|
Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
I have long thought the Man Made Global Warming theory was crap. Just another fanatical green movement desinged to punish big business and the US by socialists. It does not help the guy leading the charge is a bitter ex President trying to stay busy.
Here is a compelling argument on why this movement is a fraud. Trying to predict the next moves of a 4 Billion year old planet 100 years from now is stupid, especially when we cannot predict the weather a week in advance....Funny how the UN is the organization leading the charge, huh? Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny June 30, 2007 BY JAMES M. TAYLOR Article deleted for copyright reasons. http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...REF30b.article |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
All this article does is cast doubts on some of Gore's more specious claims. One would wonder what the opinion or claims of Gore, a non scientist, has to do with the debate?
Why doesn't he article address the IPCC report? It does make scientifically rigorous claims, with error boundaries and all. That's the content here - what other, non scientists say is irrelevant. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
The IPCC is a highly politcal organization. Most of the so called "scientists" are government shills who are part of a international group that hates the US and capitalism as a whole.
Funny how all the third world countries get a pass, eh? Mass polluters like China get a free pass. Ironically, the "scientists" claim their forward thinking is saving the planet, like they honestly think they can influence a 4 Billion year old planet. LOL, how arrogant. The cruel irony is the world they envision ultimately deprives third world countries like those in Africa, from getting affordable energy, further causing these countries misery. Meanwhile, the do gooder global warming shill, errr, "scientist" in France takes a hybrid car to an airport where he flys to some Global Warming conference half way around the world pontificating how to save the planet while he turns down the AC. Exactly what was the worldwide temprature in 1847? Yep, the global warming crowd has no idea. Yet, they draw iron clad conclusions on a 4B year old planet by looking at temp data from the past 30 years. Suckers born every day. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
Here is a compelling argument on why this movement is a fraud. Trying to predict the next moves of a 4 Billion year old planet 100 years from now is stupid, especially when we cannot predict the weather a week in advance....Funny how the UN is the organization leading the charge, huh? [/ QUOTE ] Very played out arguement 'gee the weatherman is wrong alot' Well as it turns out meterology is different from climatology. I predict the weather next year in the sahara will be dry. It will rain alot in South East Asia, and there will be tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma. Many things where short term forcasting is difficult long term forcasting isn't as hard. I can't tell you exactly when it will snow in Norway, but I'm willing to bet it will be very cold in december in Oslo. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Here is a compelling argument on why this movement is a fraud. Trying to predict the next moves of a 4 Billion year old planet 100 years from now is stupid, especially when we cannot predict the weather a week in advance....Funny how the UN is the organization leading the charge, huh? [/ QUOTE ] Very played out arguement 'gee the weatherman is wrong alot' Well as it turns out meterology is different from climatology. I predict the weather next year in the sahara will be dry. It will rain alot in South East Asia, and there will be tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma. Many things where short term forcasting is difficult long term forcasting isn't as hard. I can't tell you exactly when it will snow in Norway, but I'm willing to bet it will be very cold in december in Oslo. [/ QUOTE ] Yet the AGW crowd can predict a 30' rise in seal level in a 100 years based on a natural warming trend over a couple decades? the whole cooling trend from the 1940-70s does not count, eh, even in wake of the industrial revolution? In 1975 Newsweek/Time wrote a cover on the coming ICE AGE. AGW is simple alarmism and the movement has followers. Sadly. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
The IPCC is a highly politcal organization. Most of the so called "scientists" are government shills who are part of a international group that hates the US and capitalism as a whole. [/ QUOTE ] That's a big claim. Any evidence to support it? [ QUOTE ] Funny how all the third world countries get a pass, eh? Mass polluters like China get a free pass. [/ QUOTE ] Politics, unfortunately. [ QUOTE ] Ironically, the "scientists" claim their forward thinking is saving the planet, like they honestly think they can influence a 4 Billion year old planet. [/ QUOTE ] Ask even the most fervent denier what would happen if we increased CO2 concentration three times (still < 1% of atmosphere), and they will tell you that the temperate will rise significantly. CO2 traps heats - this is well known science and beyond dispute. It's a question of degree, not effect. [ QUOTE ] Exactly what was the worldwide temprature in 1847? Yep, the global warming crowd has no idea. Yet, they draw iron clad conclusions on a 4B year old planet by looking at temp data from the past 30 years. Suckers born every day. [/ QUOTE ] The conclusions aren't "ironclad". In the first report in 1997 they were "tentative", and the evidence since then as well as improved model resolution from greatly increased computing power have led them to say * "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. * "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. If you read the actual report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fo...essment_Report you will see that nothing is "iron clad", but based on probability assessment with error bars so wide that conclusions are not controversial. Let me repeat that again. The conclusions are not controversial. Some are actually deliberately understated in order to get total agreement among the scientific community. The anthropogenic warming model includes "level of scientific understanding" in its assessment of error ranges. The conclusions stand. It's obvious to me that you haven't examined the evidence at all. If you still hold the same opinion after doing so, then we have something to discuss. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
I have done a tremendous amount of reading, on both sides - I do not need an elementary summary from wikipedia, LOL. The earth, by many accounts will enter a cooling phase on 2012 when the sun calms down a bit.
Of course, the AGW crowd will go away and move on to the next big thing when that happens. One thing for sure. Man can easily adapt to natural global warming. Sustained global cooling, ie Ice Age, is a death sentence. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Here is a compelling argument on why this movement is a fraud. Trying to predict the next moves of a 4 Billion year old planet 100 years from now is stupid, especially when we cannot predict the weather a week in advance....Funny how the UN is the organization leading the charge, huh? [/ QUOTE ] Very played out arguement 'gee the weatherman is wrong alot' Well as it turns out meterology is different from climatology. I predict the weather next year in the sahara will be dry. It will rain alot in South East Asia, and there will be tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma. Many things where short term forcasting is difficult long term forcasting isn't as hard. I can't tell you exactly when it will snow in Norway, but I'm willing to bet it will be very cold in december in Oslo. [/ QUOTE ] Yet the AGW crowd can predict a 30' rise in seal level in a 100 years based on a natural warming trend over a couple decades? the whole cooling trend from the 1940-70s does not count, eh, even in wake of the industrial revolution? In 1975 Newsweek/Time wrote a cover on the coming ICE AGE. AGW is simple alarmism and the movement has followers. Sadly. [/ QUOTE ] Newsweek and Time are both very reliable scientific journals. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
Have you read the actual text of the report? I suggest you do. If you have specific disagreements, please state them, because this represents the near consensus of the world scientific community and 113 government representatives, including the US.
If you have done a tremendous amount of reading, why do you say this: [ QUOTE ] Exactly what was the worldwide temprature in 1847? Yep, the global warming crowd has no idea. Yet, they draw iron clad conclusions on a 4B year old planet by looking at temp data from the past 30 years. Suckers born every day. [/ QUOTE ] Are you a liar, a fool, or intellectually lazy? [ QUOTE ] The earth, by many accounts will enter a cooling phase on 2012 when the sun calms down a bit. [/ QUOTE ] Both solar fluctuations and CO2 forcing are extremely well understood mechanisms. Since you've done so much reading, what is the magnitude of the known forcing of each component? What does this say about your theory? |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
|
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
|
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5872/wackirr4.jpg [/ QUOTE ] Best post in politics ever. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
Why does the debate never steer away from is it or is it not happening?
IOW The evidence keeps pointing towards man's affect on a warming of the climate. You can argue the degree to which the effect will be ad nauseum but it is beyond doubt (for most) that industrialized man deffo has an affect. I'm sure, upon Wacki's arrival, he can dismiss OPs arguments (assuming he hold his temper) with stacks of studies and statistics. How about taking a new avenue of discusion. Why is it necesarily BAD, that the climate is warming? Yes, yes, I've seen all the data/predictions about changes to sea levels and crops and forests etc. BUT all those things will simply affect man, and change the way they have to do things. Coastlines change, poulations levels go down, georaphical and political alliances shift. Why are these necesarily all BAD things? |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
Best post in politics ever. [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
One question about science.
A natural byproduct of human digestion is methane. A gas which populates MOST uninhabitiable planets. Is it possible that farting is contributing to global warming more than fossil fuel consumption???? |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
I hear cow farting is the main cause of global warming. That's actually why I eat steak 12 meals a day... it's because I care.
|
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
I agree with Praetorian Card. The sunspot cycle is loosely correlated with recent temperatures. Apparently no sunspots were observed from 1650 to 1700, and currently we've just passed a maximum of the cycle, which is quoted at eleven years but varies a lot. Also you need temperature measurements in the same place under the same conditions without urban development, deforestation, power plants upwind, etc. That said there is evidence of increased temperatures since about 1650, but it was hotter around 1300 than now. Also there seems little proof of temperature increases since 1990. Government scientists obey orders and get the results their superiors want. Academic scientists are grant driven and politically correct and will also get results the grant givers want. The IPCC is committed to man made global warming and goes apeshit if anyone opposes their politically correct consensus. The mere fact they call it CONSENSUS tells everyone they ain't got proof worth a damn. I regard all politicians and bureaucrats as liars cheats thieves pimps and whores unless proven otherwise.
One associated problem is that CO2 should be higher in the atmosphere than observed. The level of production is known, and thus the level of removal is known, but the mechanism of removal is not. The LeChatelier principle (high school chemistry) states that a chemical system in equilibrium reacts to resist change. In this case adding C02 to the atmosphere would result in more CO2 being removed. I would expect a gross increase in phytoplankton, but that's just my personal guess. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
Why does the debate never steer away from is it or is it not happening? [/ QUOTE ] Because the supporters continue to fail to provide good explanations for some of the flaws in the theories involved, and almost all of the scientific data I've seen has been either not scientific or an insignificantly tiny sample size. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Here is a compelling argument on why this movement is a fraud. Trying to predict the next moves of a 4 Billion year old planet 100 years from now is stupid, especially when we cannot predict the weather a week in advance....Funny how the UN is the organization leading the charge, huh? [/ QUOTE ] Very played out arguement 'gee the weatherman is wrong alot' Well as it turns out meterology is different from climatology. I predict the weather next year in the sahara will be dry. It will rain alot in South East Asia, and there will be tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma. Many things where short term forcasting is difficult long term forcasting isn't as hard. I can't tell you exactly when it will snow in Norway, but I'm willing to bet it will be very cold in december in Oslo. [/ QUOTE ] Yet the AGW crowd can predict a 30' rise in seal level in a 100 years based on a natural warming trend over a couple decades? the whole cooling trend from the 1940-70s does not count, eh, even in wake of the industrial revolution? In 1975 Newsweek/Time wrote a cover on the coming ICE AGE. AGW is simple alarmism and the movement has followers. Sadly. [/ QUOTE ] Newsweek and Time are both very reliable scientific journals. [/ QUOTE ] I don't care what Newsweek states, what Time states, what wacki states about the ability of climiate models to accurately predict climate change. The bottom line is that the models are unproven in their predictive value. Here's a link to a climate history graphic to the earth. Look up the most recent period on this graphic, the Pleistocene period, and see when it started. I've never stated that we shouldn't err on the side of caution. Just saying that we need to view the climate models for what they are at this point and that is unproven rather than gospel. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Here is a compelling argument on why this movement is a fraud. Trying to predict the next moves of a 4 Billion year old planet 100 years from now is stupid, especially when we cannot predict the weather a week in advance....Funny how the UN is the organization leading the charge, huh? [/ QUOTE ] Very played out arguement 'gee the weatherman is wrong alot' Well as it turns out meterology is different from climatology. I predict the weather next year in the sahara will be dry. It will rain alot in South East Asia, and there will be tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma. Many things where short term forcasting is difficult long term forcasting isn't as hard. I can't tell you exactly when it will snow in Norway, but I'm willing to bet it will be very cold in december in Oslo. [/ QUOTE ] Here's the problem from a layman's perspective that I see with climatological predictions other than the norm: Last year's much more active season of hurricanes was predicted by all the experts. It didn't happen. Wacki ways in and responds something to the effect that the forecast models didn't take into account sand storms in Africa that suppresses initial formation of systems that could become hurricanes(if memory serves). My point is that it seems to the layman that if it is this easy to miss such an important variable with long term hurricane predictions that have a massive effect on the weather, how can one put faith in computer models that forecast climate decades in advance(teams of experts may easily not properly take into account even just one important variable, again as evidenced by hurricane predictions that did not come to fruition). To radically alter lifestyles because of models seems presumptuous to many, an 'oops we forgot' to properly take into account variable x doesn't cut it when the proposed remedies are radical and life altering. |
Linky I Forgot
|
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
This is why I can't stand Gore, he's such an easy target. Then again this article is pretty easy to rip apart as well. Plus I'm not even sure gore said all of those things.
From the article: [ QUOTE ] Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." [/ QUOTE ] So lets go look at the actual paper. The blue is what the Chicago Sun-Time quoted and the red is something important that they left out: <font color="blue">The Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins (&#8722;42 ± 2 Gt a&#8722;1 below the equilibrium-line altitude (ELA)) and growing inland (+53 ± 2 Gt a&#8722;1 above the ELA) with a small overall mass gain (+11 ± 3 Gt ; 0.03 mm, 1 SLE (sea-level equivalent)).</font> ..... <font color="red"> Thinning at the margins of the Greenland ice sheet and growth at higher elevations is an expected response to increasing temperatures and precipitation in a warming climate. </font> Basically warmer ocean = more snow for Greenland. But that snow can only counteract so much melting. Keep in mind both of these sentences are from the very same paragraph in the abstract. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00175/art00001 And lets look at the title of the paper: Mass changes of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and shelves and contributions to sea-level rise: <font color="red"> 1992-2002</font> The movie inconvenient truth came out in 2006 which was four years after this survey was completed. In 2005, before gores movie came out, NASA had satellites up measuring Greenland melt. What were the results? News: NASA's Grace Finds Greenland<font color="red"> Melting Faster</font> In the first direct, comprehensive mass survey of the entire Greenland ice sheet, scientists using data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) have measured a significant decrease in the mass of the Greenland ice cap. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news-pr...lease=2005-176 So we have a triple whammy of quoting something out of context, using old data and ignoring the Grace satellites which were up and running when Gore launched his movie. From the article: [ QUOTE ] Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." [/ QUOTE ] I went here: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...levance#results Clicked on Journal of Climate and searched for: Glaciers growing Himalayan Mountains I had one hit and that was not the right paper. I searched for "Glaciers confounding" and had zero hits. We seem to have a missing journal. From the article: [ QUOTE ] Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity. [/ QUOTE ] http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/2...ricanesxc8.jpg No comment necessary. I might to a full writeup on my blog. But I think I've made my point. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
Here's the problem from a layman's perspective that I see with climatological predictions other than the norm: Last year's much more active season of hurricanes was predicted by all the experts. It didn't happen. Wacki ways in and responds something to the effect that the forecast models didn't take into account sand storms in Africa that suppresses initial formation of systems that could become hurricanes(if memory serves). My point is that it seems to the layman that if it is this easy to miss such an important variable with long term hurricane predictions that have a massive effect on the weather, how can one put faith in computer models that forecast climate decades in advance(teams of experts may easily not properly take into account even just one important variable, again as evidenced by hurricane predictions that did not come to fruition). To radically alter lifestyles because of models seems presumptuous to many, an 'oops we forgot' to properly take into account variable x doesn't cut it when the proposed remedies are radical and life altering. [/ QUOTE ] The dust storm is called the saharan air layer or calima. Forecasts do take it into account by they simply don't know what year it will happen. It's like trying to predict what day a volcano will blow up. You know it will happen soon but you can't pin what day it occurs. Short term = weather long term = climate HUGE difference. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care what Newsweek states, what Time states, what wacki states about the ability of climiate models to accurately predict climate change. [/ QUOTE ] Well, then why did you ask me what i thought in the other thread? [ QUOTE ] The bottom line is that the models are unproven in their predictive value. [/ QUOTE ] The bottom line is you are dramatically oversimplifying the situation. It's not a black and white answer. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is you are dramatically oversimplifying the situation. It's not a black and white answer. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not the one oversimplifying the situation. You are. You're the one that's coming up with black and white answers. The truth is what I said and it's a fact, the predictive value of climate models is unproven. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The bottom line is you are dramatically oversimplifying the situation. It's not a black and white answer. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not the one oversimplifying the situation. You are. You're the one that's coming up with black and white answers. The truth is what I said and it's a fact, the predictive value of climate models is unproven. [/ QUOTE ] Nothern but not southern polar amplification and stratospheric cooling (which are smoking guns of global warming) were predicted by the models. They were also observed. Those aspects of the models have been proved. There really isn't any other way to look at it. Now move your eyes over to precipitation, aerosols, and glacier melt and there are big question marks. You really can describe the accuracy of the models with one sentence much less one word. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
I am a big fan of people trying to understand the climate and earth.
I am a BIG critic of new wave scientists @ the UN thinking they figured everything out. It' so arrogant. By all accounts, when the Sun calms in 2012 we will cool some...of course, Al and his crowd will take all the credit. He'll throw another concert.... Eventually he'll have to answer for the mercury light bulb... |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
You really can describe the accuracy of the models with one sentence much less one word. [/ QUOTE ] can = can't sorry for the typo |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
I am a big fan of people trying to understand the climate and earth. I am a BIG critic of new wave scientists @ the UN thinking they figured everything out. It' so arrogant. By all accounts, when the Sun calms in 2012 we will cool some...of course, [/ QUOTE ] I'm a big fan of people who can't even get history right that somehow still think they know more than the worlds leading experts. You wanna talk about arrogance? Look in the mirror. In other words your posts are of such poor quality (e.g. global cooling, blaming the sun for the warming) that they really aren't worth responding to. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I am a big fan of people trying to understand the climate and earth. I am a BIG critic of new wave scientists @ the UN thinking they figured everything out. It' so arrogant. By all accounts, when the Sun calms in 2012 we will cool some...of course, [/ QUOTE ] I'm a big fan of people who can't even get history right that somehow still think they know more than the worlds leading experts. You wanna talk about arrogance? Look in the mirror. In other words your posts are of such poor quality (e.g. global cooling, blaming the sun for the warming) that they really aren't worth responding to. [/ QUOTE ] My My you are testy. I hear that about religous types. You question their religion and they get all defensive and get into attack mode. Everyone is stupid, they are above question. Ok, wacki, the we are all going to drown in 100 years and Exxon / George Bush did it to us. They melted the ice caps. Rest easily. Tell Rev. Gore all is well on two plus two. I am among the converted now. Praise the UN. Praise the UN. Praise the UN. Repeat. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
My My you are testy. I hear that about religous types. You question their religion and they get all defensive and get into attack mode. Everyone is stupid, they are above question. Ok, wacki, the we are all going to drown in 100 years and Exxon / George Bush did it to us. They melted the ice caps. Rest easily. Tell Rev. Gore all is well on two plus two. I am among the converted now. Praise the UN. Praise the UN. Praise the UN. Repeat. [/ QUOTE ] I've always been confused how global warming skeptics seem to rationalize the huge push for global warming countermeasures as some fascist plot to control resources/countries/etc. Just how is it that this conspiracy amongst the world's top scientists came about? |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
The IPCC is a highly politcal organization. Most of the so called "scientists" are government shills who are part of a international group that hates the US and capitalism as a whole. [/ QUOTE ] And you know this... how? |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
My My you are testy. I hear that about religous types. You question their religion and they get all defensive and get into attack mode. Everyone is stupid, they are above question. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not mad, I just have little or no respect for anything you've said because you prefer pop culture over actual science. Al Gore, newsweek and the UN are irrelevant. What matters is what the scientific community are saying. And if the worldwide scientific community happen to use the UN to communicate to the world it may be a political blunder but so what. The IPCC != the UN. It's an entirely different group of people. Newsweek has a very poor track record of reporting the science correctly. If there is anything I hold in high regard it is the American Geophysical Union, Goddard, and assessment reports from the national academies. If any side of this debate brings up the "UN", "Newsweek" or "hypocritical Al Gore" then they are just displaying their ignorance and practicing demagoguery. What any of those entities say is irrelevant. Your preference of referencing pop-culture (newsweek, cooling, UN, etc) over actual scientific reports to debunk the scientific community says mountains about your mentality and educational background. Reference a journal and we can talk. Reference Al Gore or Newsweek and you are a waste of time. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
...and glacier melt and there are big question marks. [/ QUOTE ] There is a good article in the recent Smithsonian about Lonnie Thompson and his efforts to retrieve, store, and catalog glacier ice (from alpine glaciers mostly) from both the southern and northern hemispheres. They contain a good bit of data about temperature variations, precipitation patterns, atmospheric chemistry, and other information derived from dust, pollen, and plant residue embedded in the ice. Here is more information: Thompson wins prize And this: Latest Ice Core Glad this man is about collecting material that will add to human knowlegde about variations in climate change, both local and world wide. -Zeno |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
Zeno, thanks for stopping by. I will check it out. Just found this pic from wikipedia. Looks like the sun-times is a tabloid. I'm not at all surprised.
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/838...imesfrowo1.jpg |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
Ah well. Thread delivers!
What does it deliver again? Doubters, however misinformed, are shouted down, insulted and their intelligence questioned by the overinformed, though supremely conceited, Wacki. As I said in a previous thread weeks ago, If the primary proponents of global climate change are either Al Gore (minimal grasp of actual science) or Wacki (strong grasp of the scientific studies but, dare to disagree and I shall explain the scientific case in the most offensive and abusive manner) is it a wonder it's hard for people to get a grasp of the situation? Both sides have valid points, but once again the debate is let down by personalities. Many of the models are unproven (given the timespans of the earth's climate) -That said they are the best predicitons of a large amount of scientists ergo it's deffo worth heeding the warnings. Many of the Global Climate Change advocates do come off as arrogant, religious zealots. -That said, if we look past the politicized rhetoric there is a strong case from their argument. Man is arrogant to assume they can predict the future with any major amount of precision WRT a science that is the tiniest fraction in age compared to the data it attempts manipulate/analyze. -That said, once again, it is also blatantly ignorant to ignore blinding warning signs and NOT do something to prevent even a potential catastrophe. Any chance of either side backing off the personalities approach and having a rational discussion? OH NVM, I forgot. This is the politics forum, where, aside from a few rare cases, he who shouts loudest and insults best, is champion and the issues are themselves merely a vehicle for the contests. |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
Wacki (strong grasp of the scientific studies but, dare to disagree and I shall explain the scientific case in the most offensive and abusive manner) is it a wonder it's hard for people to get a grasp of the situation? [/ QUOTE ] I treated adios and kickabuck with respect. As for Praetorian Card I only gave him a taste of his own medicine. He called the entire scientific community frauds when they obviously aren't. I mean do I really need to treat somebody like that with respect? |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] My My you are testy. I hear that about religous types. You question their religion and they get all defensive and get into attack mode. Everyone is stupid, they are above question. Ok, wacki, the we are all going to drown in 100 years and Exxon / George Bush did it to us. They melted the ice caps. Rest easily. Tell Rev. Gore all is well on two plus two. I am among the converted now. Praise the UN. Praise the UN. Praise the UN. Repeat. [/ QUOTE ] I've always been confused how global warming skeptics seem to rationalize the huge push for global warming countermeasures as some fascist plot to control resources/countries/etc. Just how is it that this conspiracy amongst the world's top scientists came about? [/ QUOTE ] There is much disinformation and misinterpretation about 'Global Warming". I’ll make a few general comments. One reason for terse reactions on this forum is the continual popping up of threads about this issue every few months and the title of the OP says a lot in my opinion about the quality of some posters. But that aside, it is best to understand that there are two main themes to what is occurring at present. 1) Scientific Research in relation to climate change. 2) The public and political reaction to this research. From number 1 is the plain fact that almost no one from the general public reads the science journals that peer-reviewed research is published in. Number 2 is influence by the poor reporting that is inherent in science journalism or having reporters give their interpretations of the science research. This is a perennial problem, and not just limited to the current issue of global warming by the way, and does much to cloud public perception and reaction to pure science research. It does not help matters that politicians and other media figures or famous people wade in with all sorts of silliness and exaggerations. This muddies the water even more. And there are of course vested interests that foul the waters even more. My second point is that the scientists involve in the research have little impact or input into what policies are needed or will eventually be enacted, if any, to counteract the possible ill effects (there may be of course some beneficial effects) of the rise of the global average temperature over the next 100 years. They may make policy statements or recommendations but these are missed, misinterpreted, and otherwise fouled up in the din of political hooey that surrounds this issue and more than likely stupid ideas will be enacted (Kyoto). And always by those that wish to gain advantages, get votes, score points against opponents, and also influence the throbbing masses and the willfully ignorant mob of human rabble that inhibits this cosmic ball of vomit. In other words, humanity gets what it deserves, good and hard I hope. It is also understandable why many people wish to doubt or remain overly sceptical about how much humans actually influence the global climate. They see this as an excuse for governments or other organizations to intrude more and more into their lives. A very legitimate concern and one I share. I personnal think the UN should be disbanded and the building turned into a giant brothel. And with that I think I am done with this. I get tired of all the bullsh*t that surrounds this issue. -Zeno |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
wacki :
What do you make of the argument we are warming up because we're coming out of an ice age? Also what are your thoughts on methane gas from cows and other sources? |
Re: Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement
[ QUOTE ]
But that aside, it is best to understand that there are two main themes to what is occurring at present. 1) Scientific Research in relation to climate change. 2) The public and political reaction to this research. From number 1 is the plain fact that almost no one from the general public reads the science journals that peer-reviewed research is published in. Number 2 is influence by the poor reporting that is inherent in science journalism or having reporters give there interpretations of the science research. This is a perennial problem, and not just limited to the current issue of global warming by the way, and does much to cloud public perception and reaction to pure science research. It does not help matters that politicians and other media figures or famous people wade in with all sorts of silliness and exaggerations. This muddies the water even more. And there are of course vested interests that foul the waters even more. [/ QUOTE ] This is supersupertrue. It's ironic that the most effective popularizers of science focus on either quantum mechanics, which laypeople have no reason to understand, or proving that God doesn't exist, which isn't science at all. For relevant issues, there really are no reliable intermediaries to transmit scientific understanding to the public. Even worse, the discussion seems to focus almost 100% on whether climate change is occurring and how much rather than the much more productive question of what can/should be done and how much it will cost. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.