BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
So... you're only piece of evidence turns out to be a scam and you just brush it off?
What ground are you standing, exactly?
So... you're only piece of evidence turns out to be a scam and you just brush it off?
What ground are you standing, exactly?
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,406
- 9,601
- 136
Someday you?ll listen to the scientists instead of your religious dogma. The oceans release the CO2 and your own ice core charts prove it occurs after and therefore a result of the warming.
This money should go to feeding people and avoiding nuclear war. Not wasted on inoculating cows/sheep from the horrors of flatulence.
This money should go to feeding people and avoiding nuclear war. Not wasted on inoculating cows/sheep from the horrors of flatulence.
Hey quick thing, while maybe I talk a little more shit then I should, I respect someone coming out and saying 'damn, I screwed something up' rather then never posting in a thread again or defending their point to some sort of pedantic death.
So hey Cuda, while we most certainly don't agree in any way on global warming, I respect you for having the guts to come out and say that.
edited for grammar. sigh.
So hey Cuda, while we most certainly don't agree in any way on global warming, I respect you for having the guts to come out and say that.
edited for grammar. sigh.
There's hope for him. He admiited to being uneducated. He may educate himself if he wishes but as we all know ....
Stupid Lasts Forever
Cuda1447
Lifer
- Jul 26, 2002
- 11,757
- 0
- 71
I didn't admit to being uneducated, I admitted to coming up with shitty evidence. I know there is other evidence out there, as Ive seen it. I simply don't feel like finding it to prove a point.
If quality evidence comes out to prove me wrong, I'll be quick to change my opinion, but I have yet to see it.
CudA - you been absolutely correct in what you have said. Anthropomorphic global warming is for psychotics. The tried global cooling in the 70's and the scripts and predictions read almost the same - just replace "warming" for "cooling" in the articles with the same dire warnings and shoddy science (scientism really).
Even the UK has made schools give warnings about global warming teachings when Al Gores bogud film was shown to be mostly inaccurate rubbish:
"Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been called unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.
Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.
The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...climate-film-bias.html
Even a co-founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore, said its a political movement prtending to be scientific: after "world communism failed, the Wall came down and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them and learnt to used green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than ... ecology or science"
This is why the movement ignored solar cycles, warming on Mars, Jupiter etc. Global warming scientism is such rubbish ("fingerprints" of evidence indeed) that even the adherents have had to back off and are now trying to say there will be a 15 yr "cooling off period" at the end of which warming will "resume". Of course none of these people can do the weather accurately for next week never mind 15 years from now.
Many former warming scientists have since recanted because they know the movement has become for weirded out. A scientist Gore relied on a lot was Claude Allegre of France who was a driving force of global warming. He recanted his views last year:
" With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank."
http://www.nationalpost.com/ne...4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
The "Mann hockey stick" model was also shown to be rubbish despite it being the basis of Kyoto con. The "40 dead polar bears" was also a lie (it was only 4 after a storm)
Anthropomorphic global waming is exposed and the only people still seriously down with it are the young, poorly educated , brainwashed, psychotic etc. It's no accident people here who try to act like GW is still viable also defend child molesters and homosexual marriage etc. Man made global warming is now on the road to being officially "weird". One good thing about it is it showed just how bad science is being abused and how many oddballs have infiltrated science, education and politics.
Your post is filled with lies, deliberate distortions and profound ignorance. I bolded some of the crazier parts. I have to head out now, but a few quick points to try to crack through your wall of self deluded paranoia.
-Saying global warming is for psychotics is stupid.
-The whole attempt to equate 'global cooling' and the current science is either ignorant or deliberately dishonest. Please educate yourself on the two or stop lying.
-The movement has not in any way ignored solar cycles or warming on Mars. This is a lie.
-Saying that MMGW is only 'believed' by young, poorly educated, is not only a lie, but deeply ironic considering the source. For you to call someone poorly educated or psychotic is a laugh.
-Attempting to conflate child molestation with global warming is stupid.
Stop posting this insane shit and get yourself some mental help. Seriously.
Dude, read his post. You want someone who thinks people who support MMGW are somehow equated with defending child molesters on your side? Think of how completely insane that is.
I think fixing the projected negative impacts of global warming AFTER they reach a catastrophic tipping point would be greater than that $45 trillion, if it could be done, at all, and assuming we still have time to do anything, the costs of trying to deal with it are only going to rise with every day we wait.
The cost of wiping out human society on the planet as we know it may be a bit more expensive, yet, but if you're not concerned about being among the survivors, you have nothing ot worry about. :roll:
Remember, Good planets are hard to find.
Too bad the Bushwhackos already squandered more trillions on their war of lies... along with far too many lives.
Capt Caveman
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2005
- 34,543
- 651
- 126
You're not alone. But I can't see arguing on an internet forum with a bunch of people who are convinced of their own superiority because of their political beliefs.
Excuse my ignorance, but can someone provide me links with some evidence that global warming is entirely the result of human activity or at lease some evidence that show the percentage of contribution of human activity to global warming.
Climatology and geology are immensely complex. The last time in the 80's when all these brilliant scientists got together and used supercomputers to predict what the temperatures would be like now turned out to be wrong.
Now when I say wrong I don't mean their calculations were slightly off. They the line on the graph was to go up, but it actually went down. Basically, the exact opposite of what they predicted happened. I wrote a good paper on it for my geology class.
Climate change is real and the bottom line is we don't know what is gong on. This scenario has been hijacked by groups fixated on showing how the big corporate guy is screwing the many little guys and their fragile planet. Then the doomsday scenarios followed.
Its interesting how the 34 trillion came up given that, AFAIK, the general consensus among the scientific community is that global warming cannot be reversed. If they don't want to revere it but just combat it, then id like to see where that money will be spent given that no one has a clue on what is going on.
Now when I say wrong I don't mean their calculations were slightly off. They the line on the graph was to go up, but it actually went down. Basically, the exact opposite of what they predicted happened. I wrote a good paper on it for my geology class.
Climate change is real and the bottom line is we don't know what is gong on. This scenario has been hijacked by groups fixated on showing how the big corporate guy is screwing the many little guys and their fragile planet. Then the doomsday scenarios followed.
Its interesting how the 34 trillion came up given that, AFAIK, the general consensus among the scientific community is that global warming cannot be reversed. If they don't want to revere it but just combat it, then id like to see where that money will be spent given that no one has a clue on what is going on.
NikolaeVarius
Lifer
- Oct 25, 2006
- 11,036
- 11
- 91
Just a request, can I see those graphs and articles you reference? Not that I don't believe you, but it will be useful for a report I'm writing.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,677
- 6,250
- 126
That $45 Trillion, it should be noted, is not what the US has to spend, but the World as a whole. I suspect much more than that would have been spent on Energy producing facilities anyway. Could be wrong about the last statement, but overall $45 Trillion over many decads is not a huge cost. Haven't really read the article/study, so I don't even know if it includes/factors reductions in GHG Emissions from Vehicles.
Please don't plagiarize. This was written by me. Keep in mind I wrote this in 2004. I'll post pictures of the graphs I cut and pasted in the .doc file later when I update this thread. I'll also refine the citations (I used superscrips in the .doc file and don't have the HTML skill or time to fix them now) Comments are appreciated and so are corrections to my pathetic grammar. Here it is:
Global Warming
Does it result from human activity?
The earth consists of many systems that all involve each other in one way or another. Changes in one system can affect many others, sometimes in ways scientists may not be aware about. Today, following ages of industrial and scientific advancement, mankind?s influence on the environment is greater than ever. With this in mind, scientists began questioning how much influence we exerted on the environment so far and in what ways has our historical lack of concern for this influence affected the environment. In the last 25 years the issue of mankind?s influence on global climate change has surfaced due to its potentially disastrous consequences. The concern came about when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment program (UNEP), reported that the average surface temperature will increase during the 20th century by about 0.6° ± 0.2°C. Regional temperatures do fluctuate over time, but the average surface temperature on earth has always been relatively stable. When taken into consideration that the earths average temperature was only 5C cooler during the drastic conditions of the ice age than it is today, a 0.6°C fluctuation in just the 20th century alone raises concern of how much the average surface temperature will increase over the next 50 years and the affects that this increase will have. With high economical and environmental issues at stake, the cause of this increase has also come into question.
The earth?s atmosphere has an insulating ability. Gases in the atmosphere including water vapor, methane, ozone, carbon dioxide, as well as aerosols, produce a greenhouse effect that keeps the earth?s average temperature at a habitable 15°C.When the industrial revolution gained momentum the early 1800s factories began massively releasing one of these greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, which is responsible for 60% of the atmospheres greenhouse properties. The amount of carbon dioxide being released continues to grow at a 4.3% annual increase. From 1870 to 1990 the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has climbed from 290ppm to 350ppm and is estimated to be at 450ppm by the year 2050. Prior to the industrial revolution the carbon dioxide concentration has been at a constant of 280ppm for at least 700 years. According to further data from air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice sheets, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has varied from 200ppm to 300ppm over the last 160,000 years, and was at its highest 125,000 years ago during the warmer interglacial periods of the ice age. This sudden fluctuation in the earth?s average temperature over the last 20 years was initially believed to be the result of the increase in carbon dioxide output due to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. However, not all scientists agree on the causes of this global warming.
It is clear that more carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere as a result of human activity. However, the carbon cycle is very complex and scientists do not have a full understanding of the flow of carbon dioxide throughout the natural cycles. For example, if all the carbon dioxide produced by humans remained in the atmosphere the concentration today would be much higher. This suggests the existence of natural carbon dioxide reservoirs on earth that scientist are not certain about. It is still unknown how the carbon dioxide concentration has historically remained stable in the atmosphere even through the output, from random natural activities such as volcanic eruptions, has not. The controversy on the cause of global warming, or if it even exists, is founded on similar inconsistencies and conflicting evidence within historic climate change. When the atmospheric temperatures predicted by the IPCC using computer models were compared with actually observed temperatures during the past 19 years (fig. 6 and 7), when carbon dioxide emissions increased, scientists began questioning the accuracy of these computer models.
Two separate sources confirmed that temperatures actually decreased, contrary to what the IPCC computer models predicted (fig 11), and regardless of the increase in carbon dioxide emission. What the IPPC computer models also fail to explain is why the surface temperature increased the most between 1910 to 1945, and 1976 to 2000 even though carbon dioxide emissions have steadily gone up.
Also in question is whether or not the climate can be accurately simulated on a computer when scientists have limited knowledge of earth?s hidden reservoirs and its cycles - some of which cannot be accurately observed because they take tens of thousands of years to complete. The IPPC computer climate model has been criticized for not taking into account albedo from clouds and water vapor feedback that contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect. The available data today does not show that climate change is occurring due to deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, even though those acts increase carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. But scientists do not only hold the earth?s cycles solely responsible for its climate. Solar activity can also contribute greatly to climate change.
The sun?s energy output is generally constant and only changes 0.1% during its 11-year solar cycle. At a point in this solar cycle the amount of sunspots on the photosphere increase in what is known as the solar max. These sunspots are darker regions that produce strong electromagnetic fields and increase the suns energy output ? both of which can affect whether on earth. Data has shown a correlation between the increase in the amount of sunspots every solar cycle and rising temperatures on earth (R.Willson).
This data from the NASA study fits in with other historical data that shows a correlation between solar activity and earth?s temperature. The data (S. Baliunas) based on examination of ancient tree rings and deposits in ice suggest that the solar output played a significant role in the northern hemispheres land temperature. Evidence of a spotless photosphere between 1645 and 1715, a time of a mild ice age, further suggests the influence of sunspots. Also, an unusually warmer period knows as the ?medieval maximum? is also believed to be correlated with an increase in the sun?s output.
The reason governments and environmentalist groups are greatly concerned with global warming is because of the impact it can have on the entire planet. Like with a lot of the science behind global warming, the extremity and affect of a warmer climate, is uncertain. Increased temperature can melt polar ice caps and raise sea level, flooding coast lines, decreasing habitable land and displacing populations. This increase in the oceans surface area can mean an increase in the photosynthetic algae that is responsible for producing most of earth?s oxygen ? which can compensate for the loss due to deforestation. On the other hand increased carbon dioxide levels can make the ocean waters more acidic and decrease this algae population. The increase in carbon dioxide levels can also result is better growing conditions for plants and increased food production which would be important to third world nations. But increased vegetation grown can also mean an increase in insect populations which can hurt these third world countries by spreading diseases such as malaria, causing epidemics. Worse, the warmer climate increases the population of certain species which can decrease populations of others and result in an overall decrease in biodiversity. Entire species can become extinct.
The Kyoto protocol serves as a potential solution to the global warming problem, assuming it is man made or even exists. It serves as a legal agreement between international governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The treaty has been ratified by 104 countries so far, representing 43.9% of emissions. One of the consequences of the treaty is that emission limits can be costly. The ban of CFC use in refrigerators has made them more expensive and less efficient. Although the U.S. has voluntarily passed stringent laws protecting the environment it has not ratified the Kyoto protocol whose emission guidelines would double the cost of manufacturing steel. Also, the U.S. feels it is unfair that China, the world?s second largest greenhouse emitter, does not have to comply.
A sudden increase in the earth?s average surface temperature can have drastic long term economic and environmental affects. In the last 25 years scientists have become more concerned about how much human activity affects the planet, especially our greenhouse emissions. However, inconsistencies and contradictions in modern day evidence suggest that we know less about the environment than we think. The scientific community cannot be sure what is causing an increase in the average surface temperature; some even believe the earth is entering a period of global cooling. It is difficult to factor in albedo, reservoir time, solar, geothermal, and volcanic activity as well as many other factors, and come up with an accurate model of the environment. Environmental change that has spanned thousands of years will be difficult to understand because of the many cycles at work at many different times.
Citations:
Global Climate Change
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/index.html
Global Warming Facts
http://www.fact-index.com/g/gl/global_warming.html
SALLIE L. BALIUNAS et al Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
JIM WILSON GLOBAL WARMING WILDCARD
http://popularmechanics.com/sc...g_wildcard/index.phtml
Robert Roy Britt Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
http://www.space.com/scienceas...sun_output_030320.html
Kyoto Protocol
http://www.fact-index.com/k/ky/kyoto_protocol_1.html
Global warming is not a fucking scam it is reality. However, the causes are debatable. "Scam" is the wrong word. A more appropriate description would be: "Global warming is an environmental issue that has been hijacked by the sensational media, "socialists", and emotionally charged "environmentalists".
I put "socialists" and "environmentalists" in quotes because the kind of people that perpetuate these doomsday scenarios are people who want to show their discontent with the traditional system of their parents. If this makes no sense it is because I cannot find the words to describe the psyche of the "socialist-environmentalist".
The kind of person I'm talking about would be described by this hypothetical dialog:
protester (person I'm talking about): No nuclear power! Unsafe! Cheap energy at the expense of environment and public health:
Scientist: But you do understand that nuclear energy is safer that coal energy. I understand it has risks but the benefits out way them by far. The worst nuclear disaster in the US exposed 6 people to radiation that is the equivalent of a chest X-ray. Do you know how many coal miners die from black lung?
Protester: You are saying we should trust a miuti-billion dollar capitalist energy cooperation on environmental safety
Scientists: No, we should trust the innocent little guy in a Hazmat suit, sitting in his garage dipping uranium rods into buckets of heavy water, and using the steam to drive a ceiling fan hooked up to a generator.
...you know who I'm talking about: tree hugger, anti-GMO food people, Columbia University college students...
Nobody is going to provide you links for the strawman opponent of the former part, sorry.
If you dig around enough, the most reputable climatologist critic of MMGW you'll find is Richard Lindzen (MIT Climatoligist). Toss his name into Google and you'll get a decent share of non-crackpot ammunition. Please try to represent him accurately though. His position, as I understand it, is that human generated Co2 accounts for no more than 30% of the temperature rise observed in the past 100 years (half way down page 1 of that link).
To balance that link, here is a refutation of Lindzen by an equally reputable climatologist (NASA climate modeler).
The correct way to think about GW from a policy perspective, IMO, is risk analysis.
We weren't 100% certain that the Soviet Union was going to use nukes against the U.S., but the findings of the appropriate specialists (in that case intelligence agencies) was that there was a non-zero chance of a worst case Nuclear war scenario, which was very bad. We measured our response (and spending) to the threat vs. other potential threats to our country by a "chance of impact * magnitude of impact" ranking, and responding to an enemy Nuclear threat came out as a pretty important priority. It may seem like a poor use of taxpayer dollars in retrospect knowing now just how weak the true Soviet Nuclear threat was/is, but for the risk information available at the time, spending time and money countering the U.S.S.R. was a good call.
You can do the same thing with climate science. Outside of politicized/generalized summaries for politicians, the raw research can give you scenarios and estimated risk of said scenarios, with estimated uncertainty levels.
There is a non-zero chance that the forces already set in motion may have too much momentum (residence times, rapid Co2 release from warming permafrost, etc.), in which case we're *$*#ed and $45 trillion might be better spent on palliative measures.
There is also, however, a non-zero chance that strong intervention at this stage can mitigate high impact scenarios, in which case $45 trillion worldwide over that many years would be a trivial price to pay to avoid the lives lost and financial repercussions of said scenarios. For the record, venture capitalists are already hedging their bets based on this (see the linked Lindzen article, last page) and looking for ways to invest in "green" business ventures. Investors generally like avoiding "really bad things" from happening if they can.
Finally, I believe there is a chance that Lindzen is right, and that Global Warming (30% man-made or less, or more) will not have catastrophic impacts. I also believe, however, that if you review all the (credible) information available as of 2008, and end up placing all your chips with Lindzen's view, you would probably also be wise to stay far far away from Vegas.
I heard a politician recently say something along the lines of "I fully support your right to your own opinions, but I do not acknowledge your right to your own facts". The non-zero risk of catastrophic global warming may not be a "fact" on the level of a spherical earth or orbits around the sun, but as far as scientific efforts to predict the future goes (always a sketchy venture on the scale of years and decades), the case for credible risks of catastrophic scenarios is not too far off. I suspect the estimated chance*impact metric is quite a bit higher than many other threats we could spend less than 1% of our GDP averting, say for instance... WMDs in Iraq.
Even if you go back to our best understandings of those relative risks in 2002, including the (unreported to the public) uncertainties in some of the Iraq intelligence, money spent on Iraq over money spent averting the possibility of catastrophic global warming was, and continues to be, bad risk management.
edit: Added links to the pro/con links' credentials.
You're right about the risk-management. My issue is that climatology is far more complex than assessing nuclear scenarios with the soviet union. Its so complex that we don't even know what the risks would be.
2Xtreme21
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2004
- 7,044
- 0
- 0
Seems pretty simple to me:
1. Factories / cars / power plants pump trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2. Global temperature rises.
______________________________________________
A: Human engineering is the cause of global warming.
Where do all you people think the pollutants and smoke that you see coming out of your tailpipe and the smoke stacks on factories go? They just go up in the air never to be seen again and don't have any harmful effect on anything?
1. Factories / cars / power plants pump trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2. Global temperature rises.
______________________________________________
A: Human engineering is the cause of global warming.
Where do all you people think the pollutants and smoke that you see coming out of your tailpipe and the smoke stacks on factories go? They just go up in the air never to be seen again and don't have any harmful effect on anything?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter