It's cold outside, it's Global Warming!

When it's hot outside, it's Global Warming. Now when it's cold in the winter, that's also Global Warming.

How can you actually believe this crap?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/east...tures-12734629

I bet it's global warming when you get a fever too. @_@

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

How can you actually believe this crap?

---

The ability to go past a slogan and look at the complex overall issue?

Ah, still continuing to confuse "weather" and "climate" I see.
Someday grasshopper, you will learn that repetition of ignorance does not an argument make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

When it's hot outside, it's Global Warming. Now when it's cold in the winter, that's also Global Warming.

How can you actually believe this crap?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/east...tures-12734629

---

Is the answer that we can do it by reading up on the issue and forming our opinions based on what we understand of the science?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

When it's hot outside, it's Global Warming. Now when it's cold in the winter, that's also Global Warming.

How can you actually believe this crap?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/east...tures-12734629

---

Is the answer that we can do it by reading up on the issue and forming our opinions based on what we understand of the science?

---

They are now addressing this argument by abolishing history lessons in school. This will mean that you would not be aware of major disasters that happened a long time ago. Like the Yangtze river flooding that claimed over one million lives. That no longer counts because it happened a hundred years ago.
I can imagine the penguins getting worried when the ice started to melt at the end of the ice age.:cry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

They are now addressing this argument by abolishing history lessons in school. This will mean that you would not be aware of major disasters that happened a long time ago. Like the Yangtze river flooding that claimed over one million lives. That no longer counts because it happened a hundred years ago.
I can imagine the penguins getting worried when the ice started to melt at the end of the ice age.:cry:

---

Isn't the problem with the Yangtze river more to do with silt buildup due to dams, diversions and natural flood lakes being bypassed? :unsure: Not to mention the fantastic idea to populate flood plains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

They are now addressing this argument by abolishing history lessons in school.

---

So true.
The right wants to institutionalize "ignorance is bliss".
Texas school books are a perfect example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

They are now addressing this argument by abolishing history lessons in school. This will mean that you would not be aware of major disasters that happened a long time ago. Like the Yangtze river flooding that claimed over one million lives. That no longer counts because it happened a hundred years ago.
I can imagine the penguins getting worried when the ice started to melt at the end of the ice age.:cry:

---

Isn't the problem with the Yangtze river more to do with silt buildup due to dams, diversions and natural flood lakes being bypassed? :unsure: Not to mention the fantastic idea to populate flood plains.

---

That is the same in almost every low country, again they ignore history in favour of commerce. It does not preclude the fact that these floods have been happening down the years. Tsunamis have been happening since the beginning of time, it just so happens that people are ignoring this fact and building on the beaches and low lying ground near beaches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

That is the same in almost every low country, again they ignore history in favour of commerce. It does not preclude the fact that these floods have been happening down the years. Tsunamis have been happening since the beginning of time, it just so happens that people are ignoring this fact and building on the beaches and low lying ground near beaches.

---

I can only think that you are trying to say that climatologists are ignoring natural cycles.

One of the biggest actual myths or at the very least biggest strawman in the whole non scientific side of the "debate" is that those "global warming believers" attribute it solely to man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

That is the same in almost every low country, again they ignore history in favour of commerce. It does not preclude the fact that these floods have been happening down the years. Tsunamis have been happening since the beginning of time, it just so happens that people are ignoring this fact and building on the beaches and low lying ground near beaches.

---

I can only think that you are trying to say that climatologists are ignoring natural cycles.

One of the biggest actual myths or at the very least biggest strawman in the whole non scientific side of the "debate" is that those "global warming believers" attribute it solely to man.

---

The whole thing is just another way os screwiing money out of the people who can't avoid paying it. Show me a chart with the average global warming since the ice age that proves the argument about the present hype. Going back to history, When I was young pollution was terryfying. In those days white shirts were the order of the day. They lasted about half a hour, then they were covered with soot that came from everyone burning coal fires and industrial discharge. Yes we had industries back then.

Compared to those days the U.K. is now like an operating theatre. It is time that climatologists attacked the combustion engine and all the oil and gas pollution that it causes. They won't do that though, that would mean taking on the 'big boys'. I've said it before it would be better to tackle the 'litter' on the ground and in the oceans that is killing off wild life. That is the biggest ecological disaster of today.

Back to history. When I was young cases of Asthma were thin on the ground. They were family orientated, generally missing a generation. Did you know that inhaling Car fumes can mimic Asthma and it is very hard for doctors to know the difference. Enough of this, I am ranting.:cry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

[

The whole thing is just another way os screwiing money out of the people who can't avoid paying it.....

I agree governments (ab)use it as a cash cow, certainly appears that way in Europe with your fuel tax. That however changes NOTHING about the scientific evidence.
Your tobacco tax is a cash cow, doesn't change the fact that smoking causes cancer does it?

Compared to those days the U.K. is now like an operating theatre. It is time that climatologists attacked the combustion engine and all the oil and gas pollution that it causes. They won't do that though, that would mean taking on the 'big boys'. I've said it before it would be better to tackle the 'litter' on the ground and in the oceans that is killing off wild life. That is the biggest ecological disaster of today.

Greenies are always highlighting cars. How could you possibly have missed that? Why do you think they push for fuel efficiency standards? Climatologists do the science bit, environmentalist do the bit that points out which human activities are detrimental. I think the internal combustion engine would be included in the whole "fossil fuel" thing, don't you?

Back to history. When I was young cases of Asthma were thin on the ground. They were family orientated, generally missing a generation. Did you know that inhaling Car fumes can mimic Asthma and it is very hard for doctors to know the difference. Enough of this, I am ranting.:cry:

---

Can't argue that, the bit about asthma or you ranting ;).

When I saw the video with Diane Sawyer for the first time, I was watching the news with my family, and we all laughed when she started saying how these record low temperatures were caused by Global Warming and that "scientists agree" that "this is the new normal." That's a very vague way of saying it. How many scientists agree? What's normal when it comes to weather? It's constantly changing. And how in the hell do these scientists expect to be taken seriously when they think that record low temperatures are somehow caused by Global Warming? I know they have to say these things or they won't get paid. They will lose their government funding. But that doesn't seem like very sound science if they have to make the data fit the Global Warming mantra just to keep getting their government checks.

A few winters ago, it was a mild winter and they were saying how that was proof of Global Warming. Now it's a very cold winter and that too is proof of Global Warming. And no one in the general media balks about it. Why?

It reminds me of religion.

When some people I know pray to "God," if they get what they wanted, they claim that "God" answered their prayers. If they don't get what they wanted, they say that "God" still answered their prayers, but his answer was "no." Either way, in their minds, it is proof that this mythical "God" exists and answers prayers.

Now here's where I'm going with this. Religion was created to control people. I think it is safe to assume that the majority of Europe and perhaps nearly half of America is post-Christian. In other words, a large part of the population no longer strongly believes in any religion. So, religion is starting to lose its grip of control over the western world. But the powers that be still want something to control us. So, why not make up a new modern scientific religion called Global Warming? Eventually they can use it to control the masses who will go along with whatever the new priests [scientists] say, and the government and media will help spread the propaganda as well, to help reinforce the edicts of these new priests.

I think there's the potential for a sci fi movie here, what do you think?

Attachment 65027

Instructive fabrication diagrams are available in an easy-to-print PDF format for non-commercial use by concerned educators and paranoid posters.

Well, I think it takes just as much faith to believe in God as it does to believe in Global Warming. I don't believe in either one.

They're both myths.

And should be treated as such.

Here's more proof of Global Warming!

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/brav...ezing-12752168

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Well, I think it takes just as much faith to believe in God as it does to believe in Global Warming. I don't believe in either one.

---

And yet you believe Glenn Beck.

At any rate, belief in a god does not compare to acceptance of human influenced global warming...the first requires complete suspension of proof (hence the need for belief), the second an examination of accrued data and scientifically reviewed extrapolations/conclusions.
Most of us are unqualified to examine raw climate data (this would include any/all Fox News pundits) and thus, must rely on the conclusions drawn by those more educated in the field.

You make this same "leap of faith" thousands of times daily (for instance, every time you turn on the TV or board an airplane), yet single out this one issue to haggle about.

It's ironic that the very same elite scientists who make it possible for Fox to be on the air at all, are the ones targeted once they've done their jobs.
Essentially, Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reilly don't believe in the same science that puts their doughy faces on your living room wall every night...a conundrum always present when one filters fact through a political filter.
Accepting global warming as fact would be completely unacceptable politically for the right (and massively inconvenient for the corporate backers) and since they haven't the science to back them, the only option is to frame the issue as one of "belief" instead of "comprehension".

One can choose beliefs but not facts.

I see what you're saying.

But it still takes a leap of faith for me, a will suspension of disbelief for me to believe that Global Warming is somehow causing record low temperatures.

It just doesn't make sense.

Record high temperatures, maybe.

Record low temperatures, come on!

And then even if there is such a thing as Global Warming, I think it takes even more faith to believe that it would have more to do with puny little humans than it does with our sun simply going through normal cycles.

And then in the worst case scenario, let's say humans are causing it. What then? Would you rather kill off a large percentage of the human population just to stop Global Warming, or would rather than just wait and see what happens with it? With the exception of nuclear energy [which is unthinkable to econuts] energy policies that restrict the use of fossil fuels and the production of carbon are inefficient and will ultimately lead to everything costing more, which in the end will end up causing the lower rungs of societies throughout the world to fall through the cracks, become homeless, and die off. I think it is better to use what we know works, such as fossil fuels and nuclear energy, and keep society moving forward. Econuts seem to want to go back to a caveman standard of living to save mother earth. Ridiculous!

just what makes that little old ant
Think he'll move that rubber tree plant
Anyone knows an ant, can't
Move a rubber tree plant

But he's got high hopes, he's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie, in the sky hopes

So any time your gettin' low
'stead of lettin' go
Just remember that ant
Oops there goes another rubber tree plant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

... in the worst case scenario, let's say humans are causing it. What then? Would you rather kill off a large percentage of the human population just to stop Global Warming...
Who is suggesting this?
Please provide a single example of a reputable climatologist promoting mass murder as a viable solution.
Just one...
...or would rather than just wait and see what happens with it?
Wait for what?
You've already decided to reject the entire concept based on a belief system instead of fact, so what's the point of "waiting" on you?
With the exception of nuclear energy [which is unthinkable to econuts] energy policies that restrict the use of fossil fuels and the production of carbon are inefficient and will ultimately lead to everything costing more...
Everything already costs more, in case you hadn't noticed.
In addition, oil is only "affordable" when you ignore the costs of the subsidies/protection afforded the oil producers.
... which in the end will end up causing the lower rungs of societies throughout the world to fall through the cracks, become homeless, and die off.
Oh, I see.
Big Oil is good for the third world.
The very people who are not consumers of the products they sell.
Those pesky people who live on the land that Big Oil needs to despoil in order to produce.
Oh, think of the indigenous!
I think it is better to use what we know works, such as fossil fuels and nuclear energy, and keep society moving forward. Econuts seem to want to go back to a caveman standard of living to save mother earth. Ridiculous!

---

Staying dependent on fossil fuels ain't gonna be moving anyone "forward" for long.
Increased competition for dwindling supplies will see to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

just what makes that little old ant
Think he'll move that rubber tree plant
Anyone knows an ant, can't
Move a rubber tree plant

But he's got high hopes, he's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie, in the sky hopes

So any time your gettin' low
'stead of lettin' go
Just remember that ant
Oops there goes another rubber tree plant

---

Dead Skunk
Loudon Wainwright III


INTRO:
G D C G x2

G D
Crossin' the highway late last night
C G
He shoulda looked left and he shoulda looked right
G D
He didn't see the station wagon car
C G
The skunk got squashed and there you are!

CHORUS:
You got yer
G D
Dead skunk in the middle of the road
C G
Dead skunk in the middle of the road
G D
You got yer dead skunk in the middle of the road
C G
Stinkin' to high Heaven!

G D
Take a whiff on me, that ain't no rose!
C G
Roll up yer window and hold yer nose
G D
You don't have to look and you don't have to see
C G
'Cause you can feel it in your olfactory

Chorus

G D
Yeah you got yer dead cat and you got yer dead dog
C G
On a moonlight night you got yer dead toad frog
G D
Got yer dead rabbit and yer dead raccoon
C G
The blood and the guts they're gonna make you swoon!

Chorus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

And then even if there is such a thing as Global Warming, I think it takes even more faith to believe that it would have more to do with puny little humans than it does with our sun simply going through normal cycles.

---

Mine had to do with that, what's yours?

There's something mighty smelly or fishy [skunky, perhaps?] about Global Warming.

That, and I ran over a skunk the night before. Ever done that? It's horrible!

And More Global Warming!

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/wint...ravel-12781681

Where is Al Gore when you need him?

Why doesn't he have a Global Warming Summit now?

If you build a fire is it warmer closer to the fire or further away?


I know the answer to this, but without looking it up can you tell me why the heat from the sun is greater at lower altitude than higher (same grid reference). So if I was in a balloon and rose straight up I would be getting closer to the sun, but the temperature goes down.

There is a point to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

if I was in a balloon and rose straight up I would be getting closer to the sun, but the temperature goes down.

---

This assumes a belief in balloons and their ability to "rise".
Personally, I ain't buyin.

So, has anyone noticed the weather today?

When exactly, can we expect the warming part of Global Warming?

All we're getting now is the icy cold part.

What is the definition of warming?

It's funny you weren't asking about this last summer, one of the hottest on record (and part of a general trend).

BTW, how are all those new jobs your family business is supposed to be creating coming along?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

If you build a fire is it warmer closer to the fire or further away?


I know the answer to this, but without looking it up can you tell me why the heat from the sun is greater at lower altitude than higher (same grid reference). So if I was in a balloon and rose straight up I would be getting closer to the sun, but the temperature goes down.

There is a point to this.

---

I see where you're going with this. Eagar is cooler than Phoenix because there is less atmosphere above it so it takes longer to heat up and is quicker to cool down at night. But then tell me why Eugene, Oregon, which is lower in elevation than Phoenix, Arizona, is also so much cooler during the summer months, when the earth is tilted toward the sun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

It's funny you weren't asking about this last summer, one of the hottest on record (and part of a general trend).

You have the mainstream media to do that for you every summer. And now even when it gets very cold in the winter, the media is still crowing about global warming.

BTW, how are all those new jobs your family business is supposed to be creating coming along?

There will be a job opening soon, in about 4 months, when I move to Eugene, Oregon, to attend the University of Oregon.

Maybe you should apply for it?

---

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

I see where you're going with this. Eagar is cooler than Phoenix because there is less atmosphere above it so it takes longer to heat up and is quicker to cool down at night. But then tell me why Eugene, Oregon, which is lower in elevation than Phoenix, Arizona, is also so much cooler during the summer months, when the earth is tilted toward the sun?

---

So you are able to grasp concepts that differ from the obvious, such as being cooler closer to the heat source. You are able to understand that there are reasons why things like that occur.

Yet it takes a leap of faith as to why GLOBAL, not local rises in temperature averages, could be affected by more pollutants in the atmosphere making it able to hold more heat etc. resulting in more water in the atmosphere, more fresh water (melted ice) changing the salinity of the oceans, effecting the airstreams etc. etc. etc.

As to the Oregon question, local geographical makeup affects weather. Mountains and plains have an effect on wind currents and moisture. My question was a simple point that not everything is absolute.

I'm not a climatologist, I make no claim to know why everything happens. I have noticed however that denial claims tend to be less than scientific and more about political conspiracy theories.

Have you ever wanted to run someone over in a monster truck because they suggested crops would grow if given water?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

btw, how are all those new jobs your family business is supposed to be creating coming along?

there will be a job opening soon, in about 4 months, when i move to eugene, oregon, to attend the university of oregon.

Maybe you should apply for it?

---

That's not creating a new job, merely filling an already existing one.
How many new jobs is your lower tax rate creating?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Have you ever wanted to run someone over in a monster truck because they suggested crops would grow if given water?

---

What?!?

I still would love to hear an explanation as to why the Earth was warmer than it is now before humans? And the fact that we just came out of an Ice Age only 20,000 years ago so wouldn't ya think the only thing to bring you out of an Ice Age is to warm up?

Are we accelerating the Earth's natural cycle, is the questionable argument here , and I think we cannot argue that the Sun too has its cycles and is a main contributing factor here. Also volcanoes have played a huge part in climate change. Krakatoa when it erupted last time caused global climate change for many years. There are several factors to consider when talking about Global Warming, not just Human contributing factors.

Humans are so pervasive now that any change whatsoever caused by natural phenomenon is magnified even more so in our perspective. The Earth is going to do what it normally does and sure as hell isn't going to wait around for us to move, get out of the way, or consider economic impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Have you ever wanted to run someone over in a monster truck because they suggested crops would grow if given water?

---

What?!?

---

Idiocracy http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1526530841/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs

You'll have to hunt for the dildozer execution scene yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandman_1

I still would love to hear an explanation as to why the Earth was warmer than it is now before humans? And the fact that we just came out of an Ice Age only 20,000 years ago so wouldn't ya think the only thing to bring you out of an Ice Age is to warm up?

Yes, I think the same way. But, they don't like to answer this question.


Are we accelerating the Earth's natural cycle, is the questionable argument here ,

I'll admit that we may have a tiny role in it, but that our role is so small, that no matter what we try to do about it, our impact will be limited at best.

and I think we cannot argue that the Sun too has its cycles and is a main contributing factor here.

It is the elephant in the room that they want to ignore, and say that its farts don't stink.


Also volcanoes have played a huge part in climate change. Krakatoa when it erupted last time caused global climate change for many years. There are several factors to consider when talking about Global Warming, not just Human contributing factors.

Humans are so pervasive now that any change whatsoever caused by natural phenomenon is magnified even more so in our perspective.

I think a lot of what is happening now is being noticed more because there are so many more humans in the way of natural disasters than ever before. If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one hears it, no one cares, but if one falls on your house in a newly built subdivision that was once in the middle of a forest, suddenly the sky is falling!


The Earth is going to do what it normally does and sure as hell isn't going to wait around for us to move, get out of the way, or consider economic impact.

---

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

What?!?

---

Idiocracy http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1526530841/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs

You'll have to hunt for the dildozer execution scene yourself

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

But then tell me why Eugene, Oregon, which is lower in elevation than Phoenix, Arizona, is also so much cooler during the summer months, when the earth is tilted toward the sun?

---

Eugene, OR: 44° 3' 8" N
http://www.willamettetours.com/image...etteValley.jpg
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/7...pphpyzf6ea.jpg
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/4877/phpvnkskfam.jpg

Phoenix, AZ: 33° 26' 53" N
http://kjzz.org/news/arizona/archive...icopa%20County
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/426...olroadsign.jpg
http://nondo.net/gallery/content/Roa.../maricopa1.jpg

Beats me.

:shuriken:

Ah, but why is that way? Eugene is actually lower in elevation than Phoenix, and during the Summer Solstice for the northern hemisphere, Eugene has considerably more hours of sunlight than Phoenix. So, why isn't it hotter than Phoenix during the summer?

By the way, doesn't Eugene look like a great place to live? I think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Ah, but why is that way? Eugene is actually lower in elevation than Phoenix, and during the Summer Solstice for the northern hemisphere, Eugene has considerably more hours of sunlight than Phoenix. So, why isn't it hotter than Phoenix during the summer?

---

Let's just ignore proximity to the ocean, land formations (mountains affecting wind currents and moisture) altitude above sea level etc. and say that the two places have similar topography. The only difference is the location.

Why is it hot at the equator and cold at the poles at sea level? Think sphere.

Phoenix may be a higher elevation if taken as a measurement of the earth's surface, but is Eugene as close to the sun?