PDA

View Full Version : What do you believe: Glowball warming poll



patriot45
12-07-2009, 09:19 PM
I have a couple of friend that on sunday, they asked me this question, am I a glowball warming denier! One is a staunch liberal from hell and the other, I thought was a recovering lib! They both believe in it with all thier hearts and a huge argument ensued when I said I don't believe a word of it! What say you?

wilbur
12-07-2009, 09:58 PM
You forgot an option:

- The theory of anthropogenic global warming is well supported by several independent but convergent lines of evidence, and there exists no persuasive or compelling reasons to reject this evidence.

I choose that one.

Also... it'd be interesting to hear exactly what kind of arguments you presented to your friends....

patriot45
12-07-2009, 10:02 PM
You forgot an option:

- The theory of anthropogenic global warming is well supported by several independent but convergent lines of evidence, and there exists no persuasive or compelling reasons to reject this evidence.

I choose that one.

The best arguement for that is that you are just plain wrong. Forgive me for not putting in a long drawn out boring choice! Just pick Joooooos.

patriot45
12-07-2009, 10:06 PM
I just got pissed off! There is no globall warming or cooling! This is just a scheme to redistribute wealth. I heard a report tonite that the goal of the Kyoto treaty, without our commiting to it with tons of funds has already been just about met. Go figure, we didn't have to mortgage our country and things worked out.
Fuck you green tree hugging freedom killers!

FeebMaster
12-07-2009, 10:09 PM
I don't really care if we are causing global warming, to be honest.

Rockntractor
12-07-2009, 10:13 PM
You forgot an option:

- The theory of anthropogenic global warming is well supported by several independent but convergent lines of evidence, and there exists no persuasive or compelling reasons to reject this evidence.

I choose that one.

Also... it'd be interesting to hear exactly what kind of arguments you presented to your friends....

How much have you reduced your carbon output Wilbur?

patriot45
12-07-2009, 10:15 PM
I don't really care if we are causing global warming, to be honest.

Do you care about global cooling! I don't care about either! I guess its been about 2 years we have been bullshiitin about this and my answer back then was, lets just argue about it for 10 years without donating our wealth and voila we will have another boogey man to worry about! Whats next too much rain, global raining, we can scare ourselves forever!

FeebMaster
12-07-2009, 10:20 PM
Do you care about global cooling! I don't care about either! I guess its been about 2 years we have been bullshiitin about this and my answer back then was, lets just argue about it for 10 years without donating our wealth and voila we will have another boogey man to worry about! Whats next too much rain, global raining, we can scare ourselves forever!

I am ambivalent on the subject of climate change in general, at least as far as the climate is concerned. I dislike the consequences of the government attempting to preemptively do anything about it.

If the climate changes, it changes. We can adapt.

patriot45
12-07-2009, 10:25 PM
I am ambivalent on the subject of climate change in general, at least as far as the climate is concerned. I dislike the consequences of the government attempting to preemptively do anything about it.

If the climate changes, it changes. We can adapt.

Well I agree. But never forget the government will always fix things until they are broken.

Gingersnap
12-07-2009, 10:25 PM
I don't really care if we are causing global warming, to be honest.

LOL! That's partially my view. In truth, the place has warmed, froze, dried up, flooded, and been covered with horrible parasites from time to time. These things happen. There is no normal baseline from which we are deviating. The narrow parameters that define "normal" for any given region are temporary.

The evidence for surface temps closely following solar activity is compelling. The evidence for rainfall patterns being affected by a wide variety of inputs is also compelling. The evidence for long term degradation of arctic sea ice is.....well, amusing isn't the quite the term but it's close.

In the end, the GW view is hopeless. If it is true (and I see no reason to support that view since I don't need any of that grant money), we are beyond doomed. No effort on the part of industrialized nations will put a dent into any of this. Developing nations have no reason to adhere to GW proposals aside from receiving lucrative but ineffective climate action monies.

If I'm right, we save a boatload of money and effort. If the Warmists are right, we should spend the money on dikes and new agricultural efforts. ;)

FeebMaster
12-07-2009, 10:30 PM
LOL! That's partially my view. In truth, the place has warmed, froze, dried up, flooded, and been covered with horrible parasites from time to time. These things happen. There is no normal baseline from which we are deviating. The narrow parameters that define "normal" for any given region are temporary.

The evidence for surface temps closely following solar activity is compelling. The evidence for rainfall patterns being affected by a wide variety of inputs is also compelling. The evidence for long term degradation of arctic sea ice is.....well, amusing isn't the quite the term but it's close.

In the end, the GW view is hopeless. If it is true (and I see no reason to support that view since I don't need any of that grant money), we are beyond doomed. No effort on the part of industrialized nations will put a dent into any of this. Developing nations have no reason to adhere to GW proposals aside from receiving lucrative but ineffective climate action monies.

If I'm right, we save a boatload of money and effort. If the Warmists are right, we should spend the money on dikes and new agricultural efforts. ;)

Exactly.



Well I agree. But never forget the government will always fix things until they are broken.

Also exactly.

Teetop
12-07-2009, 10:31 PM
You forgot an option:

- The theory of anthropogenic global warming is well supported by several independent but convergent lines of evidence, and there exists no persuasive or compelling reasons to reject this evidence.

I choose that one.

Also... it'd be interesting to hear exactly what kind of arguments you presented to your friends....

Well supported, by "peer review studies"? And, ... there are many reasons to reject this trash.....trash not garbage!

I choose another one;

One that tries to take hold of world money and power from the people of the world.

Who should hold the power on Earth? Governments, or the people?

I choose the mixed races of Earth, not government fucks that you back.:rolleyes:

My friends agree with me, Obozo is done...toast.....stick a fork in him.

He has done nothing to help the U.S. or it's economy.

End. Of. Story.

Lager
12-07-2009, 11:42 PM
Yes Wilbur, humans are affecting the planet. We build cities, dam rivers, chop down trees, grow food. We generate power, construct hospitals, and watch movies. We send signals through the airwaves, we mine resources, barbecue food, shoot rockets into the sky, create waste, raise animals, fight wars, move to the suburbs, have kids................ We are beings that have developed the capacity to manipulate our surroundings to make our lives better.

I say that I contributed to agw whenever my front door was opened today. (high temperature outside never made it above 15 degrees). You say you're certain we are affecting the planet catastrophically. But just what do you say we should do about it?

wilbur
12-08-2009, 08:40 AM
Yes Wilbur, humans are affecting the planet. We build cities, dam rivers, chop down trees, grow food. We generate power, construct hospitals, and watch movies. We send signals through the airwaves, we mine resources, barbecue food, shoot rockets into the sky, create waste, raise animals, fight wars, move to the suburbs, have kids................ We are beings that have developed the capacity to manipulate our surroundings to make our lives better.

I say that I contributed to agw whenever my front door was opened today. (high temperature outside never made it above 15 degrees). You say you're certain we are affecting the planet catastrophically. But just what do you say we should do about it?

Good question... but one I don't really have a good answer for. What the overall consequences of AGW will be, catastrophic or otherwise, are much more debatable than the AGW itself.

It might be helpful to actually have those on the right side of the aisle recognize that the science is about as good as science gets on the matter, and join in substantive discussions about ramifications of AGW and possible courses of action. Right now, that entire space has been ceded to the left... but it might be nice to hear from others.

Its no wonder most here think AGW a left wing conspiracy. One only sees left-wing "solutions" to AGW because so far, only the left has conceded to the scientific facts and attempted to address them. The right, so far, has refused to come to the table.

noonwitch
12-08-2009, 08:58 AM
I'm not a scientist, so what do I know about it all? I've never been convinced that the end is near because of global warming, but I also think we should consider the potential effects of things like carbon emissions and air pollution in manufacturing, transportation, etc.

Remember when Lake Erie/the Cuyohoga River caught on fire in the 60s? That was a pretty bad example of what unchecked pollution can result in.

Drive by an oil refinery some time. Entire metro areas used to smell like that before clean air rules were put in place.

There are good, common-sense reasons for having policy that discourages pollution, that have nothing to do with whether global warming is a hoax or a reality.

Sonnabend
12-08-2009, 09:02 AM
- The theory of anthropogenic global warming is well supported by several independent but convergent lines of evidence...Ignoring the thousands of scientists who say otherwise INCLUDING Dr Freeman Dyson, and the recent proof that this is a all a scam and that the data was fiddled to get a predetermined outcome


and there exists no persuasive or compelling reasons to reject this evidence. Plenty of evidence exists, but like most , wait make that ALL , libbers you stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala I cant hear you....."

Even when concrete proof was put in front of you, you'd discount it because it isnt "peer reviewed" or doesn't meet some other bullshit criteria you made up on the spot.

You are blind deaf and dumb to anything except your own perverted agenda, in the face of facts to the contrary you will never look at anything that doesn't meet your blinkered, narrow minded attitude.

and again I ask

WHAT IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE EARTH TO THE SUN AND BY WHAT NAME IS IT KNOWN

Sonnabend
12-08-2009, 09:10 AM
Good question... but one I don't really have a good answer for. What the overall consequences of AGW will be, catastrophic or otherwise, are much more debatable than the AGW itself.Lets finish the debate IF AGW even EXISTS first


It might be helpful to actually have those on the right side of the aisle recognize that the science is about as good as science gets on the matterLike the thousands of scientists that say AGW ISNT happening?


and join in substantive discussions about ramifications of AGW and possible courses of actionSoon as you provide CONCRETE, indisputable proof.

AGW is a THEORY. A GUESS. No one KNOWS for certain.

What is the correct temperature of the Earth? What was it this day a hundred years ago? (seeing as we didn't have SUV's OR jet propelled transatlantic airflight in 1909), and how do you prove that the climate/ temperature has changed?

You cant...can you?


Right now, that entire space has been ceded to the left... but it might be nice to hear from others.Right now it might be nice to hear some facts, not fancy or religion. If you ask if we "believe" thats religion, not science, science is what you know to be truie, not what you believe.


One only sees left-wing "solutions" to AGW because so far, only the left has conceded to the scientific facts and attempted to address them. The right, so far, has refused to come to the table.No, the left has clamped down and said the debate is over do as you are told...we have said in response, fuck you, we wants facts not some fancy gaia religion.

Dr Freeman Dyson, a man far more eminent than you, has stated AGW is garbage. I am interested to know how it is you know more than he does.

Which you dont.


IT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO that Dyson began publicly stating his doubts about climate change. Speaking at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/boston_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Dyson announced that “all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated.” Since then he has only heated up his misgivings, declaring in a 2007 interview with Salon.com that “the fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all” and writing in an essay for The New York Review of Books, the left-leaning publication that is to gravitas what the Beagle was to Darwin, that climate change has become an “obsession” — the primary article of faith for “a worldwide secular religion” known as environmentalism

I do not "believe in AGW", I also dont believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Boogeyman, Bigfoot, the Yeti, the Easter Bunny and other non existent entities.

AmPat
12-08-2009, 09:38 AM
I'm getting concerned about this brightening of our planet every day. Then, approximately 12 hours later, I'm alarmed by the rapid decrease in illumination. This is bound to end in doom! We need to do something about this phenomenom quickly before we all suffer irrepairable damage.

wilbur
12-08-2009, 09:56 AM
What is the correct temperature of the Earth? What was it this day a hundred years ago? (seeing as we didn't have SUV's OR jet propelled transatlantic airflight in 1909), and how do you prove that the climate/ temperature has changed?


All great questions, coming from someone who is earnestly seeking some education on the issue. However, coming from one whose made up his mind, and taken a strident stance... they are abysmally ignorant. Questions like these disqualify one from claiming to know anything about the topic at all. Its fine not to know something, but you obviously havent done the due diligence required to express an informed opinion on the topic at all.

If you had.... you would realize:

1. The "correct" temperature of the earth, is the temperature range at which humanity, and the ecosystems humanity depends on, can most easily flourish. Concern about the climate is, at its core, human self-importance. This is a seriously basic, fundamental point.

The other important factor to have "correct", is climate stability. We, nor the other organisms on this planet, can cope with an ecosystem that changes too rapidly, even within the accepted range of "correct" temperatures. Even minor blips are often punctuated by mass extinctions and hardship for many living creatures.

2. There's a whole field of science, called paleoclimatology which uses investigative methods to determine what the climate has been in the past. Their methods are too numerous and diverse to get in to here... but suffice to say, you will have more information than you can handle if you start researching paleoclimatology.

wilbur
12-08-2009, 10:07 AM
AGW is a THEORY. A GUESS. No one KNOWS for certain.


In science, a theory IS NOT a guess.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

BadCat
12-08-2009, 10:17 AM
Tell us, oh gay doomsayer, what measures are YOU personally taking to "save" our planet?

wilbur
12-08-2009, 10:19 AM
Tell us, oh gay doomsayer, what measures are YOU personally taking to "save" our planet?

For starters, approaching the issue honestly.

obx
12-08-2009, 10:20 AM
I believe in climate change. I have noticed it changes about 4 times a year.
________
Gr engine (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_GR_engine)

BadCat
12-08-2009, 10:27 AM
For starters, approaching the issue honestly.

Should we surmise you are all talk and no action, like most moonbats?

djones520
12-08-2009, 10:35 AM
For starters, approaching the issue honestly.

Then why not start being honest. Your first post here was claiming there is no evidence against AGW. There is PLENTY of it.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-evidencefacts-against/

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N47/C2.php

That took me 30 seconds and Google. Try it out sometime.

wilbur
12-08-2009, 10:42 AM
Then why not start being honest. Your first post here was claiming there is no evidence against AGW. There is PLENTY of it.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-evidencefacts-against/

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N47/C2.php

That took me 30 seconds and Google. Try it out sometime.

Actually, I said "there exists no persuasive or compelling reasons to reject this evidence."

Certainly there are objections, but none - as of today - rise to a level of credibility and consistency necessary to reject the theory of AGW.

Rockntractor
12-08-2009, 11:11 AM
For starters, approaching the issue honestly.
so basically you have approached a problem that according to you has the potential to wipe out the human species by changing nothing in your personal life other than making a few posts on a message board. Al Gore and most of the rest of the global warming crowd do the same, nothing. Do as I say not as I do is not a philosophy that I will follow!

Rebel Yell
12-08-2009, 11:16 AM
Wilbur, you wanna know what this science is all about?


We Need to Think Big to Reduce Carbon Dioxide
MIT scientists call on the U.S. government to spend half a billion dollars on projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal. Why think so small?
Last week, an MIT report called for $500 million in U.S. government subsidies to support promising new technologies that might reduce the emissions from coal-burning power plants. (See "The Precarious Future of Coal.") Worldwide, coal plants burn 5.4 billion tons of coal a year, accounting for a third of our planet's carbon-dioxide emissions. As a result of coal's cheapness and abundance, a frenzy of new plants are being built around the world.

The report assesses ideas to capture and bury carbon dioxideas one solution to helping reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. MIT scientists conclude that the science needs time and money to mature, although other, more gung-ho experts in the field believe that solutions are close at hand. Whichever view is correct, $500 million is way too little. What's needed is for someone (perhaps a presidential candidate?) to launch a plan, equivalent in scale to the Human Genome Project of the 1990s or John F. Kennedy's pledge in the early 1960s to put a man on the Moon by the end of that decade.

We need inspired leadership calling for billions of dollars to be spent on a difficult but achievable goal: to find technological fixes to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. This should be part of a comprehensive plan toward conservation and a reduction in fossil-fuel dependency. Part of the solution should be to use our own cleverness--which in some ways got us into the mess of human-produced greenhouse gases in the first place--to create more-efficient plants.

The time seems right for such a bold initiative. Out here in San Francisco, the buzz among life-science investors is about "clean tech" and "green tech," and companies are springing up in the Bay Area the way dot coms did a decade ago. (There are pluses and minuses to this ecoboom--a topic for another blog.) Where all of this will lead and how successful it will be is anyone's guess, but the business sector out here sees an opening, and it will need a spur from the government to speed things up.

After September 11, 2001, and the anthrax attack on offices in Washington, D.C., the following month, Congress passed the $5.6 billion BioShield initiative to develop new vaccines for potential biowarfare pathogens. In 2005, Congress passed BioShield II, adding money, tax incentives, and other measures to speed up biodefense. These initiatives have had major problems, but surely if we can spend billions on biodefense for future pathogens, we can spend similar amounts to support both public and private efforts to help fix the global-warming mess.
Furthermore, if we can put a man on the Moon in 1969, we just may be able to reduce coal emissions by a sizable percentage in the coming years. Surely we need to at least try.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/duncan/17568/

Rebel Yell
12-08-2009, 11:21 AM
The other important factor to have "correct", is climate stability. We, nor the other organisms on this planet, can cope with an ecosystem that changes too rapidly, even within the accepted range of "correct" temperatures. Even minor blips are often punctuated by mass extinctions and hardship for many living creatures.



You mean the way man went extinct during the Ice Age? Or how people can't live in extreme climates like Siberia or the desert?

Sonnabend
12-08-2009, 02:07 PM
l great questions, coming from someone who is earnestly seeking some education on the issue.

You claim the earth is heating up. Yet you cant answer this question.

Has anyone else noticed that the words missing from this little creeps' polemic are the words "I could be wrong"? He has this full sense of certitude, and there is no chance he is wrong, mistaken or taking a wrong approach...as usual, its always some elses fault

Typical

There is plenty of persuasive evidence against AGW, you have a closed mind and wont listen to any of it.


However, coming from one whose made up his mind, and taken a strident stance... they are abysmally ignorant

So tell me what it is then.


estions like these disqualify one from claiming to know anything about the topic at all.

And your degrees in climate science are....?


Its fine not to know something, but you obviously havent done the due diligence required to express an informed opinion on the topic at all.

Oh, I have indeed, especially Dr Dysons work which states the SUN is the issue at hand. Evidence YOU havent read.

If you had.... you would realize:

1. The "correct" temperature of the earth, is the temperature range at which humanity, and the ecosystems humanity depends on, can most easily flourish.

Which is?


Concern about the climate is, at its core, human self-importance. This is a seriously basic, fundamental point.

Bullshit.


The other important factor to have "correct", is climate stability. We, nor the other organisms on this planet, can cope with an ecosystem that changes too rapidly, even within the accepted range of "correct" temperatures. Even minor blips are often punctuated by mass extinctions and hardship for many living creatures.

All of which have happened naturally and Man has had no hand in them. Missed that, did we?


2. There's a whole field of science, called paleoclimatology which uses investigative methods to determine what the climate has been in the past.

All those dinosaurs driving SUV's......


Their methods are too numerous and diverse to get in to here... but suffice to say, you will have more information than you can handle if you start researching paleoclimatology.

I fail to see how an event MILLIONS of years ago has anything to do with the THEORY of MAN MADE global warming when there were NO MEN a million years ago. And any climate change back then had nothing to do with us anyway.

The last major climate shift happened after a huge fucking meteor crashed to earth. (Velikovsky). Man wasnt involved.

wilbur
12-08-2009, 04:11 PM
You claim the earth is heating up. Yet you cant answer this question.

Has anyone else noticed that the words missing from this little creeps' polemic are the words "I could be wrong"? He has this full sense of certitude, and there is no chance he is wrong, mistaken or taking a wrong approach...as usual, its always some elses fault

Typical


Project much?

If you, or anyone else had bothered to ask for clarification on my opinion, before going off on these little tirades, you would find that I hold my opinion with confidence, but not certainty.



There is plenty of persuasive evidence against AGW, you have a closed mind and wont listen to any of it.


Says who? "Evidences" presented most often at this site, are little more than insults directed at the poster (and Al Gore) and long debunked myths and talking points that even most elementary school students would be embarrassed to utter.

As if the others here, demonstrate impeccable fair-mindedness, intellectual honesty, a firm grasp of the issues, the ability to check bias at the door and offer intelligent, dispassionate criticism..... in case you didnt catch on, this is sarcasm.





Oh, I have indeed, especially Dr Dysons work which states the SUN is the issue at hand. Evidence YOU havent read.


You have no way of knowing this. The ol' "the sun is doing it" is a common argument, and one that has simply hasn't panned out. The sun certainly can and has contributed to recent warming. However, it hasn't been able to account for all of it.



All of which have happened naturally and Man has had no hand in them. Missed that, did we?


Yes, you Sonnabend, Aussie repo-man extraordinaire have stumbled onto something that all the world's leading climate scientists just happened to overlook! The climate goes through changes all on its own! Amazing.

Now... If only we had some way to reconstruct how the climate has changed in the past, to find out what contributed to those changes, and develop predictive models that help us to understand how it is changing now and what is contributing to changes now.... wouldn't that be neat!?



All those dinosaurs driving SUV's......

I fail to see how an event MILLIONS of years ago has anything to do with the THEORY of MAN MADE global warming when there were NO MEN a million years ago. And any climate change back then had nothing to do with us anyway.


Not two posts ago, you seemed to imply that its a problem that we "don't know what the temperature was 100 years ago (even though we really do)" and now you seem to be implying that it isnt relevant.. get your story straight.

In any case... failing to see how the past climate is relevant to our understanding of the present climate simply, once again, shows abject incompetence regarding this issue. This is basic, basic stuff here. If you can't connect those dots, your opinions on the topic are worse than worthless.

Jfor
12-08-2009, 05:19 PM
Project much?

If you, or anyone else had bothered to ask for clarification on my opinion, before going off on these little tirades, you would find that I hold my opinion with confidence, but not certainty.



Says who? "Evidences" presented most often at this site, are little more than insults directed at the poster (and Al Gore) and long debunked myths and talking points that even most elementary school students would be embarrassed to utter.

As if the others here, demonstrate impeccable fair-mindedness, intellectual honesty, a firm grasp of the issues, the ability to check bias at the door and offer intelligent, dispassionate criticism..... in case you didnt catch on, this is sarcasm.





You have no way of knowing this. The ol' "the sun is doing it" is a common argument, and one that has simply hasn't panned out. The sun certainly can and has contributed to recent warming. However, it hasn't been able to account for all of it.



Yes, you Sonnabend, Aussie repo-man extraordinaire have stumbled onto something that all the world's leading climate scientists just happened to overlook! The climate goes through changes all on its own! Amazing.

Now... If only we had some way to reconstruct how the climate has changed in the past, to find out what contributed to those changes, and develop predictive models that help us to understand how it is changing now and what is contributing to changes now.... wouldn't that be neat!?



Not two posts ago, you seemed to imply that its a problem that we "don't know what the temperature was 100 years ago (even though we really do)" and now you seem to be implying that it isnt relevant.. get your story straight.

In any case... failing to see how the past climate is relevant to our understanding of the present climate simply, once again, shows abject incompetence regarding this issue. This is basic, basic stuff here. If you can't connect those dots, your opinions on the topic are worse than worthless.

Once again, reading your posts just tells me more and more that you are stuck on stupid.

Sonnabend
12-08-2009, 05:29 PM
As if the others here, demonstrate impeccable fair-mindedness, intellectual honesty, a firm grasp of the issues, the ability to check bias at the door and offer intelligent, dispassionate criticism..... in case you didnt catch on, this is sarcasm.
Im not your fucking secretary. Do your own research.


You have no way of knowing this. The ol' "the sun is doing it" is a common argument, and one that has simply hasn't panned out. The sun certainly can and has contributed to recent warming. However, it hasn't been able to account for all of it.So you're better informed than Dr Dyson. WRONG.


Yes, you Sonnabend, Aussie repo-man extraordinaire Skip tracer, please. The repo is done by outside agencies. Oh and the job comes with a two year certification.

You still havent told us what degrees you have in climate science.


have stumbled onto something that all the world's leading climate scientists just happened to overlook! The climate goes through changes all on its own! Amazing.Funny that, isnt it? Because they seem to think its all manmade and nature has nothing to do with it.


Now... If only we had some way to reconstruct how the climate has changed in the past, to find out what contributed to those changes, and develop predictive models that help us to understand how it is changing now and what is contributing to changes now.... wouldn't that be neat!?Yeah it would...except when the scientists are fiddling the data to fit their own agenda.

djones520
12-08-2009, 05:37 PM
Actually, I said "there exists no persuasive or compelling reasons to reject this evidence."

Certainly there are objections, but none - as of today - rise to a level of credibility and consistency necessary to reject the theory of AGW.

It's not persuasive and compelling because you don't want it to be. In those so called "hacked" (a term I've noticed a lot of you AGW followers throwing around despite no evidence that they were hacked) emails, I read text of those climatologists admitting to fudging the numbers on the midevil warming period because they couldn't explain the differance between now and then.

I'm looking at charts from the NASA website that shows that ever since 2005 the global temperature has been dropping. The study on Global Warming is an INCOMPLETE science at best. There are way to many questions unanswered. How are we experiencing global warming, when we aren't? Why was it warmer a thousand years ago before the invention of combustion, then it is now? What proof is there that this is not part of a natural cycle? The warming that ended the last ice age began when there was so little CO2 in the atmosphere that man-kind couldn't even plant sustainable crops, yet it happened some how.

To many questions are not answered, and yet you are willing to allow Global Policy to be changed on an incomplete science that has admittedly stated there would be negligible effects if such policy would go through, despite causing massive damage to our economy. You call us the deniers, but the only one in denial here is you. You deny that you can be wrong, and in your denial your driving us down a tunnel with a train coming from the other way.

wilbur
12-08-2009, 05:49 PM
To many questions are not answered, and yet you are willing to allow Global Policy to be changed on an incomplete science that has admittedly stated there would be negligible effects if such policy would go through, despite causing massive damage to our economy. You call us the deniers, but the only one in denial here is you. You deny that you can be wrong, and in your denial your driving us down a tunnel with a train coming from the other way.

l'll look at the rest later, but I have never said I would support any proposed policies, especially ones with burdonsome costs, and questionable benefits, to combat global warming - from the left or anyone else.

Honestly, I would love to see more real free-market enviromental solutions. But unfortunately, the people who are generally champions of capitalism and free-markets, have pretty much taken themselves out of the debate.

The nature of the debate has firmly cemented in peoples minds that accepting global warming entails that one accept socialism, unfair international treaties, cap and trade, and all the rest. That simply isnt the case and it is actually quite infuriating, as well as absurd.

Rockntractor
12-08-2009, 06:14 PM
l'll look at the rest later, but I have never said I would support any proposed policies, especially ones with burdonsome costs, and questionable benefits, to combat global warming - from the left or anyone else.

Honestly, I would love to see more real free-market enviromental solutions. But unfortunately, the people who are generally champions of capitalism and free-markets, have pretty much taken themselves out of the debate.

The nature of the debate has firmly cemented in peoples minds that accepting global warming entails that one accept socialism, unfair international treaties, cap and trade, and all the rest. That simply isnt the case and it is actually quite infuriating, as well as absurd.
So what are you doing about it Wilbur?
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Talkinshit.jpg?t=1260313982

Troll
12-08-2009, 08:13 PM
I don't really care if we are causing global warming, to be honest.

You have the clarity, as usual.

I should honestly choose the "Koolaid" option, because I believed in man-made global warming in college. I started having serious doubts when I found out that everyone's great idea to fix the problem is to raise taxes on (literally) everybody. If raising taxes to fix this problem has the same overall result as raising taxes to fix other problems has had, I predict a worldwide temperature average of 150 F by 2015.

Plus, the people/organizations/countries who are beating the drums on this the loudest both (a) bring nothing to the table financially, and (b) somehow seem to reap the biggest benefit. There are more people riding the wagon than pulling it in the world, and this is about to become more apparent than ever.

Now, I'm on the fence between "it's not real" and "I don't care", but that's only out of respect for the Scientific Method. If global warming is real, fine, I'll be in my house with the A/C on if you need me. What other people and polar bears do about it is their business.

FeebMaster
12-08-2009, 08:28 PM
If raising taxes to fix this problem has the same overall result as raising taxes to fix other problems has had, I predict a worldwide temperature average of 150 F by 2015.

Don't worry. They've got it covered. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/jun/10/globalwarming.climatechange/print)

patriot45
12-08-2009, 10:44 PM
Don't worry. They've got it covered. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/jun/10/globalwarming.climatechange/print)

Good one! I posted that last year! If I remember right the DU wanted everyone to jump at the same time to move the earth! I love it! Its cheaper!

PoliCon
12-08-2009, 11:05 PM
Don't worry. They've got it covered. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/jun/10/globalwarming.climatechange/print)

Meh. They got the idea from an episode of futurama.
http://theinfosphere.org/Global_warming

FeebMaster
12-08-2009, 11:54 PM
Good one! I posted that last year! If I remember right the DU wanted everyone to jump at the same time to move the earth! I love it! Its cheaper!

lol I remember. I had to save it for the crazy files so I could whip out the link in a thread just like this.

djones520
12-09-2009, 12:08 AM
Good one! I posted that last year! If I remember right the DU wanted everyone to jump at the same time to move the earth! I love it! Its cheaper!

I just hope China and India were facing towards the sun when that happened, otherwise we might move closer.

Sonnabend
12-09-2009, 05:29 AM
Proof and Evidence for Wilbur (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627)


The result was published this year in the peer-reviewed journal Energy and Environment and the paper has not yet been challenged in the scientific literature.


What this means is that the IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data.

Meanwhile two recent results published by top scientists cast doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's theory about the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming. These are of of significance because whereas the climate models used by the IPCC rely on software to represent a large number of highly complex Earth processes, these results are equivalent to experimental observations on the Earth itself.Paul Pearson of Cardiff University and his international team achieved a breakthrough recently, published four weeks ago in arguably the world's top scientific journal, Nature.Watch Wilbur do the usual

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_U_VdSV--0tY/SmQ4il4QiQI/AAAAAAAAAPY/poWo-LP2QFw/s1600-h/chimp.jpghttp://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_U_VdSV--0tY/SmQ4il4QiQI/AAAAAAAAAPY/poWo-LP2QFw/s1600-h/chimp.jpg

wilbur
12-09-2009, 11:35 AM
Proof and Evidence for Wilbur (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627)
Watch Wilbur do the usual


Its interesting... if you actually take a look at the abstract of the second paper it doesnt seem to make any of the same implications that your little article did. In fact, its hard to see how they could be any more opposed to one another. What a great example of the press fudging the facts. You should be a little more careful about the information you consume, and believe.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7267/full/nature08447.html



Geological and geochemical evidence1, 2, 3 indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet formed during the Eocene–Oligocene transition4, 33.5–34.0 million years ago. Modelling studies5, 6 suggest that such ice-sheet formation might have been triggered when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels () fell below a critical threshold of 750 p.p.m.v.

...

Overall, our results confirm the central role of declining CO2 in the development of the Antarctic ice sheet (in broad agreement with carbon cycle modelling) and help to constrain mechanisms and feedbacks associated with the Earth's biggest climate switch of the past 65 Myr.


Now look at the quote from your article: "Meanwhile two recent results published by top scientists cast doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's theory about the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming."

Sucker.

wilbur
12-09-2009, 11:57 AM
So you're better informed than Dr Dyson. WRONG.


No... but there's a large body of research, as well as large body of relevant professional opinion, that says he is wrong.



Funny that, isnt it? Because they seem to think its all manmade and nature has nothing to do with it.


If there were any doubts about your incompetence before... this nails it. Are you really going to contend that climate scientists deny that there are significant non-human influences upon the climate or even in recent warming? Seriously? Wow.......

NJCardFan
12-09-2009, 12:06 PM
Wilber is your typical moonbat. They're calling anyone who doesn't buy into this global warming nonsense deniers while they simply refuse to look at any objecting science. Then to make it worse, when someone like Poli asks Wilber what they are doing to combat global warming, they ignore the question and spew more bullshit. The only global warming moonbat I have any respect for is Ed Begley jr. because at least he's trying to keep his "carbon footprint" down in his own comical way. And Wilbur, a theory is not science. It is a tool of science. The Theory of relativity is just a theory because there is no way to prove it. The law of gravity is a law because it can be proven 100%. Same with physics. But global warming is a theory because is simply cannot be proven 100% or even 80% or even 50%. There's just too much data that cannot be readily explained. And the reason why I don't believe it is simple. When the pro-GW crowd has to resort to calling little names to those who disagree with them or when they have to resort to playing on one's emotions(hence the polar bears falling from the sky commercial) then there's got to be something wrong with their facts. If the facts were so undeniable, then they would be all you need. Not this bullshit saying that GW deniers are the same as holocaust deniers or showing little videos of polar bears falling from the sky to get your point across.

PoliCon
12-09-2009, 01:38 PM
here's a large body of research, as well as large body of relevant professional opinion, that says he is wrong.

Well then I guess you'll have to become a Christian now then because there is a large body of relevant professional opinion, that says [you are] wrong.:cool:

wilbur
12-09-2009, 02:20 PM
Well then I guess you'll have to become a Christian now then because there is a large body of relevant professional opinion, that says [you are] wrong.:cool:

If Christianity were a scientific theory, and scientists of the relevant fields endorsed it as the best explanation for life, etc, then one would need really, really solid reasons for rejecting it. However, Christianity has no scientific merit, at all... hence, there is no problem with rejecting it as the absurd fiction that it is, along with any of the other monotheisms.

Scientific consensus carriers much more weight than any other form of consensus, because its standards are simply much much higher, and its conclusions much more cautioned, and it uses the best, most rigorous forms of knowledge acquisition that we actually have.

Religions, like new age mystical bullshit, rely on intuitions and personal feelings and other forms of "knowing" that are demonstrably and notoriously unreliable.

Rockntractor
12-09-2009, 02:26 PM
If Christianity were a scientific theory, and scientists of the relevant fields endorsed it as the best explanation for life, etc, then one would need really, really solid reasons for rejecting it. However, Christianity has no scientific merit, at all... hence, there is no problem with rejecting it as the absurd fiction that it is, along with any of the other monotheisms.

Scientific consensus carriers much more weight than any other form of consensus, because its standards are simply much much higher, and its conclusions much more cautioned, and it uses the best, most rigorous forms of knowledge acquisition that we actually have.

Religions, like new age mystical bullshit, rely on intuitions and personal feelings and other forms of "knowing" that are demonstrably and notoriously unreliable.
Our mythical history dates back further than the 1990s and we are not taxing you for our beliefs.

AmPat
12-09-2009, 02:31 PM
If Christianity were a scientific theory, and scientists of the relevant fields endorsed it as the best explanation for life, etc, then one would need really, really solid reasons for rejecting it. However, Christianity has no scientific merit, at all... hence, there is no problem with rejecting it as the absurd fiction that it is, along with any of the other monotheisms.

Scientific consensus carriers much more weight than any other form of consensus, because its standards are simply much much higher, and its conclusions much more cautioned, and it uses the best, most rigorous forms of knowledge acquisition that we actually have.

Religions, like new age mystical bullshit, rely on intuitions and personal feelings and other forms of "knowing" that are demonstrably and notoriously unreliable.

Have you or any other scientist seen evolution? No? Well then it must not be true. Jesus on the other hand was seen by over 500 people AFTER he was crucified. How's that fit with your "Theories?" Of course you could reject it out of hand at your own peril. Or you could do like several other (honest) atheists who decided to find out for themselves. They number themnselves among the Christian faithful now. Must have been something to that Jesus as God thingy. Care to take the challenge?

Eyewitnesses do not constitute "new age mystical bullshit, rely on intuitions and personal feelings and other forms of "knowing" ". If that were true we wouldn't need Trials and juries, we could just have panels of scientists. Sorry sir, I realize you have three dozen witnesses but the evidence doesn't show that Mr. Scopes actually hit your car with his. Do you have any proof?":rolleyes:

wilbur
12-09-2009, 02:47 PM
Wilber is your typical moonbat. They're calling anyone who doesn't buy into this global warming nonsense deniers while they simply refuse to look at any objecting science. Then to make it worse, when someone like Poli asks Wilber what they are doing to combat global warming, they ignore the question and spew more bullshit. The only global warming moonbat I have any respect for is Ed Begley jr. because at least he's trying to keep his "carbon footprint" down in his own comical way. And Wilbur, a theory is not science. It is a tool of science. The Theory of relativity is just a theory because there is no way to prove it. The law of gravity is a law because it can be proven 100%. Same with physics. But global warming is a theory because is simply cannot be proven 100% or even 80% or even 50%. There's just too much data that cannot be readily explained.


You are mistaken about laws.Theories generally try to explain a wide range of phenomena, while laws state describe a single observed phenomena. Other than that, they aren't all that much different. Neither can ever be proven, whatever the heck that means anyways. If you don't grasp this basic idea, you've pretty much got science *all wrong*. Science deals in probabilities, and according to our best scientific knowledge, it is probable that man-kind is contributing significantly to the worlds temperature, through CO2 emissions.


And the reason why I don't believe it is simple. When the pro-GW crowd has to resort to calling little names to those who disagree with them

Interesting reason, given the first sentence in your post.



or when they have to resort to playing on one's emotions(hence the polar bears falling from the sky commercial) then there's got to be something wrong with their facts. If the facts were so undeniable, then they would be all you need. Not this bullshit saying that GW deniers are the same as holocaust deniers or showing little videos of polar bears falling from the sky to get your point across.

So, by your measure, the objective evidence that I and others ignore include polar bear commercials, name-calling, and flawed understandings of the scientific concepts of laws and theories? I think I see some problems there...

wilbur
12-09-2009, 03:00 PM
Have you or any other scientist seen evolution? No? Well then it must not be true. Jesus on the other hand was seen by over 500 people AFTER he was crucified. How's that fit with your "Theories?" Of course you could reject it out of hand at your own peril. Or you could do like several other (honest) atheists who decided to find out for themselves. They number themnselves among the Christian faithful now. Must have been something to that Jesus as God thingy. Care to take the challenge?

Eyewitnesses do not constitute "new age mystical bullshit, rely on intuitions and personal feelings and other forms of "knowing" ". If that were true we wouldn't need Trials and juries, we could just have panels of scientists. Sorry sir, I realize you have three dozen witnesses but the evidence doesn't show that Mr. Scopes actually hit your car with his. Do you have any proof?":rolleyes:

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and besides.... you don't actually have eyewitness testimony of 500 people... you have the testimony of gospel authors, and no impartial, extra-biblical historical means with which to corroborate that testimony.

Sonnabend
12-09-2009, 04:27 PM
What a great example of the press fudging the facts. You should be a little more careful about the information you consume, and believe.

As opposed to a load of climate scientists fudging THEIR facts? Funny, you seem not to see the disparity here...not to mention the hypocrisy.

Moron.

Sonnabend
12-09-2009, 04:39 PM
h/t Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/)


Warming alarmist Bob Reiss reports that NASA’s James Hansen, the Godfather of Global Warming and Al Gore’s advisor, has mades another terrifying prediction:

I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

So when was this prediction of doom-in-20-years made?

Twenty years ago.

New York’s weather:

The National Weather Service was expecting colder-than-normal temperatures in the Midwest, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic next week, with the parts of the Northeast hardest hit.

New York’s crime:

The Washington Post reported in late July that the crime rate fell sharply in most American cities during the first six months of 2009. Rates were down for homicide, robbery, and sexual assault… (M)ost cities, from Boston, New York, Charlotte, and Atlanta in the east to Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles in the west, reported dramatically lower homicide rates, with declines ranging from 11 percent to an astonishing 67 percent.

Just checked, is the West Side highway under water yet?

Big Guy
12-09-2009, 06:44 PM
The mid-west just got nailed with a couple of feet of "global warming" and it's still comming down. Man December and it's a blistering 38 degrees in Tennessee. I don't think I can handle all this heat. :D

Rockntractor
12-09-2009, 07:44 PM
They are predicting a sweltering 9 degrees here tonight!

MrsSmith
12-09-2009, 07:44 PM
If this has already been posted somewhere...sorry.

Four Colossal Holes in the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming (http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2009/12/08/four_colossal_holes_in_the_theory_of_man-made_global_warming?page=2)


Climate change has been around as long as the earth:...So, the planet has had bigger temperature shifts than the one we're experiencing now. It has also been warmer than it is today:...

>>>

The earth was cooling from roughly 1940-1976: Despite the fact that widespread industrialization was occurring during that 30 year time period, temperatures dropped so much that there were claims we were going into a dangerous period of "global cooling." If global temperatures are tightly bound to man-made greenhouse gasses and those gasses were being rapidly introduced to the atmosphere, then the earth should have been warming, not cooling during that period.

>>>

So, if it's global warming, why isn't there any warming occurring now? ... The globe has been cooling since 1998. Again, if global warming has its bootlaces hitched to the amount of man-made greenhouse gasses that are being produced and those numbers are increasing, why hasn't the temperature gone up as well?

>>>

Climate models can't accurately project the weather 100 years in the future: The truth is that we don't fully understand how our planet's climate works and thus, our climate models don't work very well. Since the climate models can't explain the climate over the last 25 years and they can't explain the leveling off of temperature since 1998, why would anyone believe they can predict conditions in 100 years? As computer programmers say, "garbage in, garbage out."

Rockntractor
12-09-2009, 07:47 PM
Yep we covered them holes yesterday!
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=22549

AmPat
12-10-2009, 09:24 AM
Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and besides.... you don't actually have eyewitness testimony of 500 people... you have the testimony of gospel authors, and no impartial, extra-biblical historical means with which to corroborate that testimony.

I guess we should just chuck thay unreliable garbage when we have trials.:rolleyes:

wilbur
12-10-2009, 09:29 AM
I guess we should just chuck thay unreliable garbage when we have trials.:rolleyes:

Thankfully, we are chucking a lot of that unreliable garbage out, when it comes to trials - and wrongfully convicted people are getting set free.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm



The freeing of James Calvin Tillman after 18 years of wrongful imprisonment contains a lesson that has been told and retold thousands of times: Eyewitness identification of strangers is unreliable.

Tillman was convicted of kidnapping and raping a woman in Hartford in 1988 based largely on the testimony of the victim, who had picked out his photo and then identified him in court as the rapist. Eighteen years later, a DNA analysis of semen stains on the victim's clothing showed that they had come from someone other than Tillman. Last Tuesday, Judge Thomas P. Miano set aside Tillman's conviction and set him free.

....

Even more disturbing are the results of the FBI's DNA analysis of biological specimens in 10,000 cases from 1989 to 1996.

These were all cases in which eyewitnesses had identified a suspect who had been arrested for the crime (usually sexual assault) and biological material from the perpetrator was available for comparison with the suspect's. In 20 percent of the cases, no conclusive results could be obtained. In the remaining 8,000 cases, however, the suspect was cleared in 2,000, or 25 percent. Assuming that without DNA evidence half of these defendants would have been convicted, then as many as 12 percent of those convicted in disputed eyewitness cases may be innocent.

...

Rockntractor
12-10-2009, 09:37 AM
Thankfully, we are chucking a lot of that unreliable garbage out, when it comes to trials - and wrongfully convicted people are getting set free.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm

Merry Christmas Wilbur!

AmPat
12-10-2009, 03:35 PM
Thankfully, we are chucking a lot of that unreliable garbage out, when it comes to trials - and wrongfully convicted people are getting set free.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm

Your eternity to gamble.:cool: