Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by ba1025 View Post
    I remember Kennedy getting shot and grew up when the local river( the naugatuck river) stank and had nothing but worms and bacteria living in it. it has salmon now...cant ever eat them because PCBs don't go away easily but they are living there now. You do know the far right fought the laws that brought that river back to life and used 'science' to base the argument on back then as well ...I haven't been called young in a few years. I am a firm believer in Age and Treachery always getting the better of youth and beauty
    I'm well aware of the effects of pollution on the environment, and have indeed seen at first hand the effects of industry pollutants and mismanagement of environments through overuse.
    What I haven't seen is any actual empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is a forcer of global temperature increase. What I have seen is a single graph by Mann et al in the original IPCC report as proof that there has been an escalation in the background rise (yes background rise) of global temperatures.
    I can go into the reasons for why Mann et al is now regarded as a big pile of smelly poo and has been dropped from the IPCC reports if you like, but the only other thing I've seen from the IPCC are a whole lot of models based on Mann (i.e. using his data as predictor) that have thus far completely failed to predict the temperature fluctuations around the globe. Plus an awful lot of political statements that bear no relation to any of the few scientific papers they've actually presented.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post

      I'm sorry you feel the way you do. But I want to thank you for helping me make my point. You didn't bring anything here that would change my mind. So you have chosen to quit debate and stomp away. It's OK, I apologize for upsetting you.
      :(
      you can lead a horse to water but if you try to make him drink he'll just trample you you didnt upset me. Like i said i wouldn't be upset with a Christian who insisted the world was 5000 years old at some point i would realize the belief was based on faith so beyond the need of proof and their was no point in continuing to press a point he was incapable of acknowledging
      Last edited by Roosveltrepub; 01 May 08,, 17:17.
      Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
      ~Ronald Reagan

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by ba1025 View Post
        you can lead a horse to water but if you try to make him drink he'll just trample you you didnt upset me. Like i said i wouldn't be upset with a Christian who insisted the world was 5000 years old at some point i would realize the belief was based on faith so beyond the need of proof and their was no point in continuing to press a point he was incapable of acknowledging
        Well it's good for you that I'm not a horse then.:)

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
          I'm well aware of the effects of pollution on the environment, and have indeed seen at first hand the effects of industry pollutants and mismanagement of environments through overuse.
          What I haven't seen is any actual empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is a forcer of global temperature increase. What I have seen is a single graph by Mann et al in the original IPCC report as proof that there has been an escalation in the background rise (yes background rise) of global temperatures.
          I can go into the reasons for why Mann et al is now regarded as a big pile of smelly poo and has been dropped from the IPCC reports if you like, but the only other thing I've seen from the IPCC are a whole lot of models based on Mann (i.e. using his data as predictor) that have thus far completely failed to predict the temperature fluctuations around the globe. Plus an awful lot of political statements that bear no relation to any of the few scientific papers they've actually presented.
          i don't think it's a stretch to think greenhouse gases may cause an increased greenhouse effect. Even if you argue the warming is a natural wouldn't we want to mitigate that natural trend to avoid the natural consequences. I have np with man changing his environment. i am not some knee jerker saying don't drill in Anwar...the polar bears are already fuxored whats the big deal. I also linked a .gov site where they reached the conclusion it was from increased CO2
          Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
          ~Ronald Reagan

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
            Well it's good for you that I'm not a horse then.:)
            OMG IT IS SO HARD NOT TO FOLLOW THIS THOUGHT THROUGH...but who would u all have to disagree with if I got suspended again
            Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
            ~Ronald Reagan

            Comment


            • #66
              OK........OK...........OK! I concede! The climate IS CHANGING!


              just not like some of you think;)

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by ba1025 View Post
                OMG IT IS SO HARD NOT TO FOLLOW THIS THOUGHT THROUGH...but who would u all have to disagree with if I got suspended again
                HAHAHAHAHA! So you learned something while sitting in the corner?:))

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                  HAHAHAHAHA! So you learned something while sitting in the corner?:))
                  in a word No...I made a conditional request to be suspended;)
                  Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
                  ~Ronald Reagan

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by ba1025 View Post
                    i don't think it's a stretch to think greenhouse gases may cause an increased greenhouse effect. Even if you argue the warming is a natural wouldn't we want to mitigate that natural trend to avoid the natural consequences. I have np with man changing his environment. i am not some knee jerker saying don't drill in Anwar...the polar bears are already fuxored whats the big deal. I also linked a .gov site where they reached the conclusion it was from increased CO2
                    It's a bit of a stretch but it's true stranger things have happened.
                    However, as there isn't actually any science that proves it, it's all just theory despite the IPCC press releases and the faith-based internet sites you've linked to.
                    You've got to admit, if you substituted the word 'god' for 'global warming' on those internet sites, you'd be sitting around a campfire singing kumbuyah and damning the heretics. 'He's not a man, he's a duck' 'that's true, I saw him floating in the water just the other day'.

                    The problem of course is that even though it's not proven, wouldn't it be better to do something, just to be on the safe side. Look after our kids and grandkids? Well yes, but....
                    When you f*ck with a system as complex as mans energy dependency you better be damn sure you know what you're doing, and be damn sure you need to do it.
                    Ethanol. Great, not more dirty oil.
                    More polution. Shhh.
                    Higher food prices. No worries, we can afford it.

                    Ah, but millions, possibly billions can't and will starve to death, because after all mass production of food is heavily reliant on petrochemicals right through the entire process, irrespective of whether you divert a small part of that food to provide combustible fuel.
                    The current food riots over a small price rise from increased ethanol production are nothing compared to the distortions in food prices that will occur when carbon tax gets applied to food production under Kyoto.
                    F*ck with the farms at your peril.
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Pari- Good post! Really illustrates the bigger, immediate problem. HERE, HERE!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        May I ask some questions?

                        What is the "correct" temperature for the earth?

                        Can there be variations? If so, what time frame are we talking about?

                        This is just like those liberals who claim the "gap between the rich and the poor" is getting wider. But when I ask what the "correct" gap is, no one could tell me.
                        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          I have read that a swing of 10 to 15 degrees either way from the current averages would affect food production, ocean currents and weather patterns so drastically that depending on the length of the period, only 10% or less of the population would survive.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            i say fvck global warming, pollution is much bigger and real threat. that is something that needs to be addressed yesterday.
                            deforestation is hurting ecosystem a lot, i also read somewhere, cutting trees isn,t that bad, not putting new ones is worst, also young trees produce more oxygen, than old ones, size by size
                            Last edited by omon; 01 May 08,, 18:18.
                            "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by ba1025 View Post
                              That's weather and the BBC is not a govt or a peer reviewed publication
                              No, it's the BBC, a secondary source, using a primary source, the World Meterological Organization.

                              Originally posted by ba1025
                              That quote is from your source.
                              Again from your source.
                              Basically saying this is an argument agaisnt Global warming is like saying a few cold winters is an ice age.
                              When I use sources, I provide links so that someone can read through it all. The quotes predicting future rising temperatures don't impress me - my question is what did the models predict, and if their predictions are wrong, then why should we put any faith into the model?

                              Originally posted by ba1025
                              Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                              I believe this is the answer to your question. It has a number of peaks and troughs but a clear trend
                              A clear trend over the past 5 years of no rise in temperature, although it will take 5 more years to see that moving 5 year average.

                              Originally posted by ba1025
                              thats a scary one huh?
                              So we're less than one degree warmer compared to an unspecified mean time period? That's not scary to me.

                              Originally posted by ba1025
                              This is a topic I would gladly argue all day long. it's like being armed with a bazooka in a knife fight
                              Until that knife fighter sneaks up from behind ;)

                              Originally posted by ba1025
                              I dont see here it's been real 'cold' lately and neither does our conservative govt.
                              The US recorded the 63rd warmest March on record. Not too hot here in the US. However, the point you're probably trying to make is about the world average temperature in March, which was the 2nd warmest in the 129 years of collecting data. One month does not a year make, so I'll until next January to see what happens this year.

                              Originally posted by ba1025
                              ....El Nina is winding down

                              Are you really saying we are not experiencing global warming Shek or are you just saying you can make a counter argument? Leaving cause out of the picture
                              Over what time period? My original piece looked at the past decade, but over a longer time period, sure we're seeing warming. However, if models can't predict accurately, then that means we don't have the science to capture the causal mechanisms, which means that we can't develop solutions to weigh on a cost-benefit analysis to enact policies.
                              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Well models don't account for weather, el nina is weather
                                Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
                                ~Ronald Reagan

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X