|
Quote:
|
Quote:
However, I'll ask you the same thing, since you want to use the antarctic measurements in your rhetoric. What part of the global warming model explains why this happens? And why is more ice and snow in the antarctic probably caused by global warming? Why, logically, can it not be caused in this case by global cooling? I know you are posting on antartica because your political opinion sources have told you to do so, but there actually is a science behind it, beyond the opinion. What is the current most common scientific explanation? |
Quote:
I just grabbed the first link I found. There are thousands about this. Yes, I read the theory about how global warming is leading to more ice in Antarctica. I do not think it will hold up under scrutiny. |
Quote:
These things called "articles" quote things called "sources" said sources are listed in the articles.... :uhoh Has nothing to do with any political afflictions sorry. Has to do with watching these scientific prophets over and over again just during my lifespan being ridiculously off. Always a new "threat" always a new "scare" its ridiculous. |
Quote:
|
the reason freon is now bad is that dupont's patent on it was about to expire so they wanted it off the market.
|
Quote:
Btw though the newer stuff is more "ozone friendly" overall its much more toxic. |
Quote:
|
So let me get this right ... if i pay extra tax on ... well ... everything, ... it will cure the climate change that has been happening the last few billion years.
Cool. |
Quote:
So, then, the disagreement in this case can be resolved by examining the sources of arctic measurements. I dont have time now, but might give it a shot sometime soon. I dont recognize the measurement you quote - what's your source? What about the argument that the US is falling behind technologically? Does that carry any weight with you and your side? What about oil security? Does that concern you and your side? |
Quote:
READING COMPREHENSION you don't have it.. |
Quote:
do you have enough self-awareness and knowledge to actually state the argument that you are straw-manning? and, nothing can cure global warming. nor will we actually do anything effective to stop it. it's the american descendents that will be dealing with most of the problems, if they happen. thats why it's inevitable that your side will win politically in the short term. even tho it means falling behind technologically for the US - the US is fucked anyway, our prosperity is already sold off, we pretty much gave up on the ideal of technological supremacy. |
Quote:
The problem is to stop it or slow it down will mean people have to give up consuming the earths resources faster than the earth can replace them. It will mean a major cut in the earths population, people will have to stop churning out shit into the atmosphere and they will definitely have to stop driving SUVs and fuel prices will rocket. The cost of protecting most of us from the consequences will be enormous and people will not pay that bill. Until the hit hits the fan and they start screaming why nothing was done. |
Quote:
do you watch the news???????? |
Put these magnets on your head and chill the fuck out, dumbass.
|
thats why there is a population control agenda in place
|
It's August. I'm wearing a jumper.
Global warming can fuck off. |
Quote:
2> We are currently on the cusp of a Solar Max which is the 50 year high point of solar flare and sunspot activity. They are projecting it to be anywhere from 30% to 50% stronger than the last one. 3> To think we as humans have even have a basic understanding of how the earth 'works' is just... plain stupid. If a earthquake or the building of large dams in China can shift the planet on its axis, how can we possibly understand the intricate details of the weather systems, ecosystems, etc? 4> You should be embarrassed by how ignorant you are. Please put down your keyboard and walk away for a while before your retardation infects the rest of teh interwebz. |
Quote:
This is on the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice It sites the source as National Snow and Ice Data Center which as a part of Univ. of Colorado which I'm sure you will say is not a credible source. |
There are a billion things that effect the planet's weather. We don't know one tenth of them, nor can we predict how one issue affects another issue. You might be naive and believe what you read in the papers, but some of us have been around long enough to remember when they were telling us all signs were pointing towards us entering an ice age.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are we getting warmer? Maybe, perhaps. I live in California and it's fucking sixty degrees outside. In fact, it's been a cool summer here. Or maybe this is just part of a much larger cycle that we have no control over. I mean, tens of thousands of years all of the land mass was in one great lump and since then everything has drifted apart. Maybe this is all just weather patterns changing, a cycle that's been going on since the earth was created. Maybe instead of bitching about the causes, maybe you and your friends should figure out how we are going to move all of our shit underground and live there. |
Quote:
|
so when it gets too hot it's global warming/climate change
and when it gets too cold it's global warming/climate change just making sure |
Quote:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=hotte...da7e67d4bf69d3 |
If Global Warming, and now "Climate Change," is on the up and up, what is with all the scientific fraud and why are the scientist critics being demonized and ignored?
Why can't there be a straight up debate? How come Al Gore's massive investment in the business is not a red flag for his possible bias? |
I usually don't post in threads like this, but TS... the 2 points you've made are both wrong according to everything I've heard/read. In fact, they're the complete opposite of what I have read. Admittedly, I'm rather ignorant on this topic, but when I've read in 15+ scientific journals(peer-reviewed) the exact opposite... leads me to believe them over you.
And I'm not a denier. I'm well aware that global warming is "real" - the humans causing it BS is what I don't buy(because there's no proof yet). If someone provides empirical evidence for humans causing it, I'll bite. Who caused it really doesn't matter though.. it's a reality, we should deal with it. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
My fear is, if they're wrong we're in the clear. If they're right and we wait for undeniable proof we're fucked. |
|
Quote:
People like Al Gore will sell you doom and dismay to make a profit, not because they actually think there is a problem. |
Quote:
Entire documentary here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0191369613647# |
Who gives a shit? We will all be long gone when (IF) it happens ... let your kids worry about it.
Fucking tree hugging hippies ... :321GFY |
Did you know that I fucked your mother?
|
Quote:
Are you saying you dont want to discuss this calmly and reasonably? I would like to see your side fund and organize real scientific method research to demonstrate your case. That's how science works, thru the shared collecting of measurements and peer review of theories, models, experiments, and measurements. When I drop your quoted sentence in google, I get no scientific sources for the first few pages, all i get is opinion. So I look for actual science websites referring to the source, the "US National Snow and Ice Data Centre" The first approximately scientific page I come across is from nasa: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...s_feature.html Which comfirms the measurement, and says the following below: ( Summary in advance - yes the past few winters have been colder than average, leading to an increase in the growth of a thin surface ice, but this growth is a temporary winter phenomenon, and is considerably offset by a decline in the thicker permanent ice. Colder winters, by the way, are included and predicted in the global warming models. This is caused by two major forces. The first is the increase in wator vapor that the on-average warmer global air can contain - this leads to increases in snow and cloud cover over cooler areas, producing unusually cold and snowy winters, like last winter. The second force has been called the "bathtub effect", that is, as the air on the summer hemisphere warms, its expansion forces the cold air collecting on the winter side of the globe to move in unusual patterns, which can also increase snow and clouds. ) Quote:
|
Quote:
Thankfully the poor Polar bears won't have to swim as far to get to a new chunk of ice now. I remember how they were all drowning from the lack of ice, and that was our "motivation" to get moving forward on "fixing the problem". Luckily Al Gore and his Ilk were all more than happy to start selling everyone "carbon offsets" while at the same time Al had one of the highest non commercial property electric bills in the state of TN. Obviously he takes this all VERY seriously and and is more motivated than ever to keep all those poor polar bears from drowning. I still get tears in my eyes thinking of those purty white bears that can only swim 100 miles non stop, so I can see why everyone was so concerned.... DAMN YOU GLOBAL WARMING!! :1orglaugh |
Quote:
So, it behooves your side to find and bring to the table climatologists to argue your position and submit real peer-reviewable science articles to that real science journals. This is what your side should be concentrating on. --- Now, which science frauds are you referring too specifically, so we can analyse their truth and the peer judgements of the frauds in question? The only claimed fraud I know about is the scottish stolen emails thing, and this has been investigated close to ten times, and in none of the investigations has an allegation of fraud been supported. So, the claim of fraud in the anglia emails is itself a fraud, or so the investigations so far have said. I am still waiting for your side to present an investogation that argues that any actual fraud was committed. If your side wants to suggest other frauds, I say, put them on the table and lets examine them. Science is not immune from fraud, but science, unlike politics and business, has a very good record of investiogating fraud and destroying the careers of scientists who commit fraud. --- Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician, and nothing gore says or does has any relevance to the science of climate study. Your sides references to him only demonstrate your political rather than scientific bias. |
Quote:
Part of your sides weakness is that you dont seem to grasp that "global warming" does not mean a quiet slow increase in average temperatures wherever you happen to live. Global warming is a technical term, referring to the average amount of heat energy stored in the ocean and atmosphere and the top few meters of the earth's crust. It doesn't produce an gentle even warming - the climate is a giant heat engine, and the slow increae of heat energy in the atmosphere produces all kinds of effects, including colder winters. Because your side intentionally misunderstands what global warming means (for political purposes), some people have argued it should be called climate change, describing the result, not the cause. I don't agree with this trend. The technically accurate term is and remains global warming, a slight increase in the average amount of heat energy, which produces a broad spectrum of inherently hard-to-predict climate changes. |
In 300 years, (when we are all dead, our children are dead and their children are dead) the temperature will be 15 degrees hotter on average.
Quick, lets push for a cap and trade tax right now. Force people and businesses to struggle in a time of economic crisis. Until new technology is available to everyone taxing energy in the name of global warming is just a political agenda. |
The august 2010 arctic sea ice chart from NSIDC - that is, the place used as the source for the opinion quote "According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007" :
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Quote:
And, arctic ice is, if my math is correct, currently a bit less than a two/thirds what it was when measurements first started - so we have lost about a third of the arctic ice overall in the last ten years. So, in fact, the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre is saying the exact opposite of what that quote, taken out of context, claims. The promoters of that quote are using a line that describes a temporary occurance and presumably misrepresenting it to suggest it refers to a permanent state, when the opposite information is available on the general sea ice page of that same website. Now, I am not a scientist myself of course, just a curious layperson, so I might have misinterpreted or misunderstood what this page is saying. I welcome correction. |
Quote:
new technology doesn't magically appear*, and the lesson of this collapse is that times of economic ruin are not good times for inventing new technology. other countries, especially china and the eu, are already well ahead of us in non muslim oil technology. Doing nothing allows them to get even further ahead of us. *I should say "new conceptual technology" - for example, computers occured because of the huge amounts of money and manpower put into early computing technology during ww2 and teh cold war - many years of military spending eventually resulted in the spinoff of personal computing technology - after about 30 years. We should take the billions per year we are spending to be ineffectual teamamerica worldpolice and instead spend it on inventing new energy technologies, so we can once again be the world leaders in a critical new technology revolution. |
Quote:
That is why it is important to have two sides discuss and compete to get there. Right now, you just have a one sided, shove-down-the-throat format. |
Quote:
How many major errors were in his movie? A dozen? |
In the 1970s, there was Global Cooling.
Where they wrong then, or are they wrong now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling |
Quote:
I don't see any signs whatsoever that gore is claiming to be a scientist, but then, I know real scientists, so it's way harder to fool me than many people. The fact that many people on the left side have just as bad a grasp of the science as many people on the right side does not make the science wrong - it requires a certain amount of experience and study to understand the complex picture that the science is modeling out, and debate skills to discuss the topic. I'm just as dissatisfied with many on the left as on the right. My dissatisfaction, however, doesn't change the science itself. |
Quote:
You won't be able to show me a real paper submitted for peer review that seriously proposes that global cooling is happening or that any measurement supports it's recurrance. again, thats not science, that's opinion and speculation and scientists throwing around ideas, which are picked up and exploited by a manipulative and science-illiterate media. there is a real and significant difference between global cooling and global warming as science. |
Quote:
You guys have tons of money to spend educating ranks of climatologists. so go ahead and do it. The current science teams studying this would welcome your money and the measuring tools it would add to the study. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
tell you what - I know exactly what you are going to put up - so you go ahead and put up your source and I will demonstrate why it is commentary and not science. you've made this statement before, and I have chosen not to debate it because it's technically advertising, not science, and does not really apply to my interests in the science itself. --- you state the science "has been done". by DEFINITION, science is NEVER DONE. that's not how science works. if your side brings new replicable measurements to the scientific peer review process, they will be added to the general pool of measurements. there is still plenty of time for your side to do your own science - and if you come up with measurements that differ from those of the current groups of researchers those measurements WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED, and the models improved to accounrt for the new measurements. because that's how science works. |
It's still August. I'm wearing a different jumper.
Can everyone go out for a couple of hours drive please - obviously need some more CO₂ releasing. |
Quote:
|
Wait.. this is weird.. but it seems that the same folks who are staunch defenders of the republican party in america are those who speak the loudest against the proven science of global warming. That can't be, can it? My god, what does it mean? Double rainbow all the way across the sky.
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123