe, the new myth was embraced by both right and left. The right was concerned with breaking the power of traditional trade unions, such as the coal miners -- the labor force behind a major source of carbon-dioxide emissions -- and promoting the development of nuclear power. Britain's HadleyCenter for Climate Prediction and Research was established at the personal instigation of none other than Margaret Thatcher.
'The left, by contrast, was obsessed with population growth, industrialization, the car, development and globalization. Today, the narrative of global warming has evolved into an emblematic issue for authoritarian greens, who employ a form of language that has been characterized by the physicist P.H. Borcherds as "the hysterical subjunctive." And it is this grammatical imperative that is now dominating the European media when they complain about Mr. Bush, the U.S., and their willful denial of the true faith.'

Go figure.
http://eapsweb.mit.edu/people/person.asp?position=Faculty&who=lindzen

http://www.greenspin.blogspot.com/

[Skybird]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2006/2006062922540.html


Scientists from NASA and other agencies have concluded that the ozone hole over the Antarctic will recover around 2068, nearly 20 years later than previously believed.


http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2006.htm


20 October2006 NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists report this year's ozone hole in the polar region of the Southern Hemisphere has broken records for area and depth.
"From September 21 to 30, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles," said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.


http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/


Annual record since 1979

The severity of the ozone hole varies somewhat from year to year. These fluctuations are superimposed on a trend extending over the last three decades. The graphs below show these variations. The red bars indicate the largest area and the lowest minimum value.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/meteorology_annual.png

Year-to-date

The depth and size of the Antarctic ozone hole are governed by the temperature of the stratosphere and amount of sunlight reaching the south polar region. The graphs below show the progress of this year’s ozone hole, compared to the highest and lowest values measured since 1979.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/meteorology_ytd.png



I wouldn't put so much trust into economists and their magazines when it comes to question of climate and environmental protection. Economists are neither specialists for that stuff, nor are they free from bias and self-interest. the conspiration theory outlined by Narcosis is simply that: a conspiration theory.

[Narcosis]

I wouldn't put so much trust into economists and their magazines when it comes to question of climate and environmental protection. Economists are neither specialists for that stuff, nor are they free from bias and self-interest. the conspiration theory outlined by Narcosis is simply that: a conspiration theory.


Skybird,

Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, blew the whistle on the politicised rubbish that was being spouted about Global warming. As pointed out above. He is not an Economist.
He was one of the eleven "Scientist" who wrote the report on Global warming and he said
"I can state that this is simply untrue what media reports are saying about global warming."


I think you need to read what i added into the debate again. All the comments were from Scientist invloved in the debate.
Though the ozone links you gave, like mine showing the fact that it is recovering in NASAs evidence. Proves the point from the comments i added from the scientists. It can not be Man causing global warming if we are using more fossil fuel this year than ever we have in our history. When the Ozone is recovering.

[CB..]

i think this falls into the catorgory of not letting your right hand know what your left hand is doing..


all arguments are completely reversed when it comes to MARS
here's a terrforming simulator knock your selves out..:up:


http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/simul.htm

dunno how accurate it is im not a scientist..and these days on this subject it probably wouldn't make any difference if i was..lol
lets face up to it sooner or later other wise we will be still arguing about it whilst were using the principles to transform another planet..

i think what ever the facts turn out to be we can be fairly sure our governments (and us as citizens as well) are not going to risk any damage to their economys at this sensitive time in order to significantly reduce emmisions..(other than the introduction of more effecient technology)

so this falls into the same puzzling black hole that the oil crisis has fallen into...."crisis ..what crisis?" (come back supertramp all is forgiven lol)

i wonder what the acceptable casualty figures are ?

you know there on file some where:yep:

[Hylander_1314]

What's interesting is how the ocean convection is being affected by the warmer temps.

But the earth has gone through warm and cold phases without mans help. If anything humans will only accelerate the process. But look what happenned back when the volcano on the island of Tamboura blew back in 1815. So much material was blasted into the atmosphere that whole northern hemisphere was adversely affected with thousands starving due to having no spring or summer the next year, and it took several years to get back to normal.

[Skybird]

Ozon levels are not as directly linked to the use of fossil fuels as they are linked to FCKWs, for example (and many of the replacement substances like HCKW as well! Many of these substitutes have a better reputation than they deserve). Burning fossil fuelsthe leads to a concntrattion of CO2, methane, and other gassesm that somewhat reflect warmth from the earth back to earth, thus the tmeeprature is rising. Is anyone seriously trying to tell me that the global temperature is not rising? The scieitifc data oin that is overwhelming, and my subjective experience in my usual life is as well. I will leave any discussion where such nonsens still would be claimed.

I do not search and put it together, you can google yourself, but the reports - not just by medias - pointing at the increasing pollution levels of industrial and traffic exhaust-gasses I cannot ignore. Such data is not only coming from "left think tanks", but conservative universities from various countries, NASA and ESA as well (search their homepages, I just found several such things two hours ago when researching for the reply to your fist posting, I am too lazy to do it again). It is beyond doubt, I claim, that man is tremendously adding to speading up the cycle of shifts in global temperature. There are probably supercycles which led to winters and summers in Earth'C climate - but usally over centuries if not millenias. The speed at which Earth currently is heating up is without precedent in Earth's history as far as we can record it back, and that is several thousand years at least.

On the Ozon level, I again point at the latets data by Nasa, as given above, and I want to point at the many links on the pages where I linked to. While global ozon levels and polar ozon holes are not the same thing, it is worth to note that nnevertheless the absence of ozon at the poles hits all time record heigths this year. Many of the substances that cause the killing of ozon over the last decades have half-life values measured in decades, 50 years often is mentioned. that means they remain active for dman long time and keep on killing ozon even when further emission of these substance would be broght to nil. While you link to a staudy saying there is a trend in ozon recovering, I think that it takes a bit longer time of constant improvements before you can talk of a trend. Note that latest data and assessement by NASA from this month just led them to say that recovering of the ozon löayer will take roughly 20 years longer than previously estimated.

Much of all this may be academical hairsplitting, but I find it dangerous and comfortable to say general statements like "It's all okay, ozon is no ral problem and will be solved soon, and man has no responsebility in global warming anyway. No need to change, guys, so let's have business as usual!" That the climate becomes more intense in it's symptoms, and that extreme weather phenomenons increase both in frequencyand intensity, should already have been noted by even the last man on earth. The dramatical chanes in the atmosphere cannot be explained by natural meta-cycles alone. Opposiong "arguments" that I have heared of, red or saw oin TV seem to have come from guys with links to the industry and free economy. You do not violate the interests of the hand that feeds you and pays your bills. Occasionally, such data is given by scientist in German economical papers, trying to raise doubts that things like emission control are needed, and oinustrial procedures need to be adjusted. Usually, these opinions get busted sooner or later by some more competent people. that'S why I refereed to the untrustworthiness of exmaoinations financed and published by the economy. You referred to the Wall Street Journal, that's why.

Some people simply do not see a need (or want to see it) to adopt or change (even as a precautionary measure) until some smart guy has showed them a calculation that is precise two the 7th number behind the decimale, has been unopposed by anybody for decades and generations and is accompanied by visible symptoms and ophenomenons that are so harsh and intense that even the most lethargixc person can no longer afford to ignore them. but then it might be too late. If you are coming under fire, you do not ask wehre it is coming from, and by whom, and why, and what typ of ammo, and weapon: you take cover and adress the immediate and urgent needs of the siutation, and act accordingly. It would be stupid to say that one does not plan to move and take cover as long as these questions have not been thoroughly answered.

Kyoto is overestimated, imo, taken for itself it's goals are too small and too watered and too unimportant as that they can really be of help and calming effect. Also, it is not followed consequently by too many - may it be that it is intentional, or due to lacking ability.

[Skybird]

BTW, what has all this to do with the initial cartoon on top...? :lol: We would be closer to the original intention if discussing preferences concerning ladies' lingerie :lol:

[CB..]

BTW, what has all this to do with the initial cartoon on top...? :lol: We would be closer to the original intention if discussing preferences concerning ladies' lingerie :lol:

perhaps it's the female desire to "shop till you drop?"
in this case on a species wide scale...:damn:

he he!! well it's a sort of connection...

[scandium]

Scientist are theorist not factualists.
Interesting how one can post something like that on the 'net using a computer of some kind... or do you consider that little thingie that puts the words onto your screen for the rest of the world to read mere 'theory' too instead of the concrete, physical manifestation of centuries of accumulated "theory".

I love it when people try and use the famous false predictions to debunk completely unrelated things as though the one refuted the other when they have nothing to do with each other.

Yes, once upon a time people believed the world was flat. And also that it was the center of the universe (by the way they were not scientists, since modern science did not exist back then). Then along came folks like Magellan (who was not a scientist by the way either), who proved the world was actually round - though he died before the voyage was completed and most educated people knew this already anyway (only it had not yet been proven) - and Copernicus who first proposed the heliocentric model of the universe that was (much) later scientifically verified by Galileo... who was able to do so thanks to a primitive scientific instrument that would be a toothpick, literally, compared to what modern astronomers use today.

Yes you can attribute false predictions to many scientists, yet you miss the point entirely which is that they are famous for what they got right and the discoveries and technologies that their findings led to (often indirectly and long after they've died, as today everything from the space shuttle to the PC is rooted in physics and mathematical "theories" that were developed centuries ago)... what they got wrong is merely a footnote curiousity made so only because of the accomplishments they were famous for.

And global warming/climate change is not a single, unified theory that can be simply proven or disproven; it is rather a consensus among the scientific community, as a whole, based upon observed and verifiable events. It is not a "theory" that the climate is changing, it is a fact and there is agreement that we are the ones responsible for the change and that if its left unchecked the consequences will be catastrophic.

The only "theory" remaining is in the timeline and in precisely how the changes will unfold...

The thing with you flat earth types is that you don't realize that there's not going to be a Magellan to come along this time to demonstrate to you what everyone else has already accepted, since for proof of the catostrophic consequences to occur they must already take place, and by then you will already be extinct.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,443287,00.html


Scientists like to emphasize that they can't give precise prognoses on climate change, and miscalculations do creep in from time to time -- just recently, for example, the "Remo" model by the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg both over- and underestimated a set of climate prognoses for the German government. But experts agree that the consequences of global warming, overall, have become unavoidable. "We have to adapt today to avoid getting run over tomorrow by the economic and social consequences," (...) "The idea is to avoid the uncontrollable and to control the unavoidable," (...) By now one thing has become crystal-clear: The results of global warming are going to cost us dearly. In the past 10 years alone, extreme weather events have caused damages in Germany of roughly €16.5 billion, according to Troge. Global economic damage as a result of such "acts of God" could amount to $2 trillion by 2050, according to an estimate by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), assuming a one degree rise in temperature. The German portion of that total could be about $137 billion. (...) there remains another significant detail: Countries like China and India, with their huge populations, are just starting to develop the economic engines that have led to environmental misery in the West. If these states refuse to play along with international climate politics, then German initiatives will have a negligible impact on the global problem.

[joea]

Can't you people take a joke and lighten up a bit? Do you have to ruin every thread like this? :damn:

[Skybird]

Can't you people take a joke and lighten up a bit? Do you have to ruin every thread like this? :damn:


Now, that is so very typical - the planet brakes down, climate goes to hell, and all ozon levels are falling - but it's always the same people who nevertheless only think about their shallow entertainment and how to get amused.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:-j

[Narcosis]

Climate chaos? Don't believe it


Daily now, more and more are seeing through the Scientist unproven theory that climate change is to do with man.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=YN44G4RJUNNP3QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0I V0


Scientist should come with a Health warning:

"May cause Panic attacks & are prone to BS statements, which the easy fooled will fall for"


Scientist are a funny breed. Scientist in the 1980s warned us all of an Ice age coming. How did they get their facts Sooooooo Wrong?


Another Example of Scientist getting their facts wrong:

Scientist have only 100-150 years or weather records and think they know every thing about weather climate paterns on Earth for millions of years (Arrogant Idiots).
Yet, only in the last few decades, with the help of evidence from Satellite images, have discovered what they said was IMPOSSIBLE.
Tales of murderous rogue waves that sink massive tankers which Weather Scientist once dismissed as seafaring myths. But Using Complex mathematical models have started to lend credence to these observations, showing that huge waves can blow up out of nothing. After all, with photographs taken from satellites how can they waffle it is a myth.

Scientist have also said these Freak waves that sink the bigger ships, only happen once every 10000 years. It was not until Nasa took images of the whole south Atlantic did they see the waves were happening daily.

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOKQL26WD_index_0.html
http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2004/12/rogue_waves.html
http://seastead.org/localres/misc-articles/lawton_newsci_06_30_01.html


NASA has also debunked the scientist claiming that man is to do with weather change. I find it strange that no scientist yet, have said NASA have it wrong.

[micky1up]

the problem herein lies not along time ago the acepted view was the world was flat everyone believed it to be a fact the same is happening with global warming the acepted view is that we are causing the problem but their are a few scientist's that believe this is the natural cycle of the world hence the sieries of ice ages the world has been through in the past but when these scientist raise their views that detract fronm the accpeted view they are heckled and shunned what if these guys are right and the majority are wrong?

[MobyGrape]

Citing this guy( LINDEN } as a unbiased source is like like calling pro wresling sport:rotfl:
According to a former Boston Globe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Globe) reporter and author, Ross Gelbspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Gelbspan), Lindzen has accepted money from oil and coals interests for consulting services, expert testimony, and speech writing. In a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper%27s_Magazine), Gelbsan asserted that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC)."[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#_note-21)

[August]

Citing this guy( LINDEN } as a unbiased source is like like calling pro wresling sport:rotfl:
According to a former Boston Globe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Globe) reporter and author, Ross Gelbspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Gelbspan), Lindzen has accepted money from oil and coals interests for consulting services, expert testimony, and speech writing. In a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper%27s_Magazine), Gelbsan asserted that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC)."[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#_note-21)

You mean the same Ross Gelbspan who makes fraudulent claims about being a pulitzer prize winner? You mean the same Boston Globe which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the New York Times? Hardly unbiased sources you've got there...

[Narcosis]

Citing this guy( LINDEN } as a unbiased source is like like calling pro wresling sport:rotfl:
According to a former Boston Globe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Globe) reporter and author, Ross Gelbspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Gelbspan), Lindzen has accepted money from oil and coals interests for consulting services, expert testimony, and speech writing. In a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper%27s_Magazine), Gelbsan asserted that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC)."[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#_note-21)

Fist lesson to learn:
Never ever regard a reporter as being an authority on the subject he writes about.
(It's like asking a Bin Man to lecture in Harvard on AStro Physics).

Second lesson:
Never ever belive a reporter.

Go to NASAs web site and read what they say on Global Climate.

[Safe-Keeper]

The joke: :rotfl: . That one never gets old, even though it is.

Last year here in the US you were saying Hurrincaes Rita and Katrinia were proof of global warming. This year no major storms, is that proof global warming is over?No. No more than the absence of a second 9/11 is proof there's no more terrorism in the world. Your logic is skewed.

And either way, what you're saying is simply wrong. The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has more than doubled over the last five years*.

I don't see what all fuss is over [...]Thank you for confessing your ignorance so that I did not have to do so:up:. Now go do some studying of sources other than those that agree with you.

Scientist are theorist not factualists.So in other words, you're one of those people who have something against science on principle and have the mistaken belief that "theory" in science jargon means "unproven". It does not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science).

A few hundred years ago millions belived the World was Flat because scientist said it was.Scientists, friend. Plural form.

And I don't recall a single scientist saying the Earth was flat. Scientists operate by means of the Scientific Method. The people who believed the Earth to be flat certainly never did.

It is interesting to observe that the todays doom day merchants, who all began the Global warming theory with the Ozone layer, Showing us all those nice colurful pictures of it slowly eroding, have never once mentioned or used the example of the state of the ozone layer since.Have you been drinking? The ozone layer's slow death has zero to do with global warming.

To keep every one thinking that there is a problem helps fund the massive growing billion dollar industry which it gains from the Echo manic population. It also prevents countries in Asai and Africa with growing econimies to grow, while the west keeps strong. It keeps control of the Oil reserves that are left on the Planet, which Scientist estimate will all run out within 100 years [...]Good job. Poison the well instead of looking at evidence. "I don't need to listen to you 'cause ". Funny how every believer of some unfounded idea, from the 9/11 conspiracy theory to WMDs in Iraq, resorts to this kind of nonsense.

What was the first thing spouted by the people who did not approve of An Inconvenient Truth? "OMG G0re sux:damn:!". Not "Gore is wrong because [evidence here]". Just personal attacks on him, accusations of him having an agenda, and what the Heck not.

There has been many global warming periods all in evidence through the geolocial structure of our planet.So? There've been two world wars, too, doesn't mean they're all good. Heck, there was once a mass extinction brought about by, most likely, a vast asteroid. I suppose we should welcome the next huge rock with open arms, too, then, because it's the nature of the universe that sometimes bodies of rock happen to collide with doomsday-inducing force?

Scientist should come with a Health warning: "May cause Panic attacks & are prone to BS statements, which the easy fooled will fall for"More evidence of you not knowing anything about science.

Another Example of Scientist getting their facts wrong:I don't see your point. "Those people were wrong before, so these people are wrong now?".
http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/poison_well.jpg
"[I]Posoning the well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well)"-fallacy.

Go to NASAs web site and read what they say on Global Climate.Thanks for the tip.

Well, been there, done that, and here's a tidbit:
Causes of global warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.

My emphasis. Thanks for providing me a link that utterly shoots down your stance.

And since you're kind enough to give us some lessons on life, I want to give you a few tips in return:
1. I advise you to watch An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.climatecrisis.net/).
2. I also advise you to read this (http://hotcupofjoe.blogspot.com/2006/09/pseudo-skepticism-and-pseudo.html) splendid article and the sources cited.
3. And finally, I want you to read up on what the UN's climate panel has to say.

Global warming is real, it's killing thousands, and it's going to do a whole lot of damage if it's not dealt with.

* Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688.
**WinAce: Funny pictures for on-line use.

[The Avon Lady]

3. And finally, I want you to read up on what the UN's climate panel has to say.

Global warming is real, it's killing thousands, and it's going to do a whole lot of damage if it's not dealt with.
Stern Review: The dodgy numbers behind the latest warming scare, BY BJORN LOMBORG (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182). To quote the article's conclusions:
Why does all this matter? It matters because, with clever marketing and sensationalist headlines, the Stern review is about to edge its way into our collective consciousness. The suggestion that flooding will overwhelm us has already been picked up by commentators, yet going back to the background reports properly shows declining costs from flooding and fewer people at risk. The media is now quoting Mr. Stern's suggestion that climate change will wreak financial devastation that will wipe 20% off GDP, explicitly evoking memories of past financial catastrophes such as the Great Depression or World War II; yet the review clearly tells us that costs will be 0% now and just 3% in 2100.

It matters because Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Nicholas Stern all profess that one of the major reasons that they want to do something about climate change is because it will hit the world's poor the hardest. Using a worse-than-worst-case scenario, Mr. Stern warns that the wealth of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa will be reduced by 10% to 13% in 2100 and suggests that effect would lead to 145 million more poor people.

Faced with such alarmist suggestions, spending just 1% of GDP or $450 billion each year to cut carbon emissions seems on the surface like a sound investment. In fact, it is one of the least attractive options. Spending just a fraction of this figure--$75 billion--the U.N. estimates that we could solve all the world's major basic problems. We could give everyone clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and education right now. Is that not better?

We know from economic models that dealing just with malaria could provide economic boosts to the order of 1% extra GDP growth per capita per year. Even making a very conservative estimate that solving all the major basic issues would induce just 2% extra growth, 100 years from now each individual in the developing world would be more than 700% richer. That truly trivializes Mr. Stern's 10% to 13% estimates for South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Last weekend in New York, I asked 24 U.N. ambassadors--from nations including China, India and the U.S.--to prioritize the best solutions for the world's greatest challenges, in a project known as Copenhagen Consensus. They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning.

We all want a better world. But we must not let ourselves be swept up in making a bad investment, simply because we have been scared by sensationalist headlines.

[porphy]

From the same article as Avon linked to:


The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions. Little else is right, however, and the report seems hastily put-together, with many sloppy errors.


So, perhaps some more people and their nations could start to face the fact that climate change, as caused or increased by humans, is a real problem and get down to discussing what to do, and don't walk away from meetings and refuse cooperation. Mr Lomberg do have some important things to say about where to invest money to get result. One problem though, investing in drinking water, health care and malaria medicine, will not make a anything about the greenhouse gas emissions or climate changes, which was the agreed problem to start with.

I don't really like the economic take on this issue, and I don't think most people that ackknowledge this as a problem think of it as a cost benefit issue in the first place. That whole approach could soon transform to the narrowminded policy, "we will not work for environment as long as it doesn't boost our economical and national interests". And if Lomberg think that the prime reason to give more people drinking water, medicine etc is the overall economic efficency or benefit it will give in so and so many years, something important is out of place or missing in the argument. Of course we should discuss what is the best way to achieve a better world, but then we have to keep the real issue in view.

Cheers Porphy

[The Avon Lady]

Just for the record, I've stated before that I'm for anything that cleans up the planet. My point in posting the article was that it's very important that we get our proportions and priorities straight.

I'm all for fostering innovations for a cleaner greener earth but not for the ficticious pandemonium that is breaking out. BTW, these innovations will arrive. This is one of the next big technology sectors in the making. Seems like no one has any patience or they have other, usually political motives, for hyping the issue.

[Narcosis]

Safe-Keeper


Unfortuanetly you make No reference to any points you make. More to the point all you have done to the debate is “nothing”.
So i wont watse my time answering the 99% of your irrelevant points.

If you look at most of the posts, we use references in our debate, to make certain that the full facts from both sides are given. Why?
Because while most people on our planet walk through life with horse blinkers attached their heads some of us will always question what Politicians , media and scientist say to us.
After all.

It was Goebbels who said, "if you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one"

You can't get any bigger than Gobal warming being caused, just by Man.


The only reference you give amongst your wide sweeping remarks is “an inconvenient truth” :rotfl: :rock: :rotfl: :lol: :rotfl: :rock: . :damn:


It was not that long ago, when we all saw in the UN British and US politicians saying that Iraq had WMDs and that Iraq was 10 minutes away from using them.

Tell me Safe-Keeper do you still belive them ? :rock:


Your remark on NASA are unfounded. So I will give you NASAs investigation and links (unlike you) and other respected links.

I will say again, why is NASAs claims to the causes of Global warming not being denounced. When they say it is not man causing the problem?

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9228-mysterious-glowing-clouds-targeted-by-nasa.html (http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9228-mysterious-glowing-clouds-targeted-by-nasa.html)

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/gw/co2.html (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/gw/co2.html)

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html)

http://search.nasa.gov/search/search?q=global+warming&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=dateADALAd1&site=nasa_collection&ie=UTF-8&client=nasa_production&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=nasa_production (http://search.nasa.gov/search/search?q=global+warming&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=dateADALAd1&site=nasa_collection&ie=UTF-8&client=nasa_production&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=nasa_production)

[The Avon Lady]

It was Goebbels who said, "if you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one"
Actually, he never said that. What he did say was:

"The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

[Narcosis]

c (http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html)It was Goebbels who said, "if you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one"
Actually, he never said that. What he did say was:

"The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."



That is interesting Avon Because the full quote is:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels

i got the quote from here.
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html

[The Avon Lady]

c (http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html)It was Goebbels who said, "if you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one"
Actually, he never said that. What he did say was:

"The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."
That is interesting Avon Because the full quote is:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels

i got the quote from here.
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html
First of all note that your "full" quote does not include your previous quote. :damn:

Next, simply document the original source for your longer quote. :smug:

It may very well be that it is paraphrased from what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:
All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waiver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

[Narcosis]

First of all note that your "full" quote does not include your previous quote. :damn:



Your reply is very funny Avon. :rotfl:

You try correct my quote for accuracy.Yet you blatantly invent one about Goebbels quoting the English !!! :hmm:

The saying is "PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES " :rock:

[The Avon Lady]

First of all note that your "full" quote does not include your previous quote. :damn:



Your reply is very funny Avon. :rotfl:

You try correct my quote for accuracy.Yet you blatantly invent one about Goebbels quoting the English !!! :hmm:
Sorry but I do not understand your point.

[Narcosis]

Your reply is very funny Avon. :rotfl:

You try correct my quote for accuracy.Yet you blatantly invent one about Goebbels quoting the English !!! :hmm:
Sorry but I do not understand your point.

You said:

Actually, he never said that. What he did say was:

"The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

[The Avon Lady]

Your reply is very funny Avon. :rotfl:

You try correct my quote for accuracy.Yet you blatantly invent one about Goebbels quoting the English !!! :hmm:
Sorry but I do not understand your point.

You said:

Actually, he never said that. What he did say was:

"The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."
And what is wrong or inaccurate with that quote? It is taken from "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik" ("Churchill's Lie Factory"), 12 January 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1941), pp. 364-369.

Source: Joseph Goebbels @ Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels).

Is this fun or what?! :yep:

[Narcosis]

And what is wrong or inaccurate with that quote? It is taken from "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik" ("Churchill's Lie Factory"), 12 January 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1941), pp. 364-369.

Source: Joseph Goebbels @ Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels).

Is this fun or what?! :yep:

Yes i am enjoying it Avon, may be we can have babies later. :lol:

He passes comments in a book, these are not quotes that he gave to the masses.

This is what i was trying to do when using Goebbels speech, which was just summarised in a sentence. (Hitler does mention it too)
Though having lessons in the accuracy of the words from one of Hitlers buddies, by some one living in Israel, is some what amusing...

[The Avon Lady]

Yes i am enjoying it Avon, may be we can have babies later. :lol:
OK. I had one last.

It's your turn.
He passes comments in a book, these are not quotes that he gave to the masses.

This is what i was trying to do when using Goebbels speech, which was just summarised in a sentence. (Hitler does mention it too)
Source? Still waiting.
Though having lessons in the accuracy of the words from one of Hitlers buddies, by some one living in Israel, is some what amusing...
I see nothing amusing at all about historic accuracy.

I very often check the accuracy of quotes that get posted, here and elsewhere. In fact, lookee here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99027). :yep:

[aaken]

Narcosis, I don't know if you have noticed but the references that you provided
in your previous post do not support your thesis that, according to NASA, the
global warming is not caused by human emissions.

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9228-mysterious-glowing-clouds-targeted-by-nasa.html

In this article the focus is put on the proliferation of glowing clouds. Citing
form the article:
"Many researchers believe this proliferation is down to human activities. "You need three things for clouds to form: particles that water can condense onto; water; and cold temperatures," says Russell. He says pollution and global warming are thought to be responsible for two of those factors."
In any case, the article is not directly linked to the discussion if the global
warming is caused by human activity.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/gw/co2.html
In this article it is pointed out a theory that links the global warming not to
the CO2 emissions, as previously thought, but to non-CO2 emissions like methane,
CFC and soot particles. Also in this article it seems that there is no mention
to the fact that global warming is not related to human activities.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
In this article it is argued that "one component of global warming" may be the
increase in solar radiation.
Citing from the article:
"That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned."

Your last reference is a search on the NASA website. I cannot cite all articles
because they are many but I haven't found one single article that affirms that
global warming is either inexistent or not connected to human activity.

[Narcosis]

OK. I had one last.

It's your turn.
He passes comments in a book, these are not quotes that he gave to the masses.

This is what i was trying to do when using Goebbels speech, which was just summarised in a sentence. (Hitler does mention it too)
Source? Still waiting.

Though having lessons in the accuracy of the words from one of Hitlers buddies, by some one living in Israel, is some what amusing...
I see nothing amusing at all about historic accuracy.

I very often check the accuracy of quotes that get posted, here and elsewhere. In fact, lookee here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99027). :yep:


Avon, the debate is on Global Climate. Total Accuracy in quotes that have nothing to do with the subject in matter, is not relevant.

I made a comment that was just not fully accurate on the wording, but the same point i tried to make is still the same even if i had used the whole Quote.

While you say you are checking quotes on the forums (as a hobby i expect), might i add that you have not yet questioned any of my references on Global Climate references for their accuracy.

Might it be that you are "Nit picking" on my quote as distraction, because you can not find any of my references in-accurate.. :hmm: :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

Might it be that you are Nit picking on my quote as distraction, because you can not find any of my references in-accurate..:hmm: :yep:
I might be but I'm not.

As for whose side I'm on, did you noticed my link to and quote of the Opinion Journal article one page back plus my clarification that followed a few posts afterward? Or do you disgaree with that article?

[Narcosis]

Narcosis, I don't know if you have noticed but the references that you provided
in your previous post do not support your thesis that, according to NASA, the
global warming is not caused by human emissions.

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9228-mysterious-glowing-clouds-targeted-by-nasa.html

In this article the focus is put on the proliferation of glowing clouds. Citing
form the article:
"Many researchers believe this proliferation is down to human activities. "You need three things for clouds to form: particles that water can condense onto; water; and cold temperatures," says Russell. He says pollution and global warming are thought to be responsible for two of those factors."
In any case, the article is not directly linked to the discussion if the global
warming is caused by human activity.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/gw/co2.html
In this article it is pointed out a theory that links the global warming not to
the CO2 emissions, as previously thought, but to non-CO2 emissions like methane,
CFC and soot particles. Also in this article it seems that there is no mention
to the fact that global warming is not related to human activities.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
In this article it is argued that "one component of global warming" may be the
increase in solar radiation.
Citing from the article:
"That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned."

Your last reference is a search on the NASA website. I cannot cite all articles
because they are many but I haven't found one single article that affirms that
global warming is either inexistent or not connected to human activity.



You need to look harder

Quote:

"The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena "


http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2003/2003081215330.html

[Narcosis]

Might it be that you are Nit picking on my quote as distraction, because you can not find any of my references in-accurate..:hmm: :yep:
I might be but I'm not.

As for whose side I'm on, did you noticed my link to and quote of the Opinion Journal article one page back plus my clarification that followed a few posts afterward? Or do you disgaree with that article?

Dam, Avon sorry i missed that one...

Hang on, are they not the same people who are members of this outfit

http://www.clowns-international.co.uk/cgi-bin/cosmos-lite/cosmos.pl?page=1

[MobyGrape]

Never ever believe a reporter..HaHaah.
probably glued to Faux news..:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[ASWnut101]

nice name:roll:

heres a try: CNN-Communist news network (no offence nube)