Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on October 22, 2008, 05:43:17 PM
-
Good riddance to the greenies and their arguments for man made global warming along with the carbon credit con!
Only good thing to come from a long drawn out recession/depression will be the end to all the weak theories/arguments for man made global warming. As the worlds economies slow down,factories close,oil demand drops and commodity prices fall through the floor. The world will still continue it's pattern of global warming, though with a little less haze on the horizon.
It's going to be the perfect test and send Gore and his scare mongers to history and obscurity where they belong. And as Oil & Gas prices plummet anyone trying to talk about the cost/power/environment benefits of a windmill compared to GAS at $2 a cubic ton will be laughed off the world stage.
<S>...-Gixer
-
it will not matter if the inexperienced one wins .. they never allowed facts to get in the way of their version of reality before.
boy wonder will get tennis elbow from rubber stamping mrs botox agenda for the next four years...which will include all their green buddies plans..
-
The underlying problem is that global warming is very very real and that reality is pacing far far ahead of any scientific modeling. We're going to see massive changes in weather and topography over the next 50 yrs or less.
-
We dont need comedy channel as long as we have people like humble. :D
-
Good riddance to the greenies and their arguments for man made global warming along with the carbon credit con!
Only good thing to come from a long drawn out recession/depression will be the end to all the weak theories/arguments for man made global warming. As the worlds economies slow down,factories close,oil demand drops and commodity prices fall through the floor. The world will still continue it's pattern of global warming, though with a little less haze on the horizon.
It's going to be the perfect test and send Gore and his scare mongers to history and obscurity where they belong. And as Oil & Gas prices plummet anyone trying to talk about the cost/power/environment benefits of a windmill compared to GAS at $2 a cubic ton will be laughed off the world stage.
<S>...-Gixer
The perfect test?...I think you are gonna have to quantify that.
shamus
-
:aok One less thing to worry bout as one searches for gainful employment.
-
The perfect test?...I think you are gonna have to quantify that.
shamus
Simple, long drawn out recession will do what the greenies failed to even get started. A significant reduction in global Co2 emissions. However the test result will be continued global warming. Therefore relegating the entire man-made global warming theory, to that of greatest deception in the history of science.
<S>...-Gixer
-
The underlying problem is that global warming is very very real and that reality is pacing far far ahead of any scientific modeling. We're going to see massive changes in weather and topography over the next 50 yrs or less.
Well,
If you live near the water.
the solution is simple.
Back up onto higher ground.
Man made, not man made..whatever.
There was a story on the news here a while back that they were concerned that in the next 100 years the coast will be so flooded that roads and tunnels leading into and out of NY from NJ will be too flooded to use and nobody will be able to enter or leave NYC
Somehow I think in 100 years we will have found another way to get there. :rolleyes:
Some of these jacknuts act like we are going ot just wake up one morning and everything is going to be flooded.
Now Im all for Green energy. but not because the earth is getting warmer.
Even if it isnt man made
Whats the worse that can happen? Less pollution?
On the plus side we will be developing new technologies. Which in turn typically creates new industries,Which creates new companies to invest in. Which creates jobs.
The downside is if it really is man made. Humans have this really nasty habit of overdoing everything.
IF it is man made and IF it is reversible.
And Humans follow our usual M.O.
We will clean it up so much that
We'll plunge ourselves into an Ice Age in the next hundred years
-
The underlying problem is that global warming is very very real and that reality is pacing far far ahead of any scientific modeling. We're going to see massive changes in weather and topography over the next 50 yrs or less.
We're already seeing changes in flora and fauna on all continents.
Oh yeah, IN.
-
I or others have never argued that global warming doesn't exist. It's the political sciences agenda that it's MAN MADE global warming is the hoax.
<S>...-Gixer
-
We dont need comedy channel as long as we have people like humble. :D
well if you can prove that global warming isnt real I'll be very impressed indeed, because it goes against even a cursory look at the data. I'll be equally impressed if someone could prove that its man-made. If someone can find a way to reverse the trend I'd have to conclude they were from some advanced alien civilisation with access to technologies we havent even dreamed of yet.
-
Speaking of Gore. Once we have a higher percentage of unemployment we will have the necessary man-power to search for and possibly capture Man-Bear-Pig.
:noid It appears that we may have underestimated Gore and the reach of his power. Could he be behind the econonmic failures? :noid
-
quote from dredlock
On the plus side we will be developing new technologies. Which in turn typically creates new industries,Which creates new companies to invest in. Which creates jobs.
[/quote
Agreed - I think its going to be quite an exciting time in history actually. Alternate energey sources have been around for some time but were never developed because of oil but now, things will be different. Opportunities are just around the corner.. Hope I live long enough to see it..
-
The underlying problem is that global warming is very very real and that reality is pacing far far ahead of any scientific modeling. We're going to see massive changes in weather and topography over the next 50 yrs or less.
it's not man made.
it's affected by man, but if human beings dissappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow, it would continue just as it is now.
-
This thread has "Fail" written all over it.
-
it's not man made.
it's affected by man, but if human beings dissappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow, it would continue just as it is now.
Thats an inaccurate and incomplete statement.
-
Isn't global warming a political topic? IN case you guys hadn't noticed man made global warming has been proven to be nothing more than a scam. Tree huggers united for a short time to try and convince the stupid masses that man is the cause of global warming. There is no global warming. Climate change yes but not man made global warming.
-
Show undisputable, scientific studies that have been peer reviewed and published that backs your claim niceguy.
Put up or shut up as the saying goes.
-
This thread is proof of how politically extreme a lot of the bbs users are here. Last time I checked, the Republican presidential nominee accepts the scientific conclusion that human activity is causing climate change. For the scientific world, there is no more debate. It's over. We have to move on to what we're going to do about it.
-
t's not man made.
it's affected by man, but if human beings dissappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow, it would continue just as it is now.
Thats an inaccurate and incomplete statement.
"inaccurate"?? The Earth is/has been in a "cooling/warming cycle" from day one, and based on previous Climatological data/records will continue as long as the planet exists...imho. The "carbon based life form" we refer to as "human/animal has little (if any) impact on the cycle...immho. ymmv. :D
-
The underlying question isn't "IF" we're experiencing global warming (we are) or "IF" our actions are contributing but to what degree and why. Further global warming is really a small part of a larger issue. If we view the earth as a host and look at our role mankind acts more as an infection then anything else. We're poisoning our planet and damaging it to an amazing degree in a very short time frame. We're beginning to see more and more cause and effect in our actions in everything from increased mutations in bacteria to increases in Autism and other systemic conditions. The only real "question" is if we're going to succeed in "killing" the planet before it succeeds in killing us or not.
As for global warming the real concern is that we appear to be having a quantifiable impact on such a large system in such a short period of time. The reality is that our interaction may or may not have a major impact since the planet itself is in constant flux and major geologic events are still unfolding. The scope of these events are of a magnitude that dwarfs our potential impact and realistically exceeds our capability to survive in an organized state. A further "supereruption" in the area of the Yellowstone Caldera is a 100% certainty, while this event is both inevitable and catastrophic (It will wipe out the US just about entirely) it may also be 100,000+ yrs away or more. Even a lesser event would have a more profound impact then we appear to generate.
Leaving aside major input from mother nature the reality is that we are having a greater and greater impact on the closed system we live in and generating ever greater reactions. To think we can blithely go on generating "cause" without eventually harvesting "effect" is the height of stupidity IMO.
-
"inaccurate"?? The Earth is/has been in a "cooling/warming cycle" from day one, and based on previous Climatological data/records will continue as long as the planet exists...imho. The "carbon based life form" we refer to as "human/animal has little (if any) impact on the cycle...immho. ymmv. :D
Show scientific studies that have been peer reviewed and published that backs your claim dentin.
Put up or shut up as the saying goes.
-
According to an article at DailyTech, a blogger has discovered a Y2K bug in a NASA climate study by the same writer who accused the Bush administration of trying to censor him on the issue of global warming. The authors have acknowledged the problem and released corrected data. Now the study shows the warmest year on record for the contiguous 48 states as being 1934, not 1998 as previously reported in the media. In fact, the corrected study shows that half of the 10 warmest years on record occurred before World War II."
The article's assertion that there's a propaganda machine working on behalf of global warming theorists is outside the bounds of the data, which I think is interesting to note.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
yep..these temps REALLY are going up. :rolleyes:
My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.
These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.
The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.
Then again -- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37612 here's another.
the earth goes through cycles. it has since before mankind, and it will continue to do so when mankind has destroyed itself. it's as simple as that.
unless you're a scientist or engineer needing to keep your cash cow feeding you.
-
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37612 here's another.
An article with no sources cited from 2004 on a extremely right leaning website? Don't be bringing that weak sauce in here.
-
Show scientific studies that have been peer reviewed and published that backs your claim dentin.
Put up or shut up as the saying goes.
Obviously you are weak in the comprehension area of reading...imho..means In My Humble Opinion. I really feel NO need to prove my opinion, however, records are available to support my "opinion"...if you're not too lazy.
One other note.."scientific studies" are meaningless due to the fact that the resulting data is very subjective/varies greatly, especially when done by "bleeding heart, tree hugging liberals" :devil
-
Obviously you are weak in the comprehension area of reading...imho..means In My Humble Opinion. I really feel NO need to prove my opinion, however, records are available to support my "opinion"...if you're not too lazy.
One other note.."scientific studies" are meaningless due to the fact that the resulting data is very subjective/varies greatly, especially when done by "bleeding heart, tree hugging liberals" :devil
:rofl
"i'm too lazy to substantiate my claims!"
"they're all done by hippies anyway!"
More of the weak sauce.
-
:rofl
"i'm too lazy to substantiate my claims!"
"they're all done by hippies anyway!"
More of the weak sauce.
As much as I'd like to indulge you by continuing this diatribe..I really need to return to Real Life.. :devil :D
-
An article with no sources cited from 2004 on a extremely right leaning website? Don't be bringing that weak sauce in here.
would've done better, but i read these boards while i;m looking up repair info......while waiting for pages to load. didn't put much effort into it, as no matter what i say or post, it's not gonna convince those of you that believe otherwise. :D
-
Show undisputable, scientific studies that have been peer reviewed and published that backs your claim niceguy.
Put up or shut up as the saying goes.
You first.
The key word is undisputable. Just about anything you can quote can and has been disputed. Both sides have scientist so who is right?
-
:pray I hate to burst your bubbles people, but if you take a look at your bibles you will see that all this arguing is a waste of time. This is supposed to happen. If you believe, then none of this petty stuff matters. God bless all of you and remember that we here for but a short time. :pray
-
Obviously you are weak in the comprehension area of reading...imho..means In My Humble Opinion. I really feel NO need to prove my opinion, however, records are available to support my "opinion"...if you're not too lazy.
One other note.."scientific studies" are meaningless due to the fact that the resulting data is very subjective/varies greatly, especially when done by "bleeding heart, tree hugging liberals" :devil
I'm a stone cold republican with no agenda. What I see here is a lot of people murdering the message not the messenger. Personally I think Al Gore is beyond being a total idiot and that the underlying very real issues have been used for political gain. That does not however change the reality that we're witnessing potential major changes in climate. The simple fact is that observable sea ice is down by 50% over the last 40 yrs or so and average thickness of the polar sea ice is diminished. Permafrost temperatures are up and glaciers are "down".
While we can debate global trends, observable effects are just that (it should be noted that temp trends in parts of Antartica are notably colder). We are seeing a tremendous change in polar ice that will affect not only sea level but also weather and current patterns globally.
-
You first.
I did ask you first.
It's a game of chicken, but with science. :lol
-
Doesn't this topic belong in the "general climate discussion" thread?"
-
Show scientific studies that have been peer reviewed and published that backs your claim dentin.
:huh how about you show us peer-reviewed data on global temperatures which doesnt show multi-cyclic behaviour. (Indeed try to find any complex dynamic system which doesnt show this behaviour.)
This is something that really bothers me about so many of these "climate scientists", they are quite happy to show you a timeline spanning 10s or 100s of years and draw major conclusions from it when this plainly doesnt have the scope to reveal trends. unfortunately there are so many of these buskers in this field that it makes it almost impossible to single out the scientists and theories of merit :(
-
Again, I asked first. I'd like to see what kind of shenanigans we're up against.
Please find the reports from that crackjob who is in the energy companies pockets who 20 years ago was arguing their was no connection between cigarettes and lung cancer when he was in the tobacco companies pockets. He's a winner for sure.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/300px-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)
there ya go. of course this is just 1000years so almost worthless for discerning trends in global temperature, but even at this resolution you can plainly see cyclic behaviour. your turn.
refs:
The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:
1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471.
2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6: 759-762.
3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277.
4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.
5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563: 2250-2253.
6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15: 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.
7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143
8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781
9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265
10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046
-
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/speedy420/300px-1000_Year_Temperature_Compari.jpg)
And look at the big gray bar representing the average of those findings. Seems to be taking a big spike in the past 150-200 years. Hmm...what's been happening in these past 200 odd years? Oh I know! Humans industrializing!
This is in no way science. I'm at work and just feel like stirring the pot up. :D
I'll be happy to share some reports for your reading pleasure tonight or tomorrow as time allows.
-
no need for third-party editorial thanks, the data is freely available and I can make my own mind up.
you see what you did there? despite me signposting it for you, you ignored the blindingly obvious cylic nature of the temps, when you should have admitted that, yes, global temps are indeed cyclic in nature.
next you also ignored my point about needing to look at a suitable scale to discern trends and have done exactly what i posted about before - you've taken the small snapshot of data which happens to fit your conjecture and used that as "proof."
I think you just qualified as a "climate scientist."
-
It is my opinion the global warming "crisis" is a farce. The world's temperatures have been doing a yo-yo since there was life. Mother Nature, herself, does more to harm the earths atmosphere through volcanic eruptions and other natural occurrences then man ever could. The carbon dioxide produced by driving automobiles provides less than 1% of all carbon dioxide produced in a year.
I found an article from the Senate's committee on climate change, I believe it is dated from 2006. I has reference to several other statements from respected scientists from around the world.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777 (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777)
My two cents.
WMTom
PS...In
-
no need for third-party editorial thanks, the data is freely available and I can make my own mind up.
you see what you did there? despite me signposting it for you, you ignored the blindingly obvious cylic nature of the temps, when you should have admitted that, yes, global temps are indeed cyclic in nature.
next you also ignored my point about needing to look at a suitable scale to discern trends and have done exactly what i posted about before - you've taken the small snapshot of data which happens to fit your conjecture and used that as "proof."
I think you just qualified as a "climate scientist."
:rofl
Read the whole post before getting all huffy puffy on me. Here, I'll repost the important part.
This is in no way science. I'm at work and just feel like stirring the pot up. :D
I'll be happy to share some reports for your reading pleasure tonight or tomorrow as time allows.
Is that clear enough for you?
Yes the temperatures clearly show a cyclic nature. What's important for us to note is the concerning amplitude increase of the past 150 years.
Simply stating that it isn't man-made is no reason for science to continue to attempt to come to terms with the changes in our environment and what it means for the future. Or we could just say "not our fault!" and stick our heads in the sand waiting for whatever comes.
Bringing me to your last point of contention. Don't get angry at me for posting my interpretation of the data you yourself provided for discussion. Give us the larger scale to discuss if you want.
Anyways, there is already a thread at 200 pages or so with all this crap. I doubt anyone will be changing anyone else's mind about things in here.
-
Amplitude increase? You mean the spike caused by placing the instruments for the test next to cities and airports?
-
The underlying problem is that global warming is very very real and that reality is pacing far far ahead of any scientific modeling.
nope. Now we are entering a cooling phase.
-
hehe bong im not angry at all, its just that you used the "provide peer-reviewed data" card and I decided to throw my money on the table and get stuck in. You just happened to provide a useful proxy for the 1000s of "scientists" who, although woefully unqualified, still manage to influence policy and therefore taxation. I resent pissing my money away on carbon credit BS every time I fill my car up or pay my tax bill.
I dont mean to sound ruthless, but I am, so thats the way it comes across :D
-
Our grand children and great grand children are going to have a lot of questions for us. :uhoh
-
The underlying question isn't "IF" we're experiencing global warming (we are) or "IF" our actions are contributing but to what degree and why. Further global warming is really a small part of a larger issue. If we view the earth as a host and look at our role mankind acts more as an infection then anything else. We're poisoning our planet and damaging it to an amazing degree in a very short time frame. We're beginning to see more and more cause and effect in our actions in everything from increased mutations in bacteria to increases in Autism and other systemic conditions. The only real "question" is if we're going to succeed in "killing" the planet before it succeeds in killing us or not.
My money says that Mother Earth will make the necessary adjustments to mankind wayy before she allows the planet to go down the tubes. Left to our own devices, as it were, WE, collectively will assure our own population control/demise... to coin a phrase.. "it ain't gettin any better brother". :(
On the topic at hand.. " One good thing to come from a long Recession/Depression"?? Nothing "good" ever comes from a Recession/depression. IMMHO :furious
-
I'm a stone cold republican with no agenda. What I see here is a lot of people murdering the message not the messenger. Personally I think Al Gore is beyond being a total idiot and that the underlying very real issues have been used for political gain. That does not however change the reality that we're witnessing potential major changes in climate. The simple fact is that observable sea ice is down by 50% over the last 40 yrs or so and average thickness of the polar sea ice is diminished. Permafrost temperatures are up and glaciers are "down".
While we can debate global trends, observable effects are just that (it should be noted that temp trends in parts of Antartica are notably colder). We are seeing a tremendous change in polar ice that will affect not only sea level but also weather and current patterns globally.
:aok :aok
-
no need for third-party editorial thanks, the data is freely available and I can make my own mind up.
you see what you did there? despite me signposting it for you, you ignored the blindingly obvious cylic nature of the temps, when you should have admitted that, yes, global temps are indeed cyclic in nature.
next you also ignored my point about needing to look at a suitable scale to discern trends and have done exactly what i posted about before - you've taken the small snapshot of data which happens to fit your conjecture and used that as "proof."
I think you just qualified as a "climate scientist."
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Doesn't this topic belong in the "general climate discussion" thread?"
It wasn't intended as a global warming debate, but to point out that a long recession/depression will put the Man-made global warming theory to the test. That's what the discussion was meant for, will recession impact global warming. My answer is no it won't and temperatures will continue to rise even as global Co2 emissions fall through the floor.
<S>...-Gixer
-
even a longish global recession wouldn't reduce manmade CO2 output, although it could slow somewhat along with economic growth. if manmade CO2 does contribute to the warming which is happening anyway (I suspect it does, although the contribution is waaay less than most assume) the effect of recession would me negligible.
more worrying for me is that a recession makes less research funding available for future energy resources (fusion specifically) and for the expensive maintenance of existing resources (fission) so we could expect to see more Three Mile Islands and Chenobyls. of course economies will be looking for the cheapest energy out there so expect shelving of new capital-intensive projects (fission) and, if anything, increased use of fossil fuels to fill the gap. looked at this way I would expect manmade CO2 output to increase rather than decrease.
hopefully as economies the world over tighten their belts and strive to fuel economic growth, one of the first things to go will be carbon credit BS.
-
This thread is proof of how politically extreme a lot of the bbs users are here. Last time I checked, the Republican presidential nominee accepts the scientific conclusion that human activity is causing climate change. For the scientific world, there is no more debate. It's over. We have to move on to what we're going to do about it.
Is it just possible he does because it is currently politically correct to do so?
Last time I checked Hillary Clinton was originally full in favor of going to war in Iraq when it was politically advantageous for her to be so.
It was also at one time politically correct to say that blacks were incapable of being effective in combat. And claimed "science" backed them up.
The Grand canyon was formed by what? Glaciers.
Where did they go? Did we cause these glaciers to melt too?
One benifit of current glacier melting is it is uncovering thing that have been covered by glaciers for a very very long time.
Evidence also shows that the earth in these areas were once considerably warmer then it is now.
Personally I dont think it matters if we caused it. Its a natural occurrence. Or is currently (and more probably) a combination of the two.
Politically. there is no downside to support global warming.
The worst we end up with is a cleaner place to live and cleaner air to breathe and water to drink.
Personally I think we should hope it is man made. because if it isnt. Mankind is going to have to learn to adapt to environment changes yet again. just as we have done for thousands of years.
And some of your real estate might not be worth as much submerged.
Though based on the monstrosities I see being built along our coastlines.
Im not altogether sure thats a bad theing either.
-
The Grand canyon was formed by what? Glaciers.
Where did they go? Did we cause these glaciers to melt too?
based on my research i find that the melting of the glaciers and the ending of the ice age occurred at the time the cavemen discovered fire. The burning of all the wood fires sent tons of CO2 into the atmosphere causing the global warming that also killed all the woolly mammoths and created the Atlantic ocean and also the great lakes.
-
Homo erectus had fire hundreds of thousands of years ago.
-
Homo erectus had fire hundreds of thousands of years ago.
I think that he was one of Owsley's taste testers.
-
based on my research i find that the melting of the glaciers and the ending of the ice age occurred at the time the cavemen discovered fire. The burning of all the wood fires sent tons of CO2 into the atmosphere causing the global warming that also killed all the woolly mammoths and created the Atlantic ocean and also the great lakes.
:lol
-
gonna be a lot more co2 when we are cooking each other on campfires.
lazs
-
Mmmmmmmmm........
Tastes like chicken. :aok