View Full Version : The Global warming blow-hards...
...are reassessing, huh?
This, from the U.K. Telegraph:
UN downgrades man's impact on the climate
Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.
In a final draft of its fourth assessment report, to be published in February, the panel reports that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated in the past five years. It also predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, bringing more frequent heat waves and storms.
Climate change sceptics are expected to seize on the revised figures as evidence that action to combat global warming is less urgent.
Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.
One leading UK climate scientist, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity surrounding the report before it is published, said: "The bottom line is that the climate is still warming while our greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated, so we are storing up problems for ourselves in the future."
The IPCC report, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, has been handed to the Government for review before publication.
It warns that carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past five years by three per cent, well above the 0.4 per cent a year average of the previous two decades. The authors also state that the climate is almost certain to warm by at least 1.5 C during the next 100 years.
Such a rise would be enough to take average summer temperatures in Britain to those seen during the 2003 heatwave, when August temperatures reached a record-breaking 38 C. Unseasonable warmth this year has left many Alpine resorts without snow by the time the ski season started.
Britain can expect more storms of similar ferocity to those that wreaked havoc across the country last week, even bringing a tornado to north-west London.
The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.
It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.
Large amounts of heat have been absorbed by the oceans, masking the warming effect.
Prof Rick Battarbee, the director of the Environmental Change Research Centre at University College London, warned these masking effects had helped to delay global warming but would lead to larger changes in the future.
He said: "The oceans have been acting like giant storage heaters by trapping heat and carbon dioxide. They might be bit of a time-bomb as they have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere.
"People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens."
The report paints a bleak picture for future generations unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It predicts that the climate will warm by 0.2 C a decade for the next two decades if emissions continue at current levels.
The report states that snow cover in mountainous regions will contract and permafrost in polar regions will decline.
However, Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network, urged governments to be cautious. "There needs to be better data before billions of pounds are spent on policy measures that may have little impact," he said.
Oh, and here's something else...the link for the entire summary follows:
Livestock’s long shadow
Environmental issues and options
By H. Steinfeld, P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, C. de Haan - 2006, 390 pp
Summary: This report aims to assess the full impact of the livestock sector on environmental problems, along with potential technical and policy approaches to mitigation.
The assessment is based on the most recent and complete data available, taking into account direct impacts, along with the impacts of feed crop agriculture required for livestock production.
The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.
The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.
Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large.
The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency. Major reductions in impact could be achieved at reasonable cost.
The panel, however, has lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm#sum
Two strategies are suggested by these reports:
1. Eat beef at every meal in the hope we will make cows extinct.
2. Spend more money to acquire "better data", as better data has proven most effective in mitigating the "doom" content in doomsday forecasting relative to global warming.
You know it makes sense.
Confluence
12-14-2006, 12:01 AM
Yep I agree.
Just thought, we're eating too much and endangering fish, yet giving them more room to swim around and reproduce in. Sigh.
Furthermore, anyway... During that research, they can get people to skateboard, show them how fun it is and that more. Then place more Wind Turbines out in the sea, ironically of which theres more area to choose and place them in now, and more than just a few else it's pointless. That way protesters that they're not doing enough (kinda true though) can't complain.
Finally, invest more sensibly into researching at the same time as the data, Quick, Cheap, and Affordable alternative fuel to deal with the current problems. Actually, kind of off topic now I guess, but I heard randomly the other day there's a blood protein in, us, that could be used to produce hydrogen. Weird.
...alternative fuel...
Exactly, and a million reasons to do it, even apart from environmental concerns.
Now. ;)
Ava Estelle
12-14-2006, 05:54 AM
Another cut and paste job j2?
What do YOU think?
We know you're an advocate of doing nothing, as your lords and masters the oil companies suggest, but what if? What if you're wrong? Are you gonna stand up and apologise to your grandchildren for doing nothing despite all the warnings?
What people like you fail to mention is this, if we clean up our act and are subsequently proved wrong, we have lost NOTHING, if we fail to act, as you believe we should, and are proved wrong, we lose EVERYTHING.
Here's a little cut and paste from your own cut and paste ...
Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.
GepperRankins
12-14-2006, 09:59 AM
Another cut and paste job j2?
What do YOU think?
We know you're an advocate of doing nothing, as your lords and masters the oil companies suggest, but what if? What if you're wrong? Are you gonna stand up and apologise to your grandchildren for doing nothing despite all the warnings?
What people like you fail to mention is this, if we clean up our act and are subsequently proved wrong, we have lost NOTHING, if we fail to act, as you believe we should, and are proved wrong, we lose EVERYTHING.
Here's a little cut and paste from your own cut and paste ...
Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.
the way i read it, it was saying it exists and it's bad, just not as bad as we previously thought.
Barbarossa
12-14-2006, 10:00 AM
I read somewhere recently that it exists, and it's bad, and it's worse than we previously thought, because of solar dimming :unsure:
GepperRankins
12-14-2006, 10:17 AM
I read somewhere recently that it exists, and it's bad, and it's worse than we previously thought, because of solar dimming :unsure:
apparently it's like a balancing act and too far either way will cause major pwnage. that's what the telly said anyway.
there's hundreds of theories, but the "liberals trying to undermine the iraq war effort" seems the most rediculous
HeavyMetalParkingLot
12-14-2006, 12:22 PM
What people like you fail to mention is this, if we clean up our act and are subsequently proved wrong, we have lost NOTHING[/I]
We are out nothing except time, resources, energy and whatnot that could have been applied to, oh I don't know, say world hunger, aids. You know, the little things.
Barbarossa
12-14-2006, 12:27 PM
We are out nothing except time, resources, energy and whatnot that could have been applied to, oh I don't know, say world hunger, aids. You know, the little things.
As if the money would be spent on that instead! Don't make me laugh :dry:
Oh, controlling climate change will help with world hunger, btw ;)
Ava Estelle
12-14-2006, 01:29 PM
What people like you fail to mention is this, if we clean up our act and are subsequently proved wrong, we have lost NOTHING[/I]
We are out nothing except time, resources, energy and whatnot that could have been applied to, oh I don't know, say world hunger, aids. You know, the little things.
Oh come on, talk sense man, tell your excuse for a president about world hunger and aids, because he spends enough money to combat those things every WEEK on wars.
HeavyMetalParkingLot
12-14-2006, 02:02 PM
Oh come on, talk sense man, tell your excuse for a president about world hunger and aids, because he spends enough money to combat those things every WEEK on wars.
Because obviously it is the president's job to end WORLD hunger and aids. Wait a second, I thought you wanted the US to mind it's own business.....
thewizeard
12-14-2006, 03:27 PM
In a few years time, "they" will be wanting us to use fossil fuels again..to stave off the approaching ice age...
Ava Estelle
12-14-2006, 03:53 PM
Wait a second, I thought you wanted the US to mind it's own business.....
Why don't you just make things up, seeing as you have nothing constructive to say ... oh wait, you just did!
HeavyMetalParkingLot
12-14-2006, 06:15 PM
Why don't you just make things up, seeing as you have nothing constructive to say ... oh wait, you just did!
And this kids, is what is referred to as "the pot calling the kettle black".
As far as I can see, the case for global warming is still far from proven.
And I don't buy the "yes, but what if it's right, think of the children" scaremongering either.
Even if you accept the need for action, so called "green taxes" are a con. In order to be effective they would have to be at levels which would be detremintal to the economy. They aren't, and never will be, so the argument in favour of them is pure bullshit. They are just poor excuses for yet more excessive taxation.
Similarly the arguments for a "carbon market" are rubbish - if someone saves more than they need to then selling the excess "saving" does no-one any good. It is just another excuse for shifting money from one place to another, really nothing to do with global warming. Want to bet that there will be a tax on those purchasing the excess savings?
However, I feel that those who are against doing anything at all are also talking out of their hats. If anyone can produce convincing reasons why any individual, company or country would not want to reduce it's fuel consumption I'd be glad to hear it.
I can understand why people (motor manufacturers for example) don't want to invest in fuel saving advances if their competitors don't do the same. In the short term it can only result in higher prices if the costs are passed on to the consumer, or lower profits of not. Failure to react when your competitors are making investments is crazy though. A short term boost in profits will be followed by long term recession or even death of industries who have failed to keep up.
thewizeard
12-14-2006, 06:26 PM
Ava you shouldn't stereotype the members
What people like you.....and believe me J2k4 is perfectly capable of writing his own stuff.. but why bother if someone else has already done the hard work..
Personally, I believe there is sufficient evidence to say that the earth is getting warmer and that human produced CO2 is a major contributory factor, but imo the newspaper articles which always quote the worst case stuff from reports are generally retarded. The reports always say that theres huge uncertainty and so this almost automatically makes the worst case scenario a complete doom and gloom exaggeration, but its not really what scientists are predicting in their reports, its just what'll make a good headline.
This report is good news, and there will be more reports as time goes on reducing the error bars further and further (most likely reducing the probability of apocalyptic scenarios) as the models get better.
thewizeard
12-14-2006, 08:56 PM
in the end it all begins at home.
Another cut and paste job j2?
Why yes, yes it is.
What people like you fail to mention is this, if we clean up our act and are subsequently proved wrong, we have lost NOTHING, if we fail to act, as you believe we should, and are proved wrong, we lose EVERYTHING.
So then:
You advocate meekly ceding EVERYTHING, and living thence with NOTHING.
How fucking dopey is that?
Here's a little cut and paste from your own cut and paste ...
Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.
...And here is what YOU'VE fail to note about THAT:
The same scientists who failed to adequately interpret the very data they recently used in their attempt to scare the bejebus out of everyone on the fucking planet have a felt need to backpedal furiously before they are caught with their pants around their ankles.
These are the scientists idiots such as yourself exalt as the ultimate and undeniable authorities, to whom you willingly entrust the livelihoods of everyone on the entire planet, save third- and fourth-worlders.
How fucking dopey is that?
As far as I can see, the case for global warming is still far from proven.
And I don't buy the "yes, but what if it's right, think of the children" scaremongering either.
Even if you accept the need for action, so called "green taxes" are a con. In order to be effective they would have to be at levels which would be detremintal to the economy. They aren't, and never will be, so the argument in favour of them is pure bullshit. They are just poor excuses for yet more excessive taxation.
Similarly the arguments for a "carbon market" are rubbish - if someone saves more than they need to then selling the excess "saving" does no-one any good. It is just another excuse for shifting money from one place to another, really nothing to do with global warming. Want to bet that there will be a tax on those purchasing the excess savings?
However, I feel that those who are against doing anything at all are also talking out of their hats. If anyone can produce convincing reasons why any individual, company or country would not want to reduce it's fuel consumption I'd be glad to hear it.
I can understand why people (motor manufacturers for example) don't want to invest in fuel saving advances if their competitors don't do the same. In the short term it can only result in higher prices if the costs are passed on to the consumer, or lower profits of not. Failure to react when your competitors are making investments is crazy though. A short term boost in profits will be followed by long term recession or even death of industries who have failed to keep up.
I'm very happy to have my colleague lynx carry the ball in this instance, as I can thereby escape any further nonsense about cut-and-paste. ;)
Ava Estelle
12-15-2006, 07:39 AM
And this kids, is what is referred to as "the pot calling the kettle black".
HMP, the master of saying nothing ... do you actually have any opinions, or is this it for you?
..and believe me J2k4 is perfectly capable of writing his own stuff.. but why bother if someone else has already done the hard work..
The point is, he once posted here railing against people who cut and paste.
How fucking dopey is that?
Not as 'fucking dopey' as putting your trust in oil companies.
I'm very happy to have my colleague lynx carry the ball in this instance, as I can thereby escape any further nonsense about cut-and-paste. ;)
How do you interpret what Lynx has said as supporting your point of view?
thewizeard
12-15-2006, 08:10 AM
look, we all know he is a pain in the but... but... ;)
How do you interpret what Lynx has said as supporting your point of view?
This post...
As far as I can see, the case for global warming is still far from proven.
And I don't buy the "yes, but what if it's right, think of the children" scaremongering either.
Even if you accept the need for action, so called "green taxes" are a con. In order to be effective they would have to be at levels which would be detremintal to the economy. They aren't, and never will be, so the argument in favour of them is pure bullshit. They are just poor excuses for yet more excessive taxation.
Similarly the arguments for a "carbon market" are rubbish - if someone saves more than they need to then selling the excess "saving" does no-one any good. It is just another excuse for shifting money from one place to another, really nothing to do with global warming. Want to bet that there will be a tax on those purchasing the excess savings?
However, I feel that those who are against doing anything at all are also talking out of their hats. If anyone can produce convincing reasons why any individual, company or country would not want to reduce it's fuel consumption I'd be glad to hear it.
I can understand why people (motor manufacturers for example) don't want to invest in fuel saving advances if their competitors don't do the same. In the short term it can only result in higher prices if the costs are passed on to the consumer, or lower profits of not. Failure to react when your competitors are making investments is crazy though. A short term boost in profits will be followed by long term recession or even death of industries who have failed to keep up.
...is pretty much a spot-on reflection of my opinion as to the entire matter of global warming.
That you've not noticed this is to your detriment.
BTW-I've been meaning to compliment you on your behavior since your return here; you're almost tolerable.
Good show. :)
HeavyMetalParkingLot
12-15-2006, 12:33 PM
HMP, the master of saying nothing ... do you actually have any opinions, or is this it for you?
Are you capable of discussion without automatically going on the defensive with those who have different opinions? Or would that be a blow to your over inflated ego?
Ava Estelle
12-15-2006, 01:05 PM
HMP, the master of saying nothing ... do you actually have any opinions, or is this it for you?
Are you capable of discussion without automatically going on the defensive with those who have different opinions? Or would that be a blow to your over inflated ego?
As I said, do you have any opinions or are you only concerned with me?
I find your obsession disturbing, you should seek help.
bigboab
12-15-2006, 03:43 PM
I know this has been covered before but I have never received an answer. There is talk of the sea levels rising anything from 1" to a few feet. Where is this water going to come from. Discount the north pole. It is the equivalent of an ice cube therefore if it melts the level of the sea does not rise. Given that the land mass of the world is only 30% of the total area you would require 30 inches of snow on every inch of land to melt just to raise the sea level 1".
Considering we dont have anything near 30 inches of snow, or the equivalent, covering the land mass of the world, where is all the water going to come from? Is there something they are not telling us?
Barbarossa
12-15-2006, 04:04 PM
3.4 How can climate change cause sea level rise?
3.4.1 There are 3 100 000 km3 of ice on Arctic lands around the world, containing enough water to raise the global sea level by 8m. Most Arctic glaciers and ice caps have been in decline since the early 1960s, with this trend speeding up in the 1990s. In some areas, the increase in precipitation has outpaced the melting so that a small number of glaciers, especially in Scandinavia, have gained mass during some recent years.
The Greenland Ice Sheet is the largest area of ice on Arctic lands. Part of the top layer of ice of this ice sheet is melting during summer and the area where this is happening increased by about 16% between 1979 and 2002, (which represents) an area roughly the size of Sweden.
Projections from global climate models suggest that the contribution of Arctic glaciers to global sea-level rise will accelerate over the next 100 years. By 2100, the melt of these glaciers will have contributed to a rise of roughly four to six centimeters or even more according to recent estimates. In the longer term, the Arctic contribution to global sea-level rise is projected to be much greater. Some climate models project that local warming over the Greenland Ice Sheet will eventually lead to its complete disappearance, with a resulting sea-level rise of about seven meters. More...
3.4.2 Climate change causes sea level to rise in two ways:
* First, and most significantly, water expands as it warms, and this is projected to be the largest component of sea-level rise over the next 100 years.
* Secondly, warming increases melting of glaciers and ice sheets, adding to the amount of water flowing into the oceans.
Global average sea level rose almost 3mm (0.12 inches) per year during the 1990s. This is about one millimeter (0.04 inches) more per year than during the decades before that. Global average sea level is projected to rise 10 to 90cm (4 to 36 inches) between 2000 and 2100, with the rise speeding up with time. Over the longer term, much larger increases in sea level are projected.
Sea-level rise is projected to have serious implications for coastal communities and industries, islands, river deltas and harbors. A number of the world’s most populous cities such at Calcutta and Bangkok will be severely affected.
:idunno:
thewizeard
12-15-2006, 04:32 PM
..and it might just slip into the Atlantic ocean causing the second largest tsunami ever recorded :)
Ava Estelle
12-15-2006, 04:39 PM
Considering we dont have anything near 30 inches of snow, or the equivalent, covering the land mass of the world, where is all the water going to come from? Is there something they are not telling us?
The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet).
Source (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm)
Virtualbody1234
12-15-2006, 05:10 PM
The understanding of this global warming issue is probably beyond most of the world population. It takes an in-depth analysis to see what we're doing to our planet. Look at it throughly and make your own decision.
I personally think that the solution is to implement some sort of population control. If we don't do it then our planet will force it upon us.
My hopes aren't high about this. People just don't seem to want to agree about anything.
bigboab
12-15-2006, 07:46 PM
The understanding of this global warming issue is probably beyond most of the world population. It takes an in-depth analysis to see what we're doing to our planet. Look at it throughly and make your own decision.
I personally think that the solution is to implement some sort of population control. If we don't do it then our planet will force it upon us.
My hopes aren't high about this. People just don't seem to want to agree about anything.
Yes I agree. I have had two different answers to my question. Both cannot be correct, both could be wrong though.:) I think I will get the spreadsheet working.:lol:
Ava Estelle
12-16-2006, 06:24 AM
I have had two different answers to my question. Both cannot be correct, both could be wrong though.
Really? They look the same to me. You asked where the sea level rise would come from if all the ice melted, "If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet)."
We know you're an advocate of doing nothing, as your lords and masters the oil companies suggest...
How fucking dopey is that?
Not as 'fucking dopey' as putting your trust in oil companies...
Please indicate for me where I ever said anything about oil companies, one way or another?
Or do you consider my "trust in oil companies" to be implicit, somehow?
That's just wrong; the only thing I take on faith where you are concerned is your dishonesty, intellectual and otherwise.
The point is, he once posted here railing against people who cut and paste.
Yet another example.
"It's okay for others, just not for j2"
I did "rail" against "people who cut-and-paste"; yes, I did, in response to idiots like you, who would prefer exclusivity on that point.
You fail to mention this, however.
You have this in common with Busyman, BTW.
Among other things.
Well, hell...what can I expect from an anti-free-speech Communist, right?
bigboab
12-16-2006, 08:00 AM
I have had two different answers to my question. Both cannot be correct, both could be wrong though.
Really? They look the same to me. You asked where the sea level rise would come from if all the ice melted, "If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet)."
Barbarossa
There are 3 100 000 km3 of ice on Arctic lands around the world, containing enough water to raise the global sea level by 8m. Most Arctic glaciers and ice caps have been in decline since the early 1960s, with this trend speeding up in the 1990s. In some areas, the increase in precipitation has outpaced the melting so that a small number of glaciers, especially in Scandinavia, have gained mass during some recent years.
Take a look at the answer above. It says it would rise by 8 metres and that is for the total ice mass of the world. That is only about 13% of the levels you quote that would just come from Antarctica.
Ava Estelle
12-16-2006, 08:05 AM
... is your dishonesty, intellectual and otherwise
Well, hell...what can I expect from an anti-free-speech Communist, right?
Priceless! The sillier you're made to look, the more insulting you get.
A poor substitute for substance, but what can you expect from an ass licking, party line toeing, Barbie doll?
Have you thought of a spot of maintenance, maybe a new string and a few original platitudes?
Ava Estelle
12-16-2006, 08:07 AM
Take a look at the answer above. It says it would rise by 8 metres and that is for the total ice mass of the world. That is only about 13% of the levels you quote that would just come from Antarctica.
BB, check that quote, it says ARCTIC lands, that's up North, I quoted ANTARCTIC lands, that's down South.
Really? They look the same to me. You asked where the sea level rise would come from if all the ice melted, "If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet)."
Barbarossa
There are 3 100 000 km3 of ice on Arctic lands around the world, containing enough water to raise the global sea level by 8m. Most Arctic glaciers and ice caps have been in decline since the early 1960s, with this trend speeding up in the 1990s. In some areas, the increase in precipitation has outpaced the melting so that a small number of glaciers, especially in Scandinavia, have gained mass during some recent years.
Take a look at the answer above. It says it would rise by 8 metres and that is for the total ice mass of the world. That is only about 13% of the levels you quote that would just come from Antarctica.
Yes, Boab, but the 61 meter, 200-foot thingie was what Ava's google yielded, so you're stuck with that.
Deal with it. :dabs:
Ava Estelle
12-16-2006, 08:16 AM
Deal with it. :dabs:
Haha! Wrong time of month Barbie?
bigboab
12-16-2006, 08:25 AM
Barbarossa
There are 3 100 000 km3 of ice on Arctic lands around the world, containing enough water to raise the global sea level by 8m. Most Arctic glaciers and ice caps have been in decline since the early 1960s, with this trend speeding up in the 1990s. In some areas, the increase in precipitation has outpaced the melting so that a small number of glaciers, especially in Scandinavia, have gained mass during some recent years.
Take a look at the answer above. It says it would rise by 8 metres and that is for the total ice mass of the world. That is only about 13% of the levels you quote that would just come from Antarctica.
Yes, Boab, but the 61 meter, 200-foot thingie was what Ava's google yielded, so you're stuck with that.
Deal with it. :dabs:
I have Googled a bit more. It seems that Ava has underestimated the rise that would occur. I have found quotes(3) that say over 70 metres. Barbie does say the Arctic which would not affect the levels much because most of it is 'ice cube'.
So I have found out where the water is going to come from. Thanks Ava.
P.S. I still find the figures incredulous but will have to accept them or go to the Antarctic and measure for myself.:lol:
Thanks to all who replied.:)
Busyman™
12-16-2006, 02:26 PM
"It's okay for others, just not for j2"
I did "rail" against "people who cut-and-paste"; yes, I did, in response to idiots like you, who would prefer exclusivity on that point.
You fail to mention this, however.
You have this in common with Busyman, BTW.
Among other things.
Please explain. I am not the first or only one to talk about about your CNP and what "other things"?
This "exclusivity" must be the entire board. You used to CNP very opinionated articles with nary point made by yourself. You've just got slightly better by adding a preface or epilogue. Usually it says, "Thie article sums up my views nicely."
Some people use facts and such articles to form their own opinion. Others post someone else's opinion and adopt it.:dabs:
"It's okay for others, just not for j2"
I did "rail" against "people who cut-and-paste"; yes, I did, in response to idiots like you, who would prefer exclusivity on that point.
You fail to mention this, however.
You have this in common with Busyman, BTW.
Among other things.
Please explain. I am not the first or only one to talk about about your CNP and what "other things"?
This "exclusivity" must be the entire board. You used to CNP very opinionated articles with nary point made by yourself. You've just got slightly better by adding a preface or epilogue. Usually it says, "Thie article sums up my views nicely."
Some people use facts and such articles to form their own opinion. Others post someone else's opinion and adopt it.:dabs:
And still others find an article of opinion that "sums up my views nicely".
What of that, and what should be required apart from a statement signifying agreement with it's content?
If I do a total C & P, and adorn it with such an introduction, I mean to say that I find it's content agreeable, and that it is as well- or better-constructed than any effort of my own, not to mention the savings of effort and time.
Others do this sort of thing all the time, much more often than I do, and most often with even less accompanying commentary.
In my case, though, you seem to feel this signifies some sort of shortcoming.
BTW-
I have taken your advice and found an audience willing to entertain any felt need on my part to use the "N"-word.
If you stumble through the door by mistake, would I have to stop?
Busyman™
12-16-2006, 04:26 PM
Please explain. I am not the first or only one to talk about about your CNP and what "other things"?
This "exclusivity" must be the entire board. You used to CNP very opinionated articles with nary point made by yourself. You've just got slightly better by adding a preface or epilogue. Usually it says, "Thie article sums up my views nicely."
Some people use facts and such articles to form their own opinion. Others post someone else's opinion and adopt it.:dabs:
And still others find an article of opinion that "sums up my views nicely".
What of that, and what should be required apart from a statement signifying agreement with it's content?
If I do a total C & P, and adorn it with such an introduction, I mean to say that I find it's content agreeable, and that it is as well- or better-constructed than any effort of my own, not to mention the savings of effort and time.
Others do this sort of thing all the time, much more often than I do, and most often with even less accompanying commentary.
In my case, though, you seem to feel this signifies some sort of shortcoming.
BTW-
I have taken your advice and found an audience willing to entertain any felt need on my part to use the "N"-word.
If you stumble through the door by mistake, would I have to stop?
First off, I still duuno where you get that it's just me and Ava. We are not the first or only ones.
Second, the only time you seem to express an opinion (whenever that happens) is when it's hidden behind an opinionated article.
When pressed about a straight opinion absent of a CNP, you clam up like a cringed cunt....unless it's after 6 pages of folks asking.
It just seems you come with your opinions on here based whether or not you found a recent article. You seem intelligent but your lack of insightfulness coupled with constant piggybacking and round about wording to something simple lends me to believe otherwise.
I wouldn't have had an opinion on the whole matter just now had you not incorrectly mentioned my name.:P
First off, I still duuno where you get that it's just me and Ava. We are not the first or only ones.
I never said it was "just you and Ava".
You were just the first one to come to mind, probably due to your relentless note of it.
There are others, I just chose not to mention them.
Second, the only time you seem to express an opinion (whenever that happens) is when it's hidden behind an opinionated article.
Utterly incorrect, but where your own postage is concerned, I find it more effective to poke holes by asking questions, which activity is exceedingly easy.
Truly, though, anyone so inclined could deduce my views from the types of questions I ask.
Your problem is getting so caught-up being offended and feeling put-upon thereby that you entirely miss the point, as well as my actual opinion(s).
I don't wonder at all why you feel the way you do; after all, I intend you to feel that way until you learn to look beyond your pique and think properly.
BTW-
You are progressing, no matter your occasional discomfort.
When pressed about a straight opinion absent of a CNP, you clam up like a cringed cunt....unless it's after 6 pages of folks asking.
You would deny me the enjoyment of stringing you along?
It also increases your appreciation of the profundity of my views, a perk I find particularly gratifying.
It just seems you come with your opinions on here based whether or not you found a recent article. You seem intelligent but your lack of insightfulness coupled with constant piggybacking and round about wording to something simple lends me to believe otherwise.
Now, this paragraph well demonstrates your own lack of insight.
I wouldn't have had an opinion on the whole matter just now had you not incorrectly mentioned my name.:P
While you puzzle over the propriety of my mentioning your name, I will put this thread on the "mission accomplished" pile.
Busyman™
12-16-2006, 07:19 PM
First off, I still duuno where you get that it's just me and Ava. We are not the first or only ones.
I never said it was "just you and Ava".
You were just the first one to come to mind, probably due to your relentless note of it.
Relentless? I hardly note it at all. Normally when people CNP it's actually a news article and so the person may not have much to say. You post opinion articles that I wouldn't care to read anyway.....and they are quite lengthy. The last one I read was a complete waste of time. In contrast, vid may post an article that is fact based. You have posted articles that were fact based and I found them quite interesting.
There are others, I just chose not to mention them.
No shit. You mentioned me and 1234 for other reasons.
Second, the only time you seem to express an opinion (whenever that happens) is when it's hidden behind an opinionated article.
Utterly incorrect, but where your own postage is concerned, I find it more effective to poke holes by asking questions, which activity is exceedingly easy.
Truly, though, anyone so inclined could deduce my views from the types of questions I ask.
Your problem is getting so caught-up being offended and feeling put-upon thereby that you entirely miss the point, as well as my actual opinion(s).
You offend by mucking up your questions with shit like calling me "brother". Stay the direct root and you'll be okay but I know that's hard for you. I prefer to be direct rather than fuck around. We get enough of that from politicians.
I don't wonder at all why you feel the way you do; after all, I intend you to feel that way until you learn to look beyond your pique and think properly.
What's my pique?
BTW-
You are progressing, no matter your occasional discomfort.
Progressing at what? Posting style. You put much into it than I do.
When pressed about a straight opinion absent of a CNP, you clam up like a cringed cunt....unless it's after 6 pages of folks asking.
You would deny me the enjoyment of stringing you along?
Stringing along would mean that I'm actually wondering what your view is.
The problem with you is you act as if you are afraid to say it while I am not.
You post as if you are a politician at the podium of a bipartisan party.
It also increases your appreciation of the profundity of my views, a perk I find particularly gratifying.
But....your views are not profound. I won't call them shit (cuz I share some of them) but hardly profound. I think you have the ego on here that you've never had in real life.
It just seems you come with your opinions on here based whether or not you found a recent article. You seem intelligent but your lack of insightfulness coupled with constant piggybacking and round about wording to something simple lends me to believe otherwise.
Now, this paragraph well demonstrates your own lack of insight.
I wouldn't have had an opinion on the whole matter just now had you not incorrectly mentioned my name.:P
While you puzzle over the propriety of my mentioning your name, I will put this thread on the "mission accomplished" pile.
Now I puzzle?:lol:
If you feel better, that's all that matters, jay. Good job on accomplishing your "mission".:)
MagicNakor
12-16-2006, 07:50 PM
I have Googled a bit more. It seems that Ava has underestimated the rise that would occur. I have found quotes(3) that say over 70 metres. Barbie does say the Arctic which would not affect the levels much because most of it is 'ice cube'.
So I have found out where the water is going to come from. Thanks Ava.
P.S. I still find the figures incredulous but will have to accept them or go to the Antarctic and measure for myself.:lol:
Thanks to all who replied.:)
There is also a large amount of water beneath the sea floor, and I would imagine the change in pressure and temperature to affect how much remains beneath it.
:shuriken:
bigboab
12-16-2006, 08:44 PM
I have Googled a bit more. It seems that Ava has underestimated the rise that would occur. I have found quotes(3) that say over 70 metres. Barbie does say the Arctic which would not affect the levels much because most of it is 'ice cube'.
So I have found out where the water is going to come from. Thanks Ava.
P.S. I still find the figures incredulous but will have to accept them or go to the Antarctic and measure for myself.:lol:
Thanks to all who replied.:)
There is also a large amount of water beneath the sea floor, and I would imagine the change in pressure and temperature to affect how much remains beneath it.
:shuriken:
I should imagine if that 'gets out' it would be replaced by sea water. :)
MagicNakor
12-16-2006, 10:17 PM
I believe it already is salt water... I suppose if the melting ice triggers the expulsion of this previously trapped water, the only place for the water to go...is up. Guess I will be living on the Coast again after all. :P
:shuriken:
I believe it already is salt water... I suppose if the melting ice triggers the expulsion of this previously trapped water, the only place for the water to go...is up. :shuriken:
:noes:
MagicNakor
12-17-2006, 01:12 AM
http://www.ub.uit.no/northernlights/images/malstrom03d.jpg
That's far more depressing.
:shuriken:
http://www.ub.uit.no/northernlights/images/malstrom03d.jpg
That's far more depressing.
:shuriken:
Yeah.
Wood cuts will do that to you. :(
Ava Estelle
12-17-2006, 05:09 AM
I think you have the ego on here that you've never had in real life.
Spot on. :yup:
I think you have the ego on here that you've never had in real life.
I "have the ego" whenever and wherever I need it.
People constantly need to be relieved of their ignorance, and it is difficult to perform that service without a large ego.
Most do not require such treatment as you do, however, as they are not so resistant to sense and logic.
They realize this is not an adversarial endeavor.
vidcc
12-25-2006, 12:26 AM
Disappearing world: Global warming claims tropical island
For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas. Environment Editor Geoffrey Lean reports
Published: 24 December 2006
Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.
As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.
Eight years ago, as exclusively reported in The Independent on Sunday, the first uninhabited islands - in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati - vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.
It has been officially recorded in a six-year study of the Sunderbans by researchers at Calcutta's Jadavpur University. So remote is the island that the researchers first learned of its submergence, and that of an uninhabited neighbouring island, Suparibhanga, when they saw they had vanished from satellite pictures.
Two-thirds of nearby populated island Ghoramara has also been permanently inundated. Dr Sugata Hazra, director of the university's School of Oceanographic Studies, says "it is only a matter of some years" before it is swallowed up too. Dr Hazra says there are now a dozen "vanishing islands" in India's part of the delta. The area's 400 tigers are also in danger.
Until now the Carteret Islands off Papua New Guinea were expected to be the first populated ones to disappear, in about eight years' time, but Lohachara has beaten them to the dubious distinction.
Human cost of global warming: Rising seas will soon make 70,000 people homeless
Refugees from the vanished Lohachara island and the disappearing Ghoramara island have fled to Sagar, but this island has already lost 7,500 acres of land to the sea. In all, a dozen islands, home to 70,000 people, are in danger of being submerged by the rising seas.
Also in this section
source (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece)
MagicNakor
12-25-2006, 03:02 AM
http://www.call-of-the-sea.com/potpourri/images/atlantis_kampanakis.gif
Not entirely unprecedented.
:shuriken:
http://www.call-of-the-sea.com/potpourri/images/atlantis_kampanakis.gif
Not entirely unprecedented.
:shuriken:
Ah yes.
An Ice Age or so ago, no?
In any case well before the last several threatened/imagined ones.:dabs:
Just think, to be thought of in the same breath as Atlantis...
It's thrilling, utterly thrilling. :whistling
Ava Estelle
12-25-2006, 07:16 AM
I think you have the ego on here that you've never had in real life.People constantly need to be relieved of their ignorance, and it is difficult to perform that service without a large ego.
Funny you should say that, because there are a number of us on here who relieve you of your ignorance on a regular basis, without an over inflated ego, or the need to claim social and intellectual superiority.
PS: Happy Summer Solstice everyone. :)
Everose
12-26-2006, 02:26 AM
In my area, J2, we have a lot of bio-diesel / alternative fuel plants springing up. A lot of these plants are and will be using a steady supply of feed corn to produce the alcohol used in these fuels.
When you consider the fact that we also have some of the largest cattle feed lots in the country here, you can imagine what is already happening to the price of corn per bushel. We have seen increases up to a dollar per bushel of corn recently. That will be reflected in the cost of producing beef.
I can only wonder what that will do to supply.
In my area, J2, we have a lot of bio-diesel / alternative fuel plants springing up. A lot of these plants are and will be using a steady supply of feed corn to produce the alcohol used in these fuels.
When you consider the fact that we also have some of the largest cattle feed lots in the country here, you can imagine what is already happening to the price of corn per bushel. We have seen increases up to a dollar per bushel of corn recently. That will be reflected in the cost of producing beef.
I can only wonder what that will do to supply.
I predict someone will manage to profit handily from a circumstance that bodes slightly ill for others.
BTW-
I heard recently (about a month ago) that organically-grown chicken totally sucks from a health/nourishment/cholesterol/taste point-of-view.
I don't wonder why, but I do laugh about that.:)
People constantly need to be relieved of their ignorance, and it is difficult to perform that service without a large ego.
Funny you should say that, because there are a number of us on here who relieve you of your ignorance on a regular basis, without an over inflated ego, or the need to claim social and intellectual superiority.
Never mind others; perhaps you'd furnish some sort of reference to any instance where you yourself would claim to have done what you just described. :dabs:
Ava Estelle
12-26-2006, 05:27 AM
perhaps you'd furnish some sort of reference to any instance where you yourself would claim to have done what you just described. :dabs:
That would be a rather pointless exercise with someone who, even now, believes there are WMDs in Iraq, and that the US have brought democracy to Afghanistan. Jesus Christ himself would have trouble getting you to admit you were wrong about anything. :lol:
perhaps you'd furnish some sort of reference to any instance where you yourself would claim to have done what you just described. :dabs:
That would be a rather pointless exercise with someone who, even now, believes there are WMDs in Iraq, and that the US have brought democracy to Afghanistan. Jesus Christ himself would have trouble getting you to admit you were wrong about anything. :lol:
Spoken like a true weasel, Ava. ;)
Ava Estelle
12-26-2006, 11:08 AM
Spoken like a true weasel, Ava. ;)
Bless you my son.
Disappearing world: Global warming claims tropical island
For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas. Environment Editor Geoffrey Lean reports
Published: 24 December 2006
Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.
As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.
Eight years ago, as exclusively reported in The Independent on Sunday, the first uninhabited islands - in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati - vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.
It has been officially recorded in a six-year study of the Sunderbans by researchers at Calcutta's Jadavpur University. So remote is the island that the researchers first learned of its submergence, and that of an uninhabited neighbouring island, Suparibhanga, when they saw they had vanished from satellite pictures.
Two-thirds of nearby populated island Ghoramara has also been permanently inundated. Dr Sugata Hazra, director of the university's School of Oceanographic Studies, says "it is only a matter of some years" before it is swallowed up too. Dr Hazra says there are now a dozen "vanishing islands" in India's part of the delta. The area's 400 tigers are also in danger.
Until now the Carteret Islands off Papua New Guinea were expected to be the first populated ones to disappear, in about eight years' time, but Lohachara has beaten them to the dubious distinction.
Human cost of global warming: Rising seas will soon make 70,000 people homeless
Refugees from the vanished Lohachara island and the disappearing Ghoramara island have fled to Sagar, but this island has already lost 7,500 acres of land to the sea. In all, a dozen islands, home to 70,000 people, are in danger of being submerged by the rising seas.
Also in this section
source (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece)
Lohachara Island actually disappeared about 20 years ago.
The northwards progression of the Indian plate is causing it to tilt slightly and as a result the whole area is slowly sinking. It has absolutely nothing to do with sea level rise.
Ava Estelle
12-26-2006, 01:39 PM
Lohachara Island actually disappeared about 20 years ago.
It didn't disappear, it was flooded, some people went back again.
Agrajag
12-26-2006, 02:09 PM
Did it sink or was it flooded.
I think we have a right to know.
wikipedia knows all
Lohachara Island was an islet on the Sundarban river delta in the Sundarban National Park, located near the Indian state of West Bengal which was permanently flooded in the 1980s.[1]
The islet is one of a number of "vanishing islands" in India's part of the delta: in the past two decades, four islands - Bedford, Lohachara, Kabasgadi and Suparibhanga - have sunk into the sea and 6,000 families have been made homeless.[2] Although other islands have disappeared due to various man-made construction projects, Lohachara was the first inhabited island to disappear, purportedly due to global warming.[3] There are multiple causes[4] of the disappearances of islands in the delta, including sea-level rise , coastal erosion, cyclones(the number has reduced but intensity increased[5]), mangrove destruction and coastal flooding. The loss of land has created thousands of refugees in the area.
Overall population of the Sundarbans has risen 200% to nearly 4.3 million.
edit: have been reading up on sea level rises. The whole glacier rebound thing and plate tectonics does seem to add a lot of uncertainty to the whole thing. Interesting and slightly sceptical view of sea level rises (http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm)
Agrajag
12-26-2006, 09:15 PM
So that's a "don't know" then.
Any discussion of plate tectonics is disallowed when debating global warming, as it doesn't fit any "acceptable" scenarios.
Under the global warming guidelines (as outlined in the global warming handbook, Global Warming for Dummies), all floodings/sinkings/inundations are due solely to melting glaciers.
Agrajag
12-26-2006, 09:46 PM
So the words natural moveage isn't allowed.
Sorry, my bad.
Well Lynx's actually.
Damn you Lynx, for your alluring arguments.
vidcc
12-27-2006, 12:22 AM
The thing I find about the "man has nothing to do with global warming" blow hards is that they argue with straw men.
Nobody said "global warming (sea temperatures rising) will cause more hurricanes" they said global warming will increase the severity of the hurricanes that occur.
Nobody in the scientific community has said that warming/cooling cycles are not natural, they said pollution is speeding the process up.
outgoing Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works James Inhofe (R-OK) argued that the current wave of unprecedented warming is due to “natural changes.” “God’s still up there,” Inhofe said, and to the extent there is warming going on, it is “due to the sun.”
Well no shit sherlock, but the scientist are not denying that the main heat source is the sun, they are saying that man's pollution has affected the way the earth deals with the radiation.
I am left wondering what the point of creating a "hoax" like global warming would be trying to achieve. Stossel suggests it's because some people hate profit, it's a socialist conspiracy.
Personally I think man has affected the planet, this doesn't mean I agree with a "green tax", I would go more for tax breaks based on less pollution instead of more tax, if you want to pay less tax, clean up your act.
Busyman™
12-27-2006, 01:36 AM
The thing I find about the "man has nothing to do with global warming" blow hards is that they argue with straw men.
Nobody said "global warming (sea temperatures rising) will cause more hurricanes" they said global warming will increase the severity of the hurricanes that occur.
Nobody in the scientific community has said that warming/cooling cycles are not natural, they said pollution is speeding the process up.
outgoing Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works James Inhofe (R-OK) argued that the current wave of unprecedented warming is due to “natural changes.” “God’s still up there,” Inhofe said, and to the extent there is warming going on, it is “due to the sun.”
Well no shit sherlock, but the scientist are not denying that the main heat source is the sun, they are saying that man's pollution has affected the way the earth deals with the radiation.
I am left wondering what the point of creating a "hoax" like global warming would be trying to achieve. Stossel suggests it's because some people hate profit, it's a socialist conspiracy.
Personally I think man has affected the planet, this doesn't mean I agree with a "green tax", I would go more for tax breaks based on less pollution instead of more tax, if you want to pay less tax, clean up your act.
Is your avatar from Silent Night Deadly Night?
vidcc
12-27-2006, 02:33 AM
Is your avatar from Silent Night Deadly Night?
No caddyshack .......at least i thought it was :unsure:
:P
kazaaman
12-27-2006, 03:07 AM
You guys should watch "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. It really does have a lotta facts straight and even if you don't believe in Global Warming, curbing it cant hurt. Temp levels are hell of a lot higher than the normal earth cycle's temperatures. Global Warming is an inevitable truth & fact and must be curbed.
Ava Estelle
12-27-2006, 05:31 AM
Nobody said "global warming (sea temperatures rising) will cause more hurricanes" they said global warming will increase the severity of the hurricanes that occur.
I'm afraid you're wrong there vidcc, huricanes, (cyclones, typhoons), all form at sea, and they don't form until the sea temperature reaches a very critical point, 26.5 °C (80°F), for every hurricane that forms, many more don't quite make it. If you increase the sea temperature even a half degree it will increase the number of hurricanes.
thewizeard
12-27-2006, 08:00 AM
Gloabal warming is leading to a new Ice Age... sooner than you all could possibly imagine..
Buy stocks and shares in fossil fuels, now....
You guys should watch "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. It really does have a lotta facts straight. Global Warming is an inevitable truth & fact and must be curbed.
I think Al Gore should be curbed; others agree...:dry:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Or are the Canadians notorious for their abuse of the environment. :whistling
MagicNakor
12-27-2006, 11:23 AM
That site, despite the name, isn't even Canadian. They tried, however; badly Photoshopped images of Bloc leaders are a hallmark of every reputable news source up here. Maybe next time they'll remember to remove their State-centric ones and fool us all. :rolleyes:
:shuriken:
Ava Estelle
12-27-2006, 11:39 AM
... others agree...:dry:
The first quote there was from Bob Carter ... and guess who 'funds' him?
Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change skeptics. :lol:
vidcc
12-27-2006, 06:59 PM
Nobody said "global warming (sea temperatures rising) will cause more hurricanes" they said global warming will increase the severity of the hurricanes that occur.
I'm afraid you're wrong there vidcc, huricanes, (cyclones, typhoons), all form at sea, and they don't form until the sea temperature reaches a very critical point, 26.5 °C (80°F), for every hurricane that forms, many more don't quite make it. If you increase the sea temperature even a half degree it will increase the number of hurricanes.
And now you are saying what the scientist are not.
A hurricane doesn't form because the sea reaches a certain temperature, it requires other factors to exist. The rising of the sea temperature doesn't cause those other factors.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_hurricanes.htm
Right wingers have been attacking Al Gore saying he said there would be more hurricanes, then cited that 2006 was the quietest season in a decade as proof that Gore was wrong. The problem is that Gore didn't say that there would be more hurricanes, he said hurricanes would be more intense.
Add to that there are other factors that can reduce the number and intensity of hurricanes on a year to year basis.
Storms were starved for fuel after ingesting masses of dry Saharan dust and air over the Atlantic Ocean. Scientists say the storm-snuffing dust was more abundant than usual this year.
In the season’s peak, storms were curving right like errant field goals. High pressure that normally hunkers near Bermuda shifted far eastward, and five storms rode the clockwise winds away from Florida.
Finally, a rapidly growing El Nino, a warming of water over the tropical Pacific Ocean, shifted winds high in the atmosphere southward. The winds left developing storms disheveled and unable to become organized.
source (http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBHKNBE0VE.html)
vidcc
12-27-2006, 07:07 PM
I think Al Gore should be curbed; others agree...:dry:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Or are the Canadians notorious for their abuse of the environment. :whistling
No shit???? A bunch of right wingers (that may be posing as Canadians) think Al Gore should be curbed :rolleyes:
I can't say I'm surprised though, free speech and freedoms in general are on the right wing hit list of enemies that must be destroyed :rolleyes:
Ava Estelle
12-28-2006, 04:28 AM
A hurricane doesn't form because the sea reaches a certain temperature,
I didn't say 'because', I said 'until'.
In my area we have had a record number of cyclones, and they were, on average, more intense.
MagicNakor
12-29-2006, 08:06 AM
TORONTO: A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, scientists said.
The mass of ice broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometers (497 miles) south of the North Pole, but no one was present to see it in Canada's remote north. Scientists using satellite images later noticed that it became a newly formed ice island in just an hour and left a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake.
Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and could not believe what he saw.
"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are loosing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead," Vincent said Thursday.
In 10 years of working in the region he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice, he said.
The collapse was so powerful that earthquake monitors 250 kilometers (155 miles) away picked up tremors from it.
The Ayles Ice Shelf, roughly 66 square kilometers (41 square miles) in area, was one of six major ice shelves remaining in Canada's Arctic.
Scientists say it is the largest event of its kind in Canada in 30 years and point their fingers at climate change as a major contributing factor.
"It is consistent with climate change," Vincent said, adding that the remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906.
"We aren't able to connect all of the dots ... but unusually warm temperatures definitely played a major role."
Laurie Weir, who monitors ice conditions for the Canadian Ice Service, was poring over satellite images in 2005 when she noticed that the shelf had split and separated.
Weir notified Luke Copland, head of the new global ice lab at the University of Ottawa, who initiated an effort to find out what happened.
Using U.S. and Canadian satellite images, as well as data from seismic monitors, Copland discovered that the ice shelf collapsed in the early afternoon of Aug. 13, 2005.
"What surprised us was how quickly it happened," Copland said. "It's pretty alarming. Even 10 years ago scientists assumed that when global warming changes occur that it would happen gradually so that perhaps we expected these ice shelves just to melt away quite slowly, but the big surprise is that for one they are going, but secondly that when they do go, they just go suddenly, it's all at once, in a span of an hour."
Within days, the floating ice shelf had drifted a few miles (kilometers) offshore. It traveled west for 50 kilometers (31 miles) until it finally froze into the sea ice in the early winter.
The Canadian ice shelves are packed with ancient ice that dates back over 3000 years. They float on the sea but are connected to land.
Derek Mueller, a polar researcher with Vincent's team, said the ice shelves get weaker and weaker as the temperature rises. He visited Ellesmere's Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in 2002 and noticed it had cracked in half.
"We're losing our ice shelves and this a feature of the landscape that is in danger of disappearing altogether from Canada," Mueller said. "In the global perspective Antarctica has many ice shelves bigger than this one, but then there is the idea that these are indicators of climate change."
The spring thaw may bring another concern as the warming temperatures could release the ice shelf from its Arctic grip. Prevailing winds could then send the ice island southwards, deep into the Beaufort Sea.
"Over the next few years this ice island could drift into populated shipping routes," Weir said. "There's significant oil and gas development in this region as well, so we'll have to keep monitoring its location over the next few years."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/29/america/NA_GEN_Canada_Arctic_Ice_Break.php
Just a flesh wound.
:shuriken:
kazaaman
12-29-2006, 05:56 PM
That site, despite the name, isn't even Canadian. They tried, however; badly Photoshopped images of Bloc leaders are a hallmark of every reputable news source up here. Maybe next time they'll remember to remove their State-centric ones and fool us all.
Yes, that site is total bullshit. Please get your facts straight jk24 (from reliable sources btw). Whether or not you think, global warming is true or not, the earth is going to change considerably in the future as up and coming nations such as China and India use more resources. They don't have the technology yet to be efficient like the U.S. does. It is a pity that w/ all this great technology we don't do anything except ignore something so vital. This is our planet for cryin' out loud. We should protect it to the best our abilities! And Btw, a good side effect of helping the environment, you save lots of money too. It's a good business incentive so why aren't more people doing it anyway? God damn lazy a**holes.
MagicNakor
12-29-2006, 07:05 PM
http://www.wildfoto.com/wildlife_image10.jpg
http://penguins.servehttp.com/img/pics/baby_1.jpg
http://www.kentfeiler.com/zoo/bins/polarTN.jpg
Why do you hate us?
:shuriken:
MagicNakor
12-29-2006, 07:11 PM
That site, despite the name, isn't even Canadian. They tried, however; badly Photoshopped images of Liberal leaders are a hallmark of every reputable news source up here. Maybe next time they'll remember to remove their State-centric ones and fool us all.
Fixed.
Incidentally I posted the initial statement while drunk, and am now correcting it while high.
:shuriken:
vidcc
12-29-2006, 07:29 PM
http://www.wildfoto.com/wildlife_image10.jpg
http://penguins.servehttp.com/img/pics/baby_1.jpg
http://www.kentfeiler.com/zoo/bins/polarTN.jpg
Why do you hate us?
They undermine traditional American family values. All of them raise young out of wedlock and it turns out the penguin values are even more questionable....it's not uncommon for a same sex pair to raise the chick during it's most influential stage of development. ;) :shifty:
That site, despite the name, isn't even Canadian. They tried, however; badly Photoshopped images of Bloc leaders are a hallmark of every reputable news source up here. Maybe next time they'll remember to remove their State-centric ones and fool us all.
Yes, that site is total bullshit. Please get your facts straight jk24 (from reliable sources btw). Whether or not you think, global warming is true or not, the earth is going to change considerably in the future as up and coming nations such as China and India use more resources. They don't have the technology yet to be efficient like the U.S. does. It is a pity that w/ all this great technology we don't do anything except ignore something so vital. This is our planet for cryin' out loud. We should protect it to the best our abilities! And Btw, a good side effect of helping the environment, you save lots of money too. It's a good business incentive so why aren't more people doing it anyway? God damn lazy a**holes.
Well, I guess our basic difference could be distilled to something along the lines of, "What criteria are you willing to employ in service of the idea that information you've consumed is of a grade superior to that of your opponent?"
Here's a newsflash for you-
If I trip over anything that counters your agenda in any way, I'm going to stick it in your ear, just to rattle your fucking cage.
My agenda (insofar as I have one) is not anti-environmental in any way, it is formulated solely to counter your emphasis on this particular point.
Now, I know you will not take the time to properly absorb, mull, or otherwise digest this post in order to refine your understanding of my beliefs on this matter, but I am well-aware you feel able to cast my "global-warming" stance in concrete you are mixing yourself.
BTW-
Go find a headline you think supports your ideas about global warming, and I'll bat it around awhile; see how it holds up?
One more thing:
Would you say that (and I do want you to answer this question) your stance is "pro-" or "anti-" global-warming?
http://www.wildfoto.com/wildlife_image10.jpg
http://penguins.servehttp.com/img/pics/baby_1.jpg
http://www.kentfeiler.com/zoo/bins/polarTN.jpg
Why do you hate us?
:shuriken:
Why, just the other day, I asked young Bill Ford how he could possibly bear the guilt of knowing that he and other Americans like him were one-hundred percent responsible for the scourge of global warming.
He just grinned, and said, "I know, I know, but I just hate harp seal pups, baby penguins, and polar bear cubs.
What's a poor billionaire to do if he can't seriously engage in a few dislikes....strictly as a hobby, you understand..."
JPaul
12-30-2006, 01:56 AM
http://www.wildfoto.com/wildlife_image10.jpg
http://penguins.servehttp.com/img/pics/baby_1.jpg
http://www.kentfeiler.com/zoo/bins/polarTN.jpg
Why do you hate us?
:shuriken:
We don't, provided there's a decent, well prepared sauce.
kazaaman
12-30-2006, 09:34 PM
Yes, that site is total bullshit. Please get your facts straight jk24 (from reliable sources btw). Whether or not you think, global warming is true or not, the earth is going to change considerably in the future as up and coming nations such as China and India use more resources. They don't have the technology yet to be efficient like the U.S. does. It is a pity that w/ all this great technology we don't do anything except ignore something so vital. This is our planet for cryin' out loud. We should protect it to the best our abilities! And Btw, a good side effect of helping the environment, you save lots of money too. It's a good business incentive so why aren't more people doing it anyway? God damn lazy a**holes.
Well, I guess our basic difference could be distilled to something along the lines of, "What criteria are you willing to employ in service of the idea that information you've consumed is of a grade superior to that of your opponent?"
Here's a newsflash for you-
If I trip over anything that counters your agenda in any way, I'm going to stick it in your ear, just to rattle your fucking cage.
My agenda (insofar as I have one) is not anti-environmental in any way, it is formulated solely to counter your emphasis on this particular point.
Now, I know you will not take the time to properly absorb, mull, or otherwise digest this post in order to refine your understanding of my beliefs on this matter, but I am well-aware you feel able to cast my "global-warming" stance in concrete you are mixing yourself.
BTW-
Go find a headline you think supports your ideas about global warming, and I'll bat it around awhile; see how it holds up?
One more thing:
Would you say that (and I do want you to answer this question) your stance is "pro-" or "anti-" global-warming?
First of all, do you even know what my agenda is?. My agenda isn't very hard to absorb at all and surely isn't difficult to implement. I'm only asking people to think about how their decisions impact the environment and do something to reduce it. No I don't want them to stop having children or stop driving. Those are foolish notions and completely impractical. All a person has to do is their little part to be a part of the solution. By this I mean, recycle, use proper insulation in their homes, drive smart, and be a pioneer. Or as in the words of Gandhi, "Be the change you want to see in the world".
Moving on, the sites where I get my information? Yes I primarily use the first one but learned about the effects of global warming from the second link.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
2. http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
Yes, bits of the wikipedia article may be inaccurate, but for that I use the references on the bottom of the page :P. If you thought that the sites I use are in any way more credible than the ones you use, your completely wrong my friend. I was just saying that site surely did not look like a Canadian site to me.
I don't understand your question about me being pro- or anti- global warming? Is this similar to pro-life, pro-choice. I mean I don't think I can really be against Global Warming because it is going to happen anyway. All I want is that it should be slowed down accordingly so that we can save our planet. As for pro- global warming, who in their right mind would want global warming to happen faster? I guess for your purpose, I could be stated as anti- global warming as I hope it'll be slowed down in the coming years.
I'm only asking people to think about how their decisions impact the environment and do something to reduce it.
Reduce what? The environment?
recycle, use proper insulation in their homes, drive smart, and be a pioneer. Or as in the words of Gandhi, "Be the change you want to see in the world".
While we cannot all be pioneers, we should all certainly do as you suggest; I know that I do.
Moving on, the sites where I get my information? Yes I primarily use the first one but learned about the effects of global warming from the second link.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
2. http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
Yes, bits of the wikipedia article may be inaccurate, but for that I use the references on the bottom of the page :P. If you thought that the sites I use are in any way more credible than the ones you use, your completely wrong my friend. I was just saying that site surely did not look like a Canadian site to me.
Well, then.
There is the fly-in-the-ointment.
You are relying on risky sources in the search for risky information.
Wikipedia we need not even discuss.
As to the other, what attracted you to it?
I'm betting the use of the word CRISIS in the title won your heart and mind as soon as you read it.
But I digress...
I don't understand your question about me being pro- or anti- global warming? Is this similar to pro-life, pro-choice. I mean I don't think I can really be against Global Warming because it is going to happen anyway. All I want is that it should be slowed down accordingly so that we can save our planet. As for pro- global warming, who in their right mind would want global warming to happen faster? I guess for your purpose, I could be stated as anti- global warming as I hope it'll be slowed down in the coming years.
So you can't answer the question, and you seem unclear as to why I asked it...well, that's something, I guess.
In a nut-shell, then:
While nobody I've argued with, debated, agreed or disagreed with would deny evidence we might be on the slight uphill slope of a warming trend, there seems to be a certain type of member who cannot or will not entertain the idea that, not only is the globe warming, but the trend is unnatural (that is to say, it is unlike any such events past), AND irreversible unless we kill all of our cows and stop eating meat, stop using all fossil fuels (especially the USA), tax industry into submission, and expand the scope of environmental regulation until we have emissions sensors mounted on our bathroom walls so that we can be taxed for unauthorized or excessive farting.
All this, with the caveat that all of the associated costs of environmental regulation be borne by the USA and a few other industrialized countries with moderately successful economies, while other countries will be given a pass on their regulatory duties out of some misbgotten sense of "fairness".
I believe that, as individuals, we should practice responsible use and husbandry of any and every resource we consume, as well as several that we do not.
I also believe the reasons for doing so should extend no further than their self-evident sense.
By way of informing myself in order to argue with you, I will cite a lifetime of reading and listening and watching and experiencing things in order that I may think about them, an endeavor that is, for me, without end.
I guess if would be just as effective to remind you that while I was not present for the last Ice Age, I was around the last time an Ice Age was imminent.
I haven't forgotten the tone of the rhetoric, after all.
Agrajag
12-30-2006, 11:42 PM
Reduce what? The environment?
recycle, use proper insulation in their homes, drive smart, and be a pioneer. Or as in the words of Gandhi, "Be the change you want to see in the world".
While we cannot all be pioneers, we should all certainly do as you suggest; I know that I do.
Moving on, the sites where I get my information? Yes I primarily use the first one but learned about the effects of global warming from the second link.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
2. http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
Yes, bits of the wikipedia article may be inaccurate, but for that I use the references on the bottom of the page :P. If you thought that the sites I use are in any way more credible than the ones you use, your completely wrong my friend. I was just saying that site surely did not look like a Canadian site to me.
Well, then.
There is the fly-in-the-ointment.
You are relying on risky sources in the search for risky information.
Wikipedia we need not even discuss.
As to the other, what attracted you to it?
I'm betting the use of the word CRISIS in the title won your heart and mind as soon as you read it.
But I digress...
I don't understand your question about me being pro- or anti- global warming? Is this similar to pro-life, pro-choice. I mean I don't think I can really be against Global Warming because it is going to happen anyway. All I want is that it should be slowed down accordingly so that we can save our planet. As for pro- global warming, who in their right mind would want global warming to happen faster? I guess for your purpose, I could be stated as anti- global warming as I hope it'll be slowed down in the coming years.
So you can't answer the question, and you seem unclear as to why I asked it...well, that's something, I guess.
In a nut-shell, then:
While nobody I've argued with, debated, agreed or disagreed with would deny evidence we might be on the slight uphill slope of a warming trend, there seems to be a certain type of member who cannot or will not entertain the idea that, not only is the globe warming, but the trend is unnatural (that is to say, it is unlike any such events past), AND irreversible unless we kill all of our cows and stop eating meat, stop using all fossil fuels (especially the USA), tax industry into submission, and expand the scope of environmental regulation until we have emissions sensors mounted on our bathroom walls so that we can be taxed for unauthorized or excessive farting.
All this, with the caveat that all of the associated costs of environmental regulation be borne by the USA and a few other industrialized countries with moderately successful economies, while other countries will be given a pass on their regulatory duties out of some misbgotten sense of "fairness".
I believe that, as individuals, we should practice responsible use and husbandry of any and every resource we consume, as well as several that we do not.
I also believe the reasons for doing so should extend no further than their self-evident sense.
By way of informing myself in order to argue with you, I will cite a lifetime of reading and listening and watching and experiencing things in order that I may think about them, an endeavor that is, for me, without end.
I guess if would be just as effective to remind you that while I was not present for the last Ice Age, I was around the last time an Ice Age was imminent.
I haven't forgotten the tone of the rhetoric, after all.
How can you even be bothered to put that much effort in mate.
You must know that they don't bother reading it, far less think about it.
Reduce what? The environment?
While we cannot all be pioneers, we should all certainly do as you suggest; I know that I do.
Moving on, the sites where I get my information? Yes I primarily use the first one but learned about the effects of global warming from the second link.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
2. http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
Yes, bits of the wikipedia article may be inaccurate, but for that I use the references on the bottom of the page :P. If you thought that the sites I use are in any way more credible than the ones you use, your completely wrong my friend. I was just saying that site surely did not look like a Canadian site to me.
Well, then.
There is the fly-in-the-ointment.
You are relying on risky sources in the search for risky information.
Wikipedia we need not even discuss.
As to the other, what attracted you to it?
I'm betting the use of the word CRISIS in the title won your heart and mind as soon as you read it.
But I digress...
I don't understand your question about me being pro- or anti- global warming? Is this similar to pro-life, pro-choice. I mean I don't think I can really be against Global Warming because it is going to happen anyway. All I want is that it should be slowed down accordingly so that we can save our planet. As for pro- global warming, who in their right mind would want global warming to happen faster? I guess for your purpose, I could be stated as anti- global warming as I hope it'll be slowed down in the coming years.
So you can't answer the question, and you seem unclear as to why I asked it...well, that's something, I guess.
In a nut-shell, then:
While nobody I've argued with, debated, agreed or disagreed with would deny evidence we might be on the slight uphill slope of a warming trend, there seems to be a certain type of member who cannot or will not entertain the idea that, not only is the globe warming, but the trend is unnatural (that is to say, it is unlike any such events past), AND irreversible unless we kill all of our cows and stop eating meat, stop using all fossil fuels (especially the USA), tax industry into submission, and expand the scope of environmental regulation until we have emissions sensors mounted on our bathroom walls so that we can be taxed for unauthorized or excessive farting.
All this, with the caveat that all of the associated costs of environmental regulation be borne by the USA and a few other industrialized countries with moderately successful economies, while other countries will be given a pass on their regulatory duties out of some misbgotten sense of "fairness".
I believe that, as individuals, we should practice responsible use and husbandry of any and every resource we consume, as well as several that we do not.
I also believe the reasons for doing so should extend no further than their self-evident sense.
By way of informing myself in order to argue with you, I will cite a lifetime of reading and listening and watching and experiencing things in order that I may think about them, an endeavor that is, for me, without end.
I guess if would be just as effective to remind you that while I was not present for the last Ice Age, I was around the last time an Ice Age was imminent.
I haven't forgotten the tone of the rhetoric, after all.
How can you even be bothered to put that much effort in mate.
You must know that they don't bother reading it, far less think about it.
If you read it, then I am gratified.
If not, well, I'll have it to refer to when others misquote me.
It wouldn't be the first time.
I know someone who'd best read it, or else shut-up. :dabs:
kazaaman
12-31-2006, 12:27 AM
Reduce what? The environment?
Correction* Reduce their impact on the environment ;).
You are relying on risky sources in the search for risky information.
Wikipedia we need not even discuss.
As to the other, what attracted you to it?
I'm betting the use of the word CRISIS in the title won your heart and mind as soon as you read it.
But I digress...
Ok, you've got me there. Wikipedia isn't always accurate but usually it is pretty accurate. The site has many devotees who update and correct their article daily and personally I love it.
So you can't answer the question, and you seem unclear as to why I asked it...well, that's something, I guess.
I guess for your purpose, I could be stated as anti- global warming as I hope it'll be slowed down in the coming years.
:blink: :blink: :blink:
I did answer the question to the best of my ability but was a little confused.
In a nut-shell, then:
While nobody I've argued with, debated, agreed or disagreed with would deny evidence we might be on the slight uphill slope of a warming trend,
Slight? Open your eyes man. Check the link below
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html
there seems to be a certain type of member who cannot or will not entertain the idea that, not only is the globe warming, but the trend is unnatural (that is to say, it is unlike any such events past), AND irreversible unless we kill all of our cows and stop eating meat, stop using all fossil fuels (especially the USA), tax industry into submission, and expand the scope of environmental regulation until we have emissions sensors mounted on our bathroom walls so that we can be taxed for unauthorized or excessive farting.
I am in no way this type of memeber as the tactics below are completely foolish. Global Warming is happening though and we must reduce it as fast as possible so we can help the Earth.
BTW, look at the link again, current trend of global warming is unnatural. I think after you look at the chart you'll see.
All this, with the caveat that all of the associated costs of environmental regulation be borne by the USA and a few other industrialized countries with moderately successful economies, while other countries will be given a pass on their regulatory duties out of some misbgotten sense of "fairness".
The above is unfair. Developing countries need to be environmentally conscious but the USA who has had many years to reduce their impact on the environment hasn't done so and it is a shame....
Just look at Europe (way ahead of us in the USA)
I believe that, as individuals, we should practice responsible use and husbandry of any and every resource we consume, as well as several that we do not.
I also believe the reasons for doing so should extend no further than their self-evident sense.
I guess if would be just as effective to remind you that while I was not present for the last Ice Age, I was around the last time an Ice Age was imminent.
I haven't forgotten the tone of the rhetoric, after all.
What? :blink:
Slight? Open your eyes man. Check the link below
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html
BTW, look at the link again, current trend of global warming is unnatural. I think after you look at the chart you'll see.
Open my eyes?
For God's sake, if all it took to debate effectively was a bunch of links "clicked", then WTF are we doing here?
There is no way on, in, or around Earth to determine whether or not any atmospheric trend is unnatural, or even extraordinary.
We've just heard that the effects, as have been described the past several years, these "facts" upon which you've chosen to predicate your thinking, have been overstated by a significant order of magnitude, yet you don't seem to be taking any of that into account.
Quite simply, it is not as bad as they've been telling you...this according to the same people who've been telling you how bad things are.
Have you modified your thoughts accordingly?
I think not.
Developing countries need to be environmentally conscious but the USA who has had many years to reduce their impact on the environment hasn't done so and it is a shame....
Just look at Europe (way ahead of us in the USA)
The USA does as much and more than any other country on earth to manage both production of pollutants and mitigate their effect.
Europe tries to hew to a high standard as well, but is not by any stretch of the imagination "way ahead of us in the USA".
What, then, about China?
India?
I believe that, as individuals, we should practice responsible use and husbandry of any and every resource we consume, as well as several that we do not.
I also believe the reasons for doing so should extend no further than their self-evident sense.
What? :blink:
I hereby What? your "What?"
Man should be as practically responsible as to consumption and disposal of resources and refuse as is possible.
Is that not simple enough?
Ava Estelle
12-31-2006, 05:05 AM
There is no way on, in, or around Earth to determine whether or not any atmospheric trend is unnatural, or even extraordinary.
According to the oil companies.
We've just heard that the effects, as have been described the past several years, these "facts" upon which you've chosen to predicate your thinking, have been overstated by a significant order of magnitude, yet you don't seem to be taking any of that into account.
25%, and you refuse to take the other 75% into consideration.
Quite simply, it is not as bad as they've been telling you...this according to the same people who've been telling you how bad things are.
They still tell us 4.5 degrees in the next 100 years.
Have you modified your thoughts accordingly?
I think not.
Have you? I think not.
Developing countries need to be environmentally conscious but the USA who has had many years to reduce their impact on the environment hasn't done so and it is a shame....
Just look at Europe (way ahead of us in the USA)
The USA does as much and more than any other country on earth to manage both production of pollutants and mitigate their effect.
Bullshit, the USA is increasing it's polution.
Europe tries to hew to a high standard as well, but is not by any stretch of the imagination "way ahead of us in the USA".
Yes it is ... WAY ahead!
Kazaaman, you're wasting your time with j2k4, his opinions on climate change are funded by the oil companies, the site you mentioned was funded by Exxon Mobil.
His claims that there is no 'proof' of unnatural activity at work here, if it weren't so tragic, would be laughable.
Just to show how weak his argument is, read the first post in this thread again.
"The oceans have been acting like giant storage heaters by trapping heat and carbon dioxide. They might be bit of a time-bomb as they have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere.
"People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens."
Another trick from j2k4 is to post links to articles like THIS (http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm#sum), not read them, then lie about their conclusions, as in, "Eat beef at every meal in the hope we will make cows extinct."
In conclusion Kazaaman, don't waste your time, if you want to change j2k4's mind you'll have to change the minds of the oil companies, whose very existence is threatened by global warming.
.
There is no way on, in, or around Earth to determine whether or not any atmospheric trend is unnatural, or even extraordinary.
According to the oil companies.
We've just heard that the effects, as have been described the past several years, these "facts" upon which you've chosen to predicate your thinking, have been overstated by a significant order of magnitude, yet you don't seem to be taking any of that into account.
25%, and you refuse to take the other 75% into consideration.
Quite simply, it is not as bad as they've been telling you...this according to the same people who've been telling you how bad things are.
They still tell us 4.5 degrees in the next 100 years.
Have you modified your thoughts accordingly?
I think not.
Have you? I think not.
The USA does as much and more than any other country on earth to manage both production of pollutants and mitigate their effect.
Bullshit, the USA is increasing it's polution.
Europe tries to hew to a high standard as well, but is not by any stretch of the imagination "way ahead of us in the USA".
Yes it is ... WAY ahead!
Kazaaman, you're wasting your time with j2k4, his opinions on climate change are funded by the oil companies, the site you mentioned was funded by Exxon Mobil.
His claims that there is no 'proof' of unnatural activity at work here, if it weren't so tragic, would be laughable.
Just to show how weak his argument is, read the first post in this thread again.
"The oceans have been acting like giant storage heaters by trapping heat and carbon dioxide. They might be bit of a time-bomb as they have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere.
"People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens."
Another trick from j2k4 is to post links to articles like THIS (http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm#sum), not read them, then lie about their conclusions, as in, "Eat beef at every meal in the hope we will make cows extinct."
In conclusion Kazaaman, don't waste your time, if you want to change j2k4's mind you'll have to change the minds of the oil companies, whose very existence is threatened by global warming.
.
Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that I am a paid spokesman for the oil companies, and I toil away here in the hopes of misleading all of you. :whistling
Ava Estelle
12-31-2006, 05:57 AM
Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that I am a paid spokesman for the oil companies, and I toil away here in the hopes of misleading all of you. :whistling
Is this new found honesty a New Year's Resolution, or are you temporarily drunk? :)
maebach
12-31-2006, 07:01 AM
I watched 'the Inconveniant Truth' by Al Gore, and it was the best documentary I've ever seen. rly.
There has been more garbage spoken and written about Global Warming this year than has ever been recorded. Fact.
The same was true for the last 10 years at least, and will probably be true for the next 10 years.
j2, do you believe the oil companies are funding and disseminating sometimes dubious research (i.e. muddying the water) about global warming to protect their vested interests, and do you see any parallels with the actions of the cigarette companies trying to counter lung cancer claims back in the day?
j2, do you believe the oil companies are funding and disseminating sometimes dubious research (i.e. muddying the water) about global warming to protect their vested interests, and do you see any parallels with the actions of the cigarette companies trying to counter lung cancer claims back in the day?
Ian, do you believe that, if oil companies published any data which mitigates or counters "popular opinion" with regard to global warming, it will not be read with a jaundiced eye?
They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't, and I don't have to side with them to see that this is the case.
What people overlook is that the global warming lobby has a similar motivation, as many scientists and environmental organizations' livelihoods depend on the fear-mongerers as well.
It literally is the case that many people would lose their jobs if the global warming balloon is even partially deflated; so we have a mass of potential "victims" there, you see?
I will say that as the "jobs" issue goes, people who work for the big oil companies are more productive than those in the fear-monger's guild. :dry:
Y'know, there are no end to the people who say, "read this link"...I'd recommend those same people read a book by Michael Crichton, called State of Fear.
I doubt they will, but hey, I'm doing my part, right?
Ava Estelle
12-31-2006, 04:38 PM
Y'know, there are no end to the people who say, "read this link"...
Kettle - black!
Show me where, in THIS (http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm#sum) link of your, that it says, or intimates, this ... "Eat beef at every meal in the hope we will make cows extinct."
The truth is, you didn't read it, you just guessed what it would have to say.
Y'know, there are no end to the people who say, "read this link"...
Kettle - black!
Show me where, in THIS (http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm#sum) link of your, that it says, or intimates, this ... "Eat beef at every meal in the hope we will make cows extinct."
The truth is, you didn't read it, you just guessed what it would have to say.
Any thinking person could make the leap properly, Ava.
I didn't attribute that sentiment directly to the article, but I'll explain to you how it works, in light of your thickness.
1. Man pollutes, therefore man must pay the price for global warming.
2. Cows pollute, too, and since they exist in excessive numbers owing to man's taste for their flesh, they must pay a price as well.
That man would be deprived of beef, leather, and other cow-by-products is but a bonus.
Ava Estelle
12-31-2006, 05:12 PM
Any thinking person could make the leap properly, Ava.
I didn't attribute that sentiment directly to the article, but I'll explain to you how it works, in light of your thickness.
1. Man pollutes, therefore man must pay the price for global warming.
2. Cows pollute, too, and since they exist in excessive numbers owing to man's taste for their flesh, they must pay a price as well.
That man would be deprived of beef, leather, and other cow-by-products is but a bonus.
That has nothing to do with the article in question, nothing at all. If you had bothered to read it, not just the summary you linked to, but also the 4.8MB, 408 page PDF that it summarised, you would have seen that it addresses the problems caused by livestock, and offers ways to counter the problems. There is no suggestion whatsoever to stop production of livestock at all.
But as I said, you wouldn't know that because you haven't read either the summary or the full article.
Any thinking person could make the leap properly, Ava.
I didn't attribute that sentiment directly to the article, but I'll explain to you how it works, in light of your thickness.
1. Man pollutes, therefore man must pay the price for global warming.
2. Cows pollute, too, and since they exist in excessive numbers owing to man's taste for their flesh, they must pay a price as well.
That man would be deprived of beef, leather, and other cow-by-products is but a bonus.
That has nothing to do with the article in question, nothing at all. If you had bothered to read it, not just the summary you linked to, but also the 4.8MB, 408 page PDF that it summarised, you would have seen that it addresses the problems caused by livestock, and offers ways to counter the problems. There is no suggestion whatsoever to stop production of livestock at all.
But as I said, you wouldn't know that because you haven't read either the summary or the full article.
Actually, I did, but you've put your finger directly on the problem:
Nobody else would have, especially the hard-core enviros, and certainly not you, had you not been so keen to try to counter me.
Ava Estelle
12-31-2006, 05:29 PM
Actually, I did, but you've put your finger directly on the problem:
Nobody else would have, especially the hard-core enviros, and certainly not you, had you not been so keen to try to counter me.
Wrong ... I don't believe you read anything, or you wouldn't have posted that conclusion. As to me, I'm a prolific reader, I read not only the summary but all 408 pages of the PDF file too, and not just to counter you, that's a given, but because I have a genuine interest.
Actually, I did, but you've put your finger directly on the problem:
Nobody else would have, especially the hard-core enviros, and certainly not you, had you not been so keen to try to counter me.
Wrong ... I don't believe you read anything, or you wouldn't have posted that conclusion. As to me, I'm a prolific reader, I read not only the summary but all 408 pages of the PDF file too, and not just to counter you, that's a given, but because I have a genuine interest.
Do you have a fan club that I can join at all (at all).
I am a prolific reader as well; I am positively addicted to useful knowledge.
j2, do you believe the oil companies are funding and disseminating sometimes dubious research (i.e. muddying the water) about global warming to protect their vested interests, and do you see any parallels with the actions of the cigarette companies trying to counter lung cancer claims back in the day?
Ian, do you believe that, if oil companies published any data which mitigates or counters "popular opinion" with regard to global warming, it will not be read with a jaundiced eye?
didn't quite get answer my question, but nm. In answer to your question, undoubtedly yes. There has long been pressure on scientists to declare funding sources because it is known that funding has a way of affecting results. Which is why the oil & cigarette companies tend to fund research by proxy, ie setting up/financing organisations to fund research. Again there is pressure for all this to be declared when papers are published, but it doesn't always happen.
As to the rest of your post (i.e. 'jobs for the boys') again what you said is partially true, although i think you maybe overestimate the extent to which research scientists' jobs depend on perpetuating global warming scares (although jobs downstream of the research would no doubt be in jeopardy). Personally i think research in this field suffers exactly the same problems as other fields, i.e. firstly researchers want to make a name for themselves by getting into the big journals and so they sex up their results, or secondly theres the related problem of publication bias (where studies showing negative/inconclusive results don't get submitted or selected for publication because negative results aren't as interesting). I think that those 2 problems are a bigger factor at the research end than job security.
I'm kinda interested in this global cooling thing btw, i've read a little bit about it and it doesn't sound like it was anywhere near the scale of the current global warming hoopla. Was there really any scientific consensus (i know how much you hate that...) about it back then? Care to share any memories of it, j2?
kazaaman
12-31-2006, 07:47 PM
I guess if would be just as effective to remind you that while I was not present for the last Ice Age, I was around the last time an Ice Age was imminent.
I haven't forgotten the tone of the rhetoric, after all.
What? :blink:
I only wanted to ask what about the iceage part not about the above as you deceivingly posted.
The USA does as much and more than any other country on earth to manage both production of pollutants and mitigate their effect.
Europe tries to hew to a high standard as well, but is not by any stretch of the imagination "way ahead of us in the USA".
What, then, about China?
India?
Wow, are you cooped in your house ignoring the world around you? The U.S. doing more than any other country in the world?This is total malarkey as seen from the link below. We have retards in our country like Joe Barton, who would do everything to stop the fight against global warming.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/05/barton-global-warming/
China and India also need to take action that will cap emissions from their country accordingly. China is actually making roof gardens I think. They put plants on the roofs (the roofs are flat btw) to make the skyline cleaner and healthier. India also has better fuel efficient buses in New Delhi as featured in TIME magazine. (I have it around here somewhere...)
Actually, I did, but you've put your finger directly on the problem:
Nobody else would have, especially the hard-core enviros, and certainly not you, had you not been so keen to try to counter me.
Wrong ... I don't believe you read anything, or you wouldn't have posted that conclusion. As to me, I'm a prolific reader, I read not only the summary but all 408 pages of the PDF file too, and not just to counter you, that's a given, but because I have a genuine interest.
PWNAGE!
Damn, j2k4, you need to be more open-minded. Have you honestly thought about everything and still come to the conclusion you have presently? I stress again, watch "An Inconvenient Truth" plz.
vidcc
12-31-2006, 07:57 PM
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/sandalow20050128.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/
Ian, do you believe that, if oil companies published any data which mitigates or counters "popular opinion" with regard to global warming, it will not be read with a jaundiced eye?
didn't quite get answer my question, but nm. In answer to your question, undoubtedly yes. There has long been pressure on scientists to declare funding sources because it is known that funding has a way of affecting results. Which is why the oil & cigarette companies tend to fund research by proxy, ie setting up/financing organisations to fund research. Again there is pressure for all this to be declared when papers are published, but it doesn't always happen.
As to the rest of your post (i.e. 'jobs for the boys') again what you said is partially true, although i think you maybe overestimate the extent to which research scientists' jobs depend on perpetuating global warming scares (although jobs downstream of the research would no doubt be in jeopardy). Personally i think research in this field suffers exactly the same problems as other fields, i.e. firstly researchers want to make a name for themselves by getting into the big journals and so they sex up their results, or secondly theres the related problem of publication bias (where studies showing negative/inconclusive results don't get submitted or selected for publication because negative results aren't as interesting). I think that those 2 problems are a bigger factor at the research end than job security.
I'm kinda interested in this global cooling thing btw, i've read a little bit about it and it doesn't sound like it was anywhere near the scale of the current global warming hoopla. Was there really any scientific consensus (i know how much you hate that...) about it back then? Care to share any memories of it, j2?
It was then just as it is now, minus the degree of bombardment due to media proliferation, and especially the interweb.
The covers of magazines such as TIME, Newsweek, et. al., devoted covers and endless articles, and I recall several international panels were convened to hash things out.
Summers were cooler, winters were, well, winters.
Lake levels rose and fell, and either condition meant we were "doomed".
I remember that it was touted as "inevitable", and "the end of the world as we know it"; oddly, though, the only rhetorical mechanism used in an attempt to tie global cooling to man's activities was the habit employed of likening it's effect to Nuclear Winter, about which you can google if you like.
Anyway, then, as now, if you doubted the vision of the experts, you were shouted down and ridiculed.
By the mid-eighties, you couldn't find a single soul who believed in "that rubbish" about global cooling. :)
What? :blink:
I only wanted to ask what about the iceage part not about the above as you deceivingly posted.
The USA does as much and more than any other country on earth to manage both production of pollutants and mitigate their effect.
Europe tries to hew to a high standard as well, but is not by any stretch of the imagination "way ahead of us in the USA".
What, then, about China?
India?
Wow, are you cooped in your house ignoring the world around you? The U.S. doing more than any other country in the world?This is total malarkey as seen from the link below. We have retards in our country like Joe Barton, who would do everything to stop the fight against global warming.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/05/barton-global-warming/
China and India also need to take action that will cap emissions from their country accordingly. China is actually making roof gardens I think. They put plants on the roofs (the roofs are flat btw) to make the skyline cleaner and healthier. India also has better fuel efficient buses in New Delhi as featured in TIME magazine. (I have it around here somewhere...)
Actually, I did, but you've put your finger directly on the problem:
Nobody else would have, especially the hard-core enviros, and certainly not you, had you not been so keen to try to counter me.
Wrong ... I don't believe you read anything, or you wouldn't have posted that conclusion. As to me, I'm a prolific reader, I read not only the summary but all 408 pages of the PDF file too, and not just to counter you, that's a given, but because I have a genuine interest.
PWNAGE!
Damn, j2k4, you need to be more open-minded. Have you honestly thought about everything and still come to the conclusion you have presently? I stress again, watch "An Inconvenient Truth" plz.
If you've swallowed "An Inconvenient Truth" hook, line, and sinker (or net, as a proud Indian), then you are beyond reach already.
If you want to be rich, I suggest you invest in refrigeration stock, and sell before the bubble bursts.
BTW-
If you actually believe Ava read the whole 408 pages of that PDF, I guess I'm not surprised you were impressed with AlGore's movie...:whistling
vidcc
12-31-2006, 08:40 PM
The global cooling myth
Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..." (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.". The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:
Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.
One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).
The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call "imminent" (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.
Will also quotes "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn't. The piece isn't from "Science"; it's from "Science News". There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.
The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the "ice age" strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.
Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn't know enough to make predictions. From the "Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations", we find that they said we should:
1. Establish National climatic research program
2. Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
3. Develope Climatic index monitoring program
4. Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
5. Adoption and development of International climatic research program
6. Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network
Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.
Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:
1. The cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
2. Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
3. Interpretations of future changes in the Earth's orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.
Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
Why would such a post need an edit?
Curious...
So let me get this straight:
1. It is not acceptable even to be skeptical about global warming, and if you are, you are a heretic.
2. Even evidence/data which would seem to mitigate the idea of global warming is actually evidence of global warming.
Great tactic, I wouldn't have thought of that:
Your views suck, therefore you will not be alloted any data to support them.
All scientific data henceforth is the exclusive property of Global Warming International. :yup:
vidcc
12-31-2006, 10:08 PM
The edit was to put the link in for the source and to put the red bold highlight
So let me get this straight:
1. It is not acceptable even to be skeptical about global warming, and if you are, you are a heretic.
2. Even evidence/data which would seem to mitigate the idea of global warming is actually evidence of global warming.
Great tactic, I wouldn't have thought of that:
Another misrepresentation.:rolleyes:
Yes you can be skeptical about global warning. What you can't do is select your basis on purely "convenient" bits of data and make a misrepresentation. The likes of Will & Crichton do just that. They are not global scientist but they take little snippets of information that their knowledge base doesn't make them qualified to interpret in full context and print it as "solid evidence" that Science has things wrong.
Your views suck, therefore you will not be alloted any data to support them.
All scientific data henceforth is the exclusive property of Global Warming International. :yup:
You can have all the data you wish, but don't expect those that actually understand it to agree with your conclusions.
It's an interesting point you make though as the current administration has been suppressing data.
Contrary to what you would have everyone believe the climate science isn't political. It's about finding out the truth, not creating a myth.
You mentioned contrary evidence, it's not hidden, it's analyzed and reported upon. No scientist denies that things happen, the do however put things in context.
There is little debate in the scientific community, the debate is with the people that have limited knowledge on the subject so often draw the wrong conclusions.
So let me get this straight:
1. It is not acceptable even to be skeptical about global warming, and if you are, you are a heretic.
2. Even evidence/data which would seem to mitigate the idea of global warming is actually evidence of global warming.
Great tactic, I wouldn't have thought of that:
Your views suck, therefore you will not be alloted any data to support them.
All scientific data henceforth is the exclusive property of Global Warming International. :yup:
This already needs amending:
3. You are allowed neither to understand the data nor say that you do.
4. You may not proffer experts of your own who understand the data, and no such experts may exist.
5. Any expert who changes his/her mind as regards global warming forfeits his/her expert status.
6. Anyone who claims global warming is not exactly what Global Warming International says it is cannot claim expert status, and any academic degrees held by such individuals are invalid.
All true experts are the exclusive property of Global Warming International.
vidcc
12-31-2006, 11:09 PM
Again all wrong or total misrepresentations.
you are allowed to come to any conclusion you wish, but unless you are in possession of all the relevant facts and know how to interpret them correctly then your conclusions are at best armature and are not informed or qualified.
We don't call plumbers or authors in court as expert medical witnesses do we?
So let me get this straight:
1. It is not acceptable even to be skeptical about global warming, and if you are, you are a heretic.
2. Even evidence/data which would seem to mitigate the idea of global warming is actually evidence of global warming.
Great tactic, I wouldn't have thought of that:
Your views suck, therefore you will not be alloted any data to support them.
All scientific data henceforth is the exclusive property of Global Warming International. :yup:
This already needs amending:
3. You are allowed neither to understand the data nor say that you do.
4. You may not proffer experts of your own who understand the data, and no such experts may exist.
5. Any expert who changes his/her mind as regards global warming forfeits his/her expert status.
6. Anyone who claims global warming is not exactly what Global Warming International says it is cannot claim expert status, and any academic degrees held by such individuals are invalid.
All true experts are the exclusive property of Global Warming International.
This just crossed the wire...
Global Warming International wishes it known that the corporation will refund the environmental tithe exacted between the dates of 12/24 and 12/31 of 2006!
Conservatives will be taxed double for "relevant facts" (as defined by Global Warming International), whether they buy them or not, for the same calender period; the normal, single rate will re-commence the first day of the New Year.
Happy Holidays and Seasons Greetings from the friendly folks at Global Warming International!!! :) :) :)
vidcc
01-01-2007, 12:24 AM
http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/boohoo.gif
Somewhere in cyberspace, a a small cartoon-type violin is being misused and abused.
vidcc
01-01-2007, 12:39 AM
Well stop playing the victim.
It's not a conspiracy to attack conservatives.
kazaaman
01-01-2007, 05:38 AM
Damn jk24, you repeatedly keep gettin' pwned by people and refuse to admit it.
Oh well, the first step is always denial.....
Ava Estelle
01-01-2007, 06:12 AM
It's not a conspiracy to attack conservatives.
Are you sure? Do you have documented proof?
Oh well, the first step is always denial.....
This, as opposed to what you do.
You still haven't figured out what I think.
Busyman™
01-01-2007, 04:26 PM
Oh well, the first step is always denial.....
This, as opposed to what you do.
You still haven't figured out what I think.
Maybe no one cares to figure that out.
I mean you've already mentioned it once and no one bit.
Maybe if you mention it again someone will stoop to care.:wacko:
Shit or get off the pot.
kazaaman
01-01-2007, 07:45 PM
This, as opposed to what you do.
You still haven't figured out what I think.
Maybe no one cares to figure that out.
I mean you've already mentioned it once and no one bit.
Maybe if you mention it again someone will stoop to care.:wacko:
Shit or get off the pot.
Ditto :rolleyes:
In a nut-shell, then:
While nobody I've argued with, debated, agreed or disagreed with would deny evidence we might be on the slight uphill slope of a warming trend, there seems to be a certain type of member who cannot or will not entertain the idea that, not only is the globe warming, but the trend is unnatural (that is to say, it is unlike any such events past), AND irreversible unless we kill all of our cows and stop eating meat, stop using all fossil fuels (especially the USA), tax industry into submission, and expand the scope of environmental regulation until we have emissions sensors mounted on our bathroom walls so that we can be taxed for unauthorized or excessive farting.
All this, with the caveat that all of the associated costs of environmental regulation be borne by the USA and a few other industrialized countries with moderately successful economies, while other countries will be given a pass on their regulatory duties out of some misbgotten sense of "fairness".
I believe that, as individuals, we should practice responsible use and husbandry of any and every resource we consume, as well as several that we do not.
I also believe the reasons for doing so should extend no further than their self-evident sense.
Man should be as practically responsible as to consumption and disposal of resources and refuse as is possible.
Is that not simple enough?
This, as opposed to what you do.
You still haven't figured out what I think.
Maybe no one cares to figure that out.
I mean you've already mentioned it once and no one bit.
Maybe if you mention it again someone will stoop to care.:wacko:
Shit or get off the pot.
Ditto :rolleyes:
I was off the pot well before you posted, fellas.
Apparently neither of you can read, or your normal selectivity has once again led you astray.
vidcc
01-01-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally Posted by j2k4
In a nut-shell, then:
While nobody I've argued with, debated, agreed or disagreed with would deny evidence we might be on the slight uphill slope of a warming trend, there seems to be a certain type of member who cannot or will not entertain the idea that, not only is the globe warming, but the trend is unnatural (that is to say, it is unlike any such events past), AND irreversible unless we kill all of our cows and stop eating meat, stop using all fossil fuels (especially the USA), tax industry into submission, and expand the scope of environmental regulation until we have emissions sensors mounted on our bathroom walls so that we can be taxed for unauthorized or excessive farting.
All this, with the caveat that all of the associated costs of environmental regulation be borne by the USA and a few other industrialized countries with moderately successful economies, while other countries will be given a pass on their regulatory duties out of some misbgotten sense of "fairness".
All of this is an argument based on politics as to what can be done, and is also a misrepresntaion of what most are suggesting taking worst cases (from your viewpoint) and suggesting that if one thinks global warming is real then they think that is the only solution..playing the victim again
So given that the scientist are not actually saying that man is the only cause of the warming global trend (remember it's overall global warming not local examples) but that man is speeding up the process.
do you deny that man has any effect whatsoever?
Because it always seems that "conservative skeptics" always bring up "the cost issue" and "why should we do something when other pollute as well"
Uh-oh.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2116873.ece
Busyman™
01-01-2007, 11:30 PM
Man should be as practically responsible as to consumption and disposal of resources and refuse as is possible.
Is that not simple enough?
This, as opposed to what you do.
You still haven't figured out what I think.
Maybe no one cares to figure that out.
I mean you've already mentioned it once and no one bit.
Maybe if you mention it again someone will stoop to care.:wacko:
Shit or get off the pot.
Ditto :rolleyes:
I was off the pot well before you posted, fellas.
Apparently neither of you can read, or your normal selectivity has once again led you astray.
Again, you muck up your posts with "You still haven't figured it out."
Besides that, man is not being practically responsible as to consumption and disposal of resources and refuse as is possible.
Why? The dollar many times overrules simple safety protocols already in place. What the hell do you think happens with pollution?
So no, that's not simple enough. That first post above reminds of a statement issued by a spokeman of company. If that's your stance, you may as well had said nothing.
GepperRankins
01-02-2007, 12:43 AM
i'm sorry i've kept out of this too long because i knew i'd get wound up. why is J2 still bumping this? i'm pretty sure that when i was following this he was doing his CnP from a guy who's paid by the oil giants. A guy that uses irrelevant points like because ice on high up mountain summits is not melting; that means the actual facts of rising sea levels from melting sea ice and record temperatures are untrue.
so like, someone sum it up for me plz
kazaaman
01-06-2007, 03:20 AM
Basically, Global Warming is happening and it is going to change the world we live in one way or another.
Basically, Global Warming is happening and it is going to change the world we live in one way or another.
That sounds so cryptic...as if man is incapable of turning the tide.
I thought that was what this was all about:
Man broke it, man must fix it.
Isn't that right?
So no, that's not simple enough. That first post above reminds of a statement issued by a spokeman of company. If that's your stance, you may as well had said nothing.
And if all you can do is bitch, maybe you should say nothing.
You also prompt me to do another C & P, which you need not read, as you are more comfortable spouting from the shade of your ignorance.
Climate of fear
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 24, 2006
BACK IN 1961, Rod Serling set an episode of "The Twilight Zone" in New York City at a time of uncontrolled global warming. Somehow the Earth's orbit had shifted, and the planet was moving inexorably toward the sun. "This is the eve of the end," Serling intoned in his introduction. "Because even at midnight it's high noon, the hottest day in history, and you're about to spend it -- in the Twilight Zone."
The episode revolves around a few desperate New Yorkers struggling to survive the murderous heat. As the temperature climbs, social order crumbles. An intruder, crazed with thirst, breaks into an apartment to steal water. An elderly woman collapses and dies. Thermometers shatter, their mercury boiling over. Finally Norma, the main character, screams and passes out. Then comes the twist: Norma wakes up to find that it's snowing outside. She'd been having a nightmare. The Earth isn't hurtling toward the sun, after all; it's spinning away from the sun. The world isn't going to end in searing heat, but in a dark and deathly deep-freeze. Fade to credits.
Well, that's climate change for you. Maybe Mother Earth is warming up, or maybe she's cooling down, but either way it's always bad news.
Here, for example, is former vice president Al Gore in 2006, on the threat posed by global warming: "Our ability to live is what is at stake." It doesn't get much more dire than that.
Yet here is climatologist Reid Bryson, in Fortune magazine's award-winning analysis of global cooling in 1974: "It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth -- like a billion people starving." It doesn't get much more dire than that, either.
Bryson's article is quoted in "Fire and Ice," a richly documented report by the Business & Meida Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center. Climate-change alarmism is at least a century old, and the report offers many examples of it:
In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.
So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.
Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.
Perhaps that is why most Americans discount the climate-change fear-mongering that is so fashionable among journalists and politicians. Last spring, as Time magazine was hyperventilating about global warming ("The debate is over. Global warming is upon us -- with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing"), a Gallup poll was finding that only 36 percent of the public say they worry "a great deal" about it.
Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul Ehrlich grew rich predicting the imminent deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum -- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating "nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still, abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a century.
"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Some things never change.
Mr JP Fugley
01-06-2007, 03:56 PM
Basically, Global Warming is happening and it is going to change the world we live in one way or another.
...as if man is incapable of turning the tide.
Literally, figuratively or both :huh:
...as if man is incapable of turning the tide.
Literally, figuratively or both :huh:
As I've read the sentiment, it seems the global-warming fear-mongers qualify it thus:
If we can, we should.
If we can't, then we still should, as penance.
If it develops that the tide recedes on it's own, history will be revised accordingly.
Busyman™
01-06-2007, 04:22 PM
71 degrees today in the DC area.
Normally we have snow and ice on the ground. I could go outside with a short sleeve shirt and shorts.:dabs:
Busyman™
01-06-2007, 04:25 PM
So no, that's not simple enough. That first post above reminds of a statement issued by a spokeman of company. If that's your stance, you may as well had said nothing.
And if all you can do is bitch, maybe you should say nothing.
You also prompt me to do another C & P, which you need not read, as you are more comfortable spouting from the shade of your ignorance.
Climate of fear
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 24, 2006
BACK IN 1961, Rod Serling set an episode of "The Twilight Zone" in New York City at a time of uncontrolled global warming. Somehow the Earth's orbit had shifted, and the planet was moving inexorably toward the sun. "This is the eve of the end," Serling intoned in his introduction. "Because even at midnight it's high noon, the hottest day in history, and you're about to spend it -- in the Twilight Zone."
The episode revolves around a few desperate New Yorkers struggling to survive the murderous heat. As the temperature climbs, social order crumbles. An intruder, crazed with thirst, breaks into an apartment to steal water. An elderly woman collapses and dies. Thermometers shatter, their mercury boiling over. Finally Norma, the main character, screams and passes out. Then comes the twist: Norma wakes up to find that it's snowing outside. She'd been having a nightmare. The Earth isn't hurtling toward the sun, after all; it's spinning away from the sun. The world isn't going to end in searing heat, but in a dark and deathly deep-freeze. Fade to credits.
Well, that's climate change for you. Maybe Mother Earth is warming up, or maybe she's cooling down, but either way it's always bad news.
Here, for example, is former vice president Al Gore in 2006, on the threat posed by global warming: "Our ability to live is what is at stake." It doesn't get much more dire than that.
Yet here is climatologist Reid Bryson, in Fortune magazine's award-winning analysis of global cooling in 1974: "It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth -- like a billion people starving." It doesn't get much more dire than that, either.
Bryson's article is quoted in "Fire and Ice," a richly documented report by the Business & Meida Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center. Climate-change alarmism is at least a century old, and the report offers many examples of it:
In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.
So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.
Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.
Perhaps that is why most Americans discount the climate-change fear-mongering that is so fashionable among journalists and politicians. Last spring, as Time magazine was hyperventilating about global warming ("The debate is over. Global warming is upon us -- with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing"), a Gallup poll was finding that only 36 percent of the public say they worry "a great deal" about it.
Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul Ehrlich grew rich predicting the imminent deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum -- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating "nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still, abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a century.
"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Some things never change.
Nope I didn't read it. If you wanna talk about ignorant, bring up the fact that you have nary a word to say until there is finally something backing your stance.
When there's overwhelming scientific backing of an opposing stance well.......
Biggles
01-06-2007, 04:32 PM
"There is global warming because the globe is getting warmer" thus spake Zarathustra.
Actually it was GW but I was close :)
If the globe is getting warmer, and certainly my garden seems to think so, then we have to decide what this means for us and make adjustments accordingly (without panic). If we are responsible, wholly or in part, then it might be an idea for us to at least stop digging until we see where where the hole has got us to and what if any impact we can muster to change things. Although the world is warmer place than when I was a kid I would not say it is any worse or better - just different. My Uncle is in his 70s and has a large kitchen garden - he is growing plants he would not have considered possible 50 years ago. However, there comes a point when too much of anything is enough.
I don't subscribe to the idea that it is all some ghastly conspiracy but neither do I think media panics are of much help. If anything the latter just make people cynical and consequently ignore advice that might be genuinely useful.
GepperRankins
01-06-2007, 05:03 PM
So no, that's not simple enough. That first post above reminds of a statement issued by a spokeman of company. If that's your stance, you may as well had said nothing.
And if all you can do is bitch, maybe you should say nothing.
You also prompt me to do another C & P, which you need not read, as you are more comfortable spouting from the shade of your ignorance.
Climate of fear
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 24, 2006
BACK IN 1961, Rod Serling set an episode of "The Twilight Zone" in New York City at a time of uncontrolled global warming. Somehow the Earth's orbit had shifted, and the planet was moving inexorably toward the sun. "This is the eve of the end," Serling intoned in his introduction. "Because even at midnight it's high noon, the hottest day in history, and you're about to spend it -- in the Twilight Zone."
The episode revolves around a few desperate New Yorkers struggling to survive the murderous heat. As the temperature climbs, social order crumbles. An intruder, crazed with thirst, breaks into an apartment to steal water. An elderly woman collapses and dies. Thermometers shatter, their mercury boiling over. Finally Norma, the main character, screams and passes out. Then comes the twist: Norma wakes up to find that it's snowing outside. She'd been having a nightmare. The Earth isn't hurtling toward the sun, after all; it's spinning away from the sun. The world isn't going to end in searing heat, but in a dark and deathly deep-freeze. Fade to credits.
Well, that's climate change for you. Maybe Mother Earth is warming up, or maybe she's cooling down, but either way it's always bad news.
Here, for example, is former vice president Al Gore in 2006, on the threat posed by global warming: "Our ability to live is what is at stake." It doesn't get much more dire than that.
Yet here is climatologist Reid Bryson, in Fortune magazine's award-winning analysis of global cooling in 1974: "It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth -- like a billion people starving." It doesn't get much more dire than that, either.
Bryson's article is quoted in "Fire and Ice," a richly documented report by the Business & Meida Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center. Climate-change alarmism is at least a century old, and the report offers many examples of it:
In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.
So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.
Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.
Perhaps that is why most Americans discount the climate-change fear-mongering that is so fashionable among journalists and politicians. Last spring, as Time magazine was hyperventilating about global warming ("The debate is over. Global warming is upon us -- with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing"), a Gallup poll was finding that only 36 percent of the public say they worry "a great deal" about it.
Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul Ehrlich grew rich predicting the imminent deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum -- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating "nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still, abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a century.
"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Some things never change.
scientific theory changes. in 1902 we didn't have satellites FFS. in 1976 the fastest computer in the world was 80mhz and cost $5million.
nowadays hundreds of thousands of people are analyzing possible paths the climate could take to work out the most likely outcome. by making an average of the results of more theories than has been done since we started even started to care, we see that global temperatures are rising.
you should check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climateprediction.net
maybe if you try and understand how stuff works you'll be able to make up your own mind instead of just listen to your local exxon employee
i do think it's cute though that you have "The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Some things never change.
two inches away from Tell you what...we'll do it your way.
Afterward, when we're standing amid the wreckage, I promise I won't say, "I told you so..."
:happy:
Nope I didn't read it. If you wanna talk about ignorant, bring up the fact that you have nary a word to say until there is finally something backing your stance.
When there's overwhelming scientific backing of an opposing stance well.......
You didn't read it?
Who's ignorant, then?
BTW-
If I have had "nary a word" to say about global-warming, then where have all these global-warming threads come from?
Find for me such a thread in which I have not participated.
Honestly, I have to give you credit...merely being wrong isn't enough for you, you're always willing to go that extra mile, aren't you? :)
71 degrees today in the DC area.
Normally we have snow and ice on the ground. I could go outside with a short sleeve shirt and shorts.:dabs:
I'll bet you won't, though, 'cuz it would be out of season. :rolleyes:
Might I suggest you enjoy the weather; go to the beach, get a tan.
Here's a question:
What if the polar ice caps start to melt, but then stop?
What if the "carnage" of our impending inundation claims nothing beyond the odd island here or there?
Lake Superior is waaaaaaaaaaay down...I have heard that a few eskimo entrepeneurs have started a huge new glacier, with the aim of ransoming it Bush for large cash.
As you are closer to the Halls of Power, I was wondering if you'd heard anything?
you should check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climateprediction.net
maybe if you try and understand how stuff works you'll be able to make up your own mind instead of just listen to your local exxon employee
So, by way of attempting to relieve me of my ignorance, you refer me to a wikipedia link, wherein is contained the word "prediction"?
Tell me:
Why do you think it isn't called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate.we're.fried.net?
Anyone who refers anyone else to anything with the word "wikipedia" in it is pretty weak.
GepperRankins
01-06-2007, 05:27 PM
you should check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climateprediction.net
maybe if you try and understand how stuff works you'll be able to make up your own mind instead of just listen to your local exxon employee
So, by way of attempting to relieve me of my ignorance, you refer me to a wikipedia link, wherein is contained the word "prediction"?
Tell me:
Why do you think it isn't called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate.we're.fried.net?
Anyone who refers anyone else to anything with the word "wikipedia" in it is pretty weak.
oh that's nice. selective quoting to make me look good. please to be doing more of that.
the wikipedia article describes the scientific process involved. it's not an article that tries to pass off opinion as fact nor does it even speculate anything. it just says this is how it works, this is what sets it apart from other experiments. you should like it, it's probably a direct copy and paste. the page also contains links to other stuff about the experiment.
prediction would be the word used by people for prediction, btw
Might I suggest you enjoy the weather; go to the beach, get a tan.
Yeah, Busy, go get a tan.
prediction would be the word used by people for prediction, btw
Which word you obviously define as "sure thing".
Ah, wikipedia.
It's good for what ails you, isn't it? ;)
GepperRankins
01-06-2007, 05:59 PM
prediction would be the word used by people for prediction, btw
Which word you obviously define as "sure thing".
Ah, wikipedia.
It's good for what ails you, isn't it? ;)
oh, so we're playing that game.
i'll have a turn then i'll fuck off and do something useful.
how about...
prediction is the word used to describe a probable outcome.
absolute bollocks is the word used to describe the bullshit and obfuscation used to keep the right wing herd in place. they gotta be fed a nonsensical editorial every so often because if you don't give someone their fix they might think.
Which word you obviously define as "sure thing".
Ah, wikipedia.
It's good for what ails you, isn't it? ;)
oh, so we're playing that game.
i'll have a turn then i'll fuck off and do something useful.
how about...
prediction is the word used to describe a probable outcome.
absolute bollocks is the word used to describe the bullshit and obfuscation used to keep the right wing herd in place. they gotta be fed a nonsensical editorial every so often because if you don't give someone their fix they might think.
Now, let's try this:
You and I disagree on very little, as regards the actual facts of global warming.
Is it warmer?
Yup.
That is the sole verifiable fact.
The rest is up to one's individual sensibilities:
Is global warming irreversible?
Some say yes, some say no.
Is global warming (to a measurable degree) caused by man?
Again, some yes, some no.
Can global warming be affected positively by man (that is to say, can man, by virtue of his living habits, lower the earth's temperature)?
Some yes, some no.
Should man exercise discretion and economy as regards consumption?
You would say "Yes, so that we might save the planet!"
I would say "Yes, because it only makes sense to do so."
When viewed through the lens of history, is global warming even a bad thing?
Nobody seems to want to talk about that, oddly enough.
An Island in the Indian Ocean goes under, but Greenland is suddenly very hospitable, climate-wise, and Iceland contemplates a name-change.
Coastal areas are redefined.
Water shortages are no longer a problem.
Brown people reign hold dominion over all, and white folk become extinct.
What's the problem?
When viewed through the lens of history, is global warming even a bad thing?
Nobody seems to want to talk about that, oddly enough.
An Island in the Indian Ocean goes under, but Greenland is suddenly very hospitable, climate-wise, and Iceland contemplates a name-change.
Coastal areas are redefined.
Water shortages are no longer a problem.
Brown people reign hold dominion over all, and white folk become extinct.
What's the problem?
Well, if it gets hot enough, it gets really cold, apparently.
Melt enough of the glaciers of our poles and the colder water released from them will mess up the gulf stream and eventually prompt a new ice age.
I don't know how far off we are tho', too many nutters on both sides messing with the facts.
As for history, well, I don't suppose people in venice getting closer to losing their homes matters much.
GepperRankins
01-06-2007, 07:46 PM
oh, so we're playing that game.
i'll have a turn then i'll fuck off and do something useful.
how about...
prediction is the word used to describe a probable outcome.
absolute bollocks is the word used to describe the bullshit and obfuscation used to keep the right wing herd in place. they gotta be fed a nonsensical editorial every so often because if you don't give someone their fix they might think.
Now, let's try this:
You and I disagree on very little, as regards the actual facts of global warming.
Is it warmer?
Yup.
That is the sole verifiable fact.
The rest is up to one's individual sensibilities:
Is global warming irreversible?
Some say yes, some say no.
Is global warming (to a measurable degree) caused by man?
Again, some yes, some no.
Can global warming be affected positively by man (that is to say, can man, by virtue of his living habits, lower the earth's temperature)?
Some yes, some no.
Should man exercise discretion and economy as regards consumption?
You would say "Yes, so that we might save the planet!"
I would say "Yes, because it only makes sense to do so."
When viewed through the lens of history, is global warming even a bad thing?
Nobody seems to want to talk about that, oddly enough.
An Island in the Indian Ocean goes under, but Greenland is suddenly very hospitable, climate-wise, and Iceland contemplates a name-change.
Coastal areas are redefined.
Water shortages are no longer a problem.
Brown people reign hold dominion over all, and white folk become extinct.
What's the problem?
if we both agree that we should do something about it, why do you keep insisting that we shouldn't? why do you keep posting stuff to try and make out the scientific process is completely useless. why act like it's an attack on republicans?
an island in the indian ocean goes under - people die or lose homes. and remember all the space we lose is just that, lost. so that's food and living space lost.
i don't know where you got the thing about water shortages, we get hosepipe bans in britain and it's a small island in comparison to most places. i think it's because the hot weather evapourates the water from reservoirs. so a warmer climate is a bad thing.
right now the world seems to be about as hospitable as it can be. most of the land happens to be in the right place for an ecosystem to support us. the poles are freezing and the equator is uncomfortable and white folks get skin cancer there.
change really would be quite a bad thing
Thank you for your response.
if we both agree that we should do something about it, why do you keep insisting that we shouldn't? why do you keep posting stuff to try and make out the scientific process is completely useless. why act like it's an attack on republicans?
If you'd taken the time to notice, every one of my posts (close to fifty in this thread, only 2 C & Ps, and one link) has as it's main thrust the idea that we cannot be at all sure of the precise reasons we should be alarmed, nor whether being alarmed will be of any use, in and of itself.
Personally, I feel it to be of little use.
If it is happening, I suspect it is happening alongside, and in spite of, any trespasses of man.
In one case, we fight the effects of our own excesses.
In the other, we're choosing off God, Mother Nature, Allah, or any other force to which you would attribute the warming trend.
In the first instance, perhaps we can have some effect.
In the latter?
Tell me how we can even try?
an island in the indian ocean goes under - people die or lose homes. and remember all the space we lose is just that, lost. so that's food and living space lost.
No.
It is merely a piece of land which has become less hospitable to/compatible with human existence, at a time when lands previously inhospitable/incompatible (think polar) would become viable.
Right?
i don't know where you got the thing about water shortages, we get hosepipe bans in britain and it's a small island in comparison to most places. i think it's because the hot weather evapourates the water from reservoirs. so a warmer climate is a bad thing.
You are correct, Britain is indeed a small island when compared with Saharan Africa, which is a bit dryer, I think you'll agree.
Hot weather evaporates water?
Right again!
The water rises into the atmosphere, where it re-condenses as vapor, forming clouds, which release precipitation, and also, uh, cools the Earth...
right now the world seems to be about as hospitable as it can be. most of the land happens to be in the right place for an ecosystem to support us. the poles are freezing and the equator is uncomfortable and white folks get skin cancer there.
So there's no hope whatsoever for Africa, is there? :(
Terrifically reasoned, really... :whistling
change really would be quite a bad thing
Yes, in fact, I'm sure the dinosaurs thought so, too.
Busyman™
01-06-2007, 09:34 PM
You didn't read it?
Who's ignorant, then?
BTW-
If I have had "nary a word" to say about global-warming, then where have all these global-warming threads come from?
Find for me such a thread in which I have not participated.
Honestly, I have to give you credit...merely being wrong isn't enough for you, you're always willing to go that extra mile, aren't you? :)
71 degrees today in the DC area.
Normally we have snow and ice on the ground. I could go outside with a short sleeve shirt and shorts.:dabs:
I'll bet you won't, though, 'cuz it would be out of season. :rolleyes:
Might I suggest you enjoy the weather; go to the beach, get a tan.
Here's a question:
What if the polar ice caps start to melt, but then stop?
What if the "carnage" of our impending inundation claims nothing beyond the odd island here or there?
Lake Superior is waaaaaaaaaaay down...I have heard that a few eskimo entrepeneurs have started a huge new glacier, with the aim of ransoming it Bush for large cash.
As you are closer to the Halls of Power, I was wondering if you'd heard anything?
Wow now a person is ignorant if they don't read what you post.:lol: :lol:
Oh I need to rephrase then. You have participated but now you trumpet a CNP as "proof".
Btw, one dresses for the weather, not the season.
There was this dumbass lady on the subway all wrapped up in a scarf and skull cap telling me that I should have coat on. I told I don't need one, she said it's fall season. I said so what it's 75 degrees outside. I asked her that if it hit 80 in the winter would she still wear a coat.
She said yes cuz it would be winter.:dabs:
Wow now a person is ignorant if they don't read what you post.:lol: :lol:
A person would certainly be ignorant of what I post, I think you are obligated to agree.
See, I used the word "ignorant" according to it's definition, not as you chose to "hear" it.
Busyman™
01-06-2007, 09:48 PM
Wow now a person is ignorant if they don't read what you post.:lol: :lol:
A person would certainly be ignorant of what I post, I think you are obligated to agree.
See, I used the word "ignorant" according to it's definition, not as you chose to "hear" it.
A person is ignorant of what you post then which not necessarily based on any truth.
Busyman™
01-06-2007, 09:53 PM
Might I suggest you enjoy the weather; go to the beach, get a tan.
Yeah, Busy, go get a tan.
Already there.:unsure:
Busyman™
01-06-2007, 09:56 PM
When viewed through the lens of history, is global warming even a bad thing?
Nobody seems to want to talk about that, oddly enough.
An Island in the Indian Ocean goes under, but Greenland is suddenly very hospitable, climate-wise, and Iceland contemplates a name-change.
Coastal areas are redefined.
Water shortages are no longer a problem.
Brown people reign hold dominion over all, and white folk become extinct.
What's the problem?
Well, if it gets hot enough, it gets really cold, apparently.
Melt enough of the glaciers of our poles and the colder water released from them will mess up the gulf stream and eventually prompt a new ice age.
I don't know how far off we are tho', too many nutters on both sides messing with the facts.
As for history, well, I don't suppose people in venice getting closer to losing their homes matters much.
I think there needs to be a middle ground.
There are those that would have us totally go green in a heartbeat with no care of any other consequences.
On the flip side, you've got the big corporations who don't follow the current regulations. You've got politicians who are working too slowly in affecting change and pushing for enforcement of those regulations.
Mr JP Fugley
01-06-2007, 11:07 PM
Might I suggest you enjoy the weather; go to the beach, get a tan.
Yeah, Busy, go get a tan.
:lol::earl:
I'm really hoping Kev hadn't thought that thro'. The alternative would be appaling.
A person would certainly be ignorant of what I post, I think you are obligated to agree.
See, I used the word "ignorant" according to it's definition, not as you chose to "hear" it.
A person is ignorant of what you post then which not necessarily based on any truth.
I'm really gonna have to guess what you're saying here...
How do you gauge "truthiness", osmosis not being an option? :huh:
Mr JP Fugley
01-06-2007, 11:14 PM
A person is ignorant of what you post then which not necessarily based on any truth.
I'm really gonna have to guess what you're saying here...
Indeed
It is kind of throwing words on the page and see how it works out.
However you have to bear in mind that to wish someone to attempt decent spelling, grammar and syntax in now frowned upon. Apparentement.
vidcc
01-07-2007, 12:56 AM
...are reassessing, huh?
Jan. 4, 2007 - For more than three decades, the tobacco industry carried on a campaign of disinformation intended to mislead Americans about the health risks of smoking—a strategy that has been dubbed “manufacturing uncertainty” in the minds of consumers. And ever since global warming emerged as an environmental threat, there has been a well-funded public campaign to cast doubt on the scientific consensus about the danger of global warming and its source in fossil-fuel combustion. A report this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists finds a parallel between the efforts to whitewash tobacco and “greenwash” oil—and points the finger of responsibility at the world’s largest corporation, ExxonMobil.
Under its former chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, who retired in 2005 as one of the best-paid corporate executives in history, ExxonMobil was well known for its hostility to government regulations on emissions of carbon dioxide. But, according to the report, the op-eds and position papers were only the visible tip of Exxon’s effort to fund a small group of researchers and an overlapping network of think tanks that could be relied on to spread the message that global warming was nothing to worry about—or at least, nothing the government could or should do anything about. Their frequently repeated call for “sound science” on global warming echoes the tobacco industry’s endless demand for more research on whether cigarettes really, truly, unquestionably cause cancer.
Of course, cigarette companies weren’t concerned just about future sales, but the billions of dollars in compensation they eventually had to … umm … cough up. ExxonMobil’s motivation, presumably, is to protect a fantastically lucrative market: its 2005 profits of $36 billion made it the most profitable corporation in history. But that very wealth puts them in a position both to shape and eventually dominate the postcarbon energy world, if they choose to do so. Ironically, as the report points out, the company and its shareholders will suffer if it gets left behind in the transition to less polluting forms of energy.
For its part, ExxonMobil—after promulgating, and then withdrawing 20 minutes later, a statement that called the report an “attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion”—wants you to know that it now accepts some responsibility for global warming. Specifically, and in boldface, it admitted that “It is clear today that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions.” That would seem, on the face of it, to contradict the assertions of some of its favored researchers in the ever-shrinking coterie of global-warming skeptics. The question, of course, is what specific policies ExxonMobil is willing to accept to curb those emissions. With a new Congress taking office, climate change is likely to be a much more salient issue this year than it has been for the last six—so ExxonMobil will have the chance to show if it means what it’s saying now.
source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16475341/site/newsweek/)
I would like to see the actual ExxonMobil statement instead of this article, but if accurate.................
Lots of governments are saying that there's a problem, so let's examine what these governments are doing about it.
If you look carefully at what they are doing about it you will find that it all comes down to imposing taxes of one sort or another.
What does that tell us? It tell us that things will be ok as long as we pay the tax. But if you think about it that also means that things will be ok even if we don't pay the tax. So as far as governments are concerned this is purely an exercise in taxation.
Now, lets assume for a moment that there really is a problem. You may think that means that we need to cut consumption, but that's misguided. Most energy is used in production, not consumption, so what we actually need to do is cut production. What's more, if we reduce production then we automatically reduce consumption.
But higher taxation means that we have less disposible income, so the only way we can maintain standards of living is by increasing our productivity, in other words by increasing production. The result is exactly the opposite of the supposed desired effect.
So if there really is a problem that we can affect, the worst thing we can do is impose taxation.
vidcc
01-07-2007, 02:25 AM
I don't think taxation is going to solve anything either, in fact I agree that many governments are exploiting global warming purely as a revenue source.
I don't agree that production needs to be cut though. What needs to be done is either develop cleaner production methods or use technology to filter the pollution.
GepperRankins
01-07-2007, 02:42 AM
Thank you for your response.
If you'd taken the time to notice, every one of my posts (close to fifty in this thread, only 2 C & Ps, and one link) has as it's main thrust the idea that we cannot be at all sure of the precise reasons we should be alarmed, nor whether being alarmed will be of any use, in and of itself.
Personally, I feel it to be of little use.
If it is happening, I suspect it is happening alongside, and in spite of, any trespasses of man.
In one case, we fight the effects of our own excesses.
In the other, we're choosing off God, Mother Nature, Allah, or any other force to which you would attribute the warming trend.
In the first instance, perhaps we can have some effect.
In the latter?
Tell me how we can even try?
an island in the indian ocean goes under - people die or lose homes. and remember all the space we lose is just that, lost. so that's food and living space lost.
No.
It is merely a piece of land which has become less hospitable to/compatible with human existence, at a time when lands previously inhospitable/incompatible (think polar) would become viable.
Right?
i don't know where you got the thing about water shortages, we get hosepipe bans in britain and it's a small island in comparison to most places. i think it's because the hot weather evapourates the water from reservoirs. so a warmer climate is a bad thing.
You are correct, Britain is indeed a small island when compared with Saharan Africa, which is a bit dryer, I think you'll agree.
Hot weather evaporates water?
Right again!
The water rises into the atmosphere, where it re-condenses as vapor, forming clouds, which release precipitation, and also, uh, cools the Earth...
right now the world seems to be about as hospitable as it can be. most of the land happens to be in the right place for an ecosystem to support us. the poles are freezing and the equator is uncomfortable and white folks get skin cancer there.
So there's no hope whatsoever for Africa, is there? :(
Terrifically reasoned, really... :whistling
change really would be quite a bad thing
Yes, in fact, I'm sure the dinosaurs thought so, too.
ermm. 'k i don't know where to start.
i don't think the poles will suddenly become inhabitable. if it could happen over night there would be no deserts in the world. vegetation would have to shift towards the poles if temperatures changes much, which would cause the equator to suck more.
i don't know what your point about africa is. i say it's uncomfortable in england to make a point about how bad hot weather can be and you counter(?) by saying africa is worse :blink:
Busyman™
01-08-2007, 03:59 AM
The outlook for Jan 14
73 degrees:O
MagicNakor
01-08-2007, 06:24 AM
21.2F here for Jan 14.
:shuriken:
Ava Estelle
01-08-2007, 06:47 AM
89.6F here ... January 8th.
MagicNakor
01-08-2007, 07:00 AM
I hate converting to F. :dabs:
:shuriken:
I don't think taxation is going to solve anything either, in fact I agree that many governments are exploiting global warming purely as a revenue source.
I don't agree that production needs to be cut though. What needs to be done is either develop cleaner production methods or use technology to filter the pollution.I think you missed my point.
Without governments pushing the issue, most people would be dismissing the idea that mankind is causing global warming as the ravings of a bunch of cranks. Yet if governments really believed it would have any effect they would be doing far more than they are, rather than treating it as a measure for taxation. The fact that they merely see it as a source of revenue illustrates that those who advocate change most are doing so purely for financial reasons. In Britain at least, these are the very same people who gave us the mess in Iraq, and let's face it that's really all about oil. Somehow I don't feel inclined to trust them.
On the point of production, any sane company would look for ways of improving productivity. More efficient production means better profits as well as lower emissions. But even with improved efficiency, higher taxes means that the same people have to produce more to stand still, so taxes by there very nature cause increased emissions. Using taxes as an argument that emissions will be reduced is nonsense.
vidcc
01-08-2007, 06:44 PM
I don't think taxation is going to solve anything either, in fact I agree that many governments are exploiting global warming purely as a revenue source.
I don't agree that production needs to be cut though. What needs to be done is either develop cleaner production methods or use technology to filter the pollution.I think you missed my point.
Without governments pushing the issue, most people would be dismissing the idea that mankind is causing global warming as the ravings of a bunch of cranks. Yet if governments really believed it would have any effect they would be doing far more than they are, rather than treating it as a measure for taxation. The fact that they merely see it as a source of revenue illustrates that those who advocate change most are doing so purely for financial reasons. In Britain at least, these are the very same people who gave us the mess in Iraq, and let's face it that's really all about oil. Somehow I don't feel inclined to trust them.
On the point of production, any sane company would look for ways of improving productivity. More efficient production means better profits as well as lower emissions. But even with improved efficiency, higher taxes means that the same people have to produce more to stand still, so taxes by there very nature cause increased emissions. Using taxes as an argument that emissions will be reduced is nonsense.
Using Britain as the example they are putting in place tougher regulations, emission controls etc. which over here have been relaxed under this administration. There is a theory over here that "the market" is the best environment protector. I disagree as IMO the environment will nearly always take second place to the bottom line, the cleanest production method usually isn't the cheapest. Also I probably worded it badly but it isn't the production that is the problem but how they deal with the resulting pollution. So regulations are the most effective way. I am not talking about forcing companies to do things right away but instead as improvements are made they have to meet the new standards. So if a polluting company expands the new expansion must meet higher standards. Similar to the way that newer cars have to maintain higher emission standards than older cars.
In Britain they appear to be doing both. Regulations for emissions and "green taxes". The first I believe is actually tackling the issue, the second I believe is taking advantage of the issue. (to a degree).
Here (for the past six years at least) they seem to be looking for more ways to allow companies to increase pollution and reduce their accountability for cleaning up their mess.
odin22
01-16-2007, 02:50 AM
Well,even if you check the figures of the global warming enthusiasts,man has only contributed 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/space/atmosphere.html
The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%)
So its 0.01 to 0.1 % CO2 that we are talking about(big deal)
Although it seems to be ignored,the most powerful greenhouse gas is water vapor.
So,if we except that only 1 to 2 % of carbon dioxide has been added to the atmosphere by man,then the above figures prove that nothing of nothing has been added.
Have you ever noticed that the Man made global warming enthusiasts, only ever quote this in tons or parts per millon of CO2?. As it sounds ridiculous in % especially as CO2 is not a very efficient green house gas!
if you are interested in this another good site is. The is an English ver there as well.
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen6/Carbonifero.html
bigboab
01-18-2007, 02:33 PM
Just a thought. If the North pole area 'warms up' will it lose its magnetism?
Barbarossa
01-18-2007, 02:36 PM
I thought magnetism came from the outer core, the liquid iron part that's spinning around pretty fast :idunno:
magnetism rocks :happy:
bigboab
01-18-2007, 03:16 PM
I thought magnetism came from the outer core, the liquid iron part that's spinning around pretty fast :idunno:
magnetism rocks :happy:
Iron loses its magnetism at around 1000c.:)
The reason the North pole is magnetic is because the metal core has cooled down.
Barbarossa
01-18-2007, 03:38 PM
I thought magnetism came from the outer core, the liquid iron part that's spinning around pretty fast :idunno:
magnetism rocks :happy:
Iron loses its magnetism at around 1000c.:)
The reason the North pole is magnetic is because the metal core has cooled down.
The spinning of the molten core causes an electric current, and the electric current produces the magnetic field.
bigboab
01-18-2007, 07:01 PM
Iron loses its magnetism at around 1000c.:)
The reason the North pole is magnetic is because the metal core has cooled down.
The spinning of the molten core causes an electric current, and the electric current produces the magnetic field.
I am not disagreeing. I was pointing out that the molten core of the earth can not be magnetic because the temperature is too high. However the outer surface of the core at the 'poles' has cooled down sufficient to become magnetic.
Unless things have changed since I was at school.:whistling
odin22
01-18-2007, 08:12 PM
The spinning of the molten core causes an electric current, and the electric current produces the magnetic field.
I am not disagreeing. I was pointing out that the molten core of the earth can not be magnetic because the temperature is too high. However the outer surface of the core at the 'poles' has cooled down sufficient to become magnetic.
Unless things have changed since I was at school.:whistling
The Currie point in iron is much lower than 1000c nearer to 800c, the earths core is not noticeably cooler at the poles. Iron melts at about 1140-1200°C. So global warming should not have any effect on the earths magnetic field.
Mr JP Fugley
01-19-2007, 12:02 AM
I am not disagreeing. I was pointing out that the molten core of the earth can not be magnetic because the temperature is too high. However the outer surface of the core at the 'poles' has cooled down sufficient to become magnetic.
Unless things have changed since I was at school.:whistling
The Currie point in iron is much lower than 1000c nearer to 800c, the earths core is not noticeably cooler at the poles. Iron melts at about 1140-1200°C. So global warming should not have any effect on the earths magnetic field.
However it does "flip" poles every so often. What the fuck's that all about.
odin22
01-19-2007, 12:20 AM
The Currie point in iron is much lower than 1000c nearer to 800c, the earths core is not noticeably cooler at the poles. Iron melts at about 1140-1200°C. So global warming should not have any effect on the earths magnetic field.
However it does "flip" poles every so often. What the fuck's that all about.
Yes but thats nothing to do with global warming, they only have theories as to way this happens.
bigboab
01-19-2007, 09:01 AM
However it does "flip" poles every so often. What the fuck's that all about.
Yes but thats nothing to do with global warming, they only have theories as to way this happens.
Are you sure of that statement? There are trains of thought that the 'flipping' is causing global warming. A pole in Hawaii and a pole in South Africa are possibilities.
http://www.halfpasthuman.com/HPHNPOLE.htm
Barbarossa
01-19-2007, 09:40 AM
They don't know why it flips. :idunno:
The poles actually wander around too, and they are not necessarily diametrically opposite one another on the Earth's surface.
What the fuck's THAT all about :blink:
bigboab
01-19-2007, 10:54 AM
They don't know why it flips. :idunno:
The poles actually wander around too, and they are not necessarily diametrically opposite one another on the Earth's surface.
What the fuck's THAT all about :blink:
I suppose if you have a spinning and tilting sphere with a 'liquid' centre you are going to have variations on the 'poles' of the 'liquid' centre.:wacko:
odin22
01-19-2007, 11:34 AM
Yes but thats nothing to do with global warming, they only have theories as to way this happens.
Are you sure of that statement? There are trains of thought that the 'flipping' is causing global warming. A pole in Hawaii and a pole in South Africa are possibilities.
http://www.halfpasthuman.com/HPHNPOLE.htm
I thought it implied that global warming might be a consequence of the pole shift not the other way round.
bigboab
01-19-2007, 11:44 AM
Are you sure of that statement? There are trains of thought that the 'flipping' is causing global warming. A pole in Hawaii and a pole in South Africa are possibilities.
http://www.halfpasthuman.com/HPHNPOLE.htm
I thought it implied that global warming might be a consequence of the pole shift not the other way round.
Is that not what I just said?:unsure:
Barbarossa
01-19-2007, 12:00 PM
To be honest, I thought that link you posted was utter garbage.
However there is a serious consequence of magnetic pole flipping. Presumably at some point during the process the Earth will "lose" it's magnetic field, or at least have it radically reduced for a time, which will clearly affect the ability of the magnetosphere to deflect the harmful gamma rays and shit away from the atmosphere, and the surface of the Earth.
This could have disastrous consequences for global communications, weather, etc, even life itself.
bigboab
01-19-2007, 12:06 PM
To be honest, I thought that link you posted was utter garbage.
However there is a serious consequence of magnetic pole flipping. Presumably at some point during the process the Earth will "lose" it's magnetic field, or at least have it radically reduced for a time, which will clearly affect the ability of the magnetosphere to deflect the harmful gamma rays and shit away from the atmosphere, and the surface of the Earth.
This could have disastrous consequences for global communications, weather, etc, even life itself.
Everything is garbage unless you can prove otherwise.:whistling I have seen on another link about the Hawaii theory. We would really need a qualified physicist to tell us the truth.:)
Barbarossa
01-19-2007, 12:24 PM
I've nothing against the theory in New Scientist that your link refers to (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2152), however the person writing that HalfPastHuman nonsense seems to be a bit confused between magnetic poles and rotational poles.
Just because Hawaii and South Africa may become magnetic poles, doesn't mean they're going to get colder and penguins and polar bears will start living there ffs :o
bigboab
01-19-2007, 12:33 PM
It could not possibly get colder unless the earth changed its axis which has nothing whatsoever to do with the polarity, I think.:wacko:
Barbarossa
01-19-2007, 01:18 PM
It could not possibly get colder unless the earth changed its axis which has nothing whatsoever to do with the polarity, I think.:wacko:
Exactly :smilie4:
bigboab
01-19-2007, 01:33 PM
It could not possibly get colder unless the earth changed its axis which has nothing whatsoever to do with the polarity, I think.:wacko:
Exactly :smilie4:
Good, agreement reached.:)
However I still dont like you because I cant beat your Solitaire score.:lol:
Ava Estelle
01-21-2007, 05:32 AM
A study by the world's leading experts says global warming will happen faster and be more devastating than previously thought.
'The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,' said one senior UK climate expert.
Source (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html)
bigboab
01-21-2007, 08:53 AM
Global warming is a bit like politics, very divided opinions. Eveyone reads the reports that state what they believe. Everything else is 'blinkered' to them. Here is another opinion on the subject;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
I will be happy to sit back for a hundred years and see what actually happens.:rolleyes:
A study by the world's leading experts says global warming will happen faster and be more devastating than previously thought.
'The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,' said one senior UK climate expert.
Source (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html)
Interpret that differently and you get
"The IPCC report was compiled from the work of several thousand people a few of who are climate experts but mainly those who want to rant about it so they claim the title anyway. They cut out all the bullshit, and took a middle of the road view. I'd prefer you to be scared half to death by the extremist bullshit" said one tired old doom and gloom campaigner.
Ava Estelle
01-21-2007, 10:46 AM
Interpret that differently and you get
*insert a load of irrelevant bollocks here*
Well done, don't let the door hit you on the way out! :)
Interpret that differently and you get
*insert a load of irrelevant bollocks here*
Well done, don't let the door hit you on the way out! :)
Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role.
Seems you didn't understand that bit in your quote.
Ava Estelle
01-21-2007, 11:17 AM
Well done, don't let the door hit you on the way out! :)
Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role.
Seems you didn't understand that bit in your quote.
So you're an expert on what I understand now are you?
Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role.
Seems you didn't understand that bit in your quote.
So you're an expert on what I understand now are you?Yes, it isn't hard.
No-one could be an expert on what you don't understand. :P
Ava Estelle
01-21-2007, 02:44 PM
No-one could be an expert on what you don't understand. :P
How did you get to be a mod, did you have to fuck someone? It certainly wasn't for your people skills. :)
No-one could be an expert on what you don't understand. :P
How did you get to be a mod, did you have to fuck someone? It certainly wasn't for your people skills. :)Attaboy, divert attention from you non-post. Nice one, Billy.
Ava Estelle
01-21-2007, 06:04 PM
Attaboy, divert attention from you non-post. Nice one, Billy.
MY non-post? That's a laugh, you do nothing on here but troll around looking for someone to take the piss out of. You're the master of non-posting. I contribute more to this section than you ever did, and, unlike you, I don't look around for threads to fuck up. Why don't you go back to the lounge and allow JP to make you look even more stupid?
It's people like you who turn posters away from the drawing room, and if you think I'm gonna creep around you for fear of getting banned again you've got another think coming.
Point is, you took the article in the Guardian at face value because it fitted in with what you wanted to convey.
Had you bothered to examine the actual content you could have easily spotted the flaws in the argument as I did.
All you cared about was filling the forum with another useless C&P post. If that's what you call contributing, you may as well not bother.
I've actually met quite a few of these so called experts. They are very good in their own tiny area of expertise, but by and large their grasp on reality and ability to see the bigger picture is woefully lacking.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.