Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tmac7 on January 29, 2009, 08:00:43 AM
-
Well I play this other game and on the forums we had a discussion about Global warming and had quite a few debates. I personally don't believe in it, but a few people did on those forums. Give me your Views and thoughts about it. My Grandpa is a STRONG believer that there is no such thing and the earth is fine. I admit we pollute but I don't see how its getting warmer. My state has had more snow then it should of had, and oh not to mention that the universe is stretching out so we are getting farther away from the sun :devil. I'm only 15 so I might be viewed as stubborn to the ones who believe in it. If so let me know why I am, and see what happens. :salute
-Tmac73
-
Well I play this other game and on the forums we had a discussion about Global warming and had quite a few debates. I personally don't believe in it, but a few people did on those forums. Give me your Views and thoughts about it. My Grandpa is a STRONG believer that there is no such thing and the earth is fine. I admit we pollute but I don't see how its getting warmer. My state has had more snow then it should of had, and oh not to mention that the universe is stretching out so we are getting farther away from the sun :devil. I'm only 15 so I might be viewed as stubborn to the ones who believe in it. If so let me know why I am, and see what happens. :salute
-Tmac73
Stubborn is not the right word. Naive and shortsighted maybe. As to the weather not changing, here in Scotland, winters are warm and snow is very rare. In the Alps, glacies are melting, the deserts in Africa are expanding, the polar ice caps are reciding... Honestly, have you not hear about any of it?
-
Use the search dude, there's already a few dozen going.
One of those "dead horse beat with a stick things"
Either you firmly deny that humanity is having an adverse effect on global conditions or you think that humanity is screwing stuff up for the earth.
Not many on these BBS are very middle of the road on this, one or the other mostly.
-
It happens and we have to deal with it. We really don't know what the effects are since no one who is a scientist was here a few hundred thousand years ago to watch what happens when the world starts changing.
-
Okay, my position is that there is no way that the human activities have no measureable effect on climate. That is subtle, but you still have people debating it.
We are not moving away from the sun BTW, and the last warm years and their temp records were set during a solar minimum. How's that?
-
global warming is a political ploy - you can't discuss it properly without bringing up political agendas..
thought political discussions were banned?
-
Oh man, here we go again!
-
Well Its banned in Game talk but this is O'Club. And I thought that it was moving away. And that all the planets and stars are moving farther away. Atleast thats what they said watching the show on History channel. And I don't think they'd show ficitional shows. Although some are and some are not proven.
-
Man made global warming is a money making scheme used by al and his cronies… very successfully too! The p.o.s. has made millions off of it and secured a place in history by buying the nobel.
-
Well Its banned in Game talk but this is O'Club. And I thought that it was moving away. And that all the planets and stars are moving farther away. Atleast thats what they said watching the show on History channel. And I don't think they'd show ficitional shows. Although some are and some are not proven.
LOL like the end of the world Nostradamus shows the History Channel put on every week..... Not fictional????
Seriously... Read more. Talk less.
You completely misunderstood what whatever show was trying to show you. The sun isn't moving away... that's impossible unless somehow (A) the mass of the earth is altered lower or (B) the speed of the orbit is altered faster or (C) The earth is acted upon by a gravitational force stronger than our sun. (All of which are physics that I guess you haven't had yet) In all cases, we'd all be dead relatively quickly, as our zone of habitation is quite narrow.
What that show was probably talking about is the recession of other GALAXIES away from our own. This is demonstrated by a doppler red-shift of the light we receive from those galaxies. This is major supportive evidence of a large explosive start to the whole universe, "The Big Bang". Most galaxies are moving away from each other at pretty uniform velocity. Our orbit (As well as the orbits of all the planets in our system) is nice and snug here in our solar system, that is, until 4billion more years go by and we get swallowed by our Red Giant sun.
-
NO not the sun moving away the planets, but I guess I did misunderstand what they were trying to talk about. So I apologize for my idiotic post.
-
Two things you should examine right away if you care to.
What happens when natural gas is exposed to steam?
Look up dark matter and dark energy. You will learn that the expansion of space is accelerating.
We dont need to worry about either one (global warming or the expansion of space) but we should start heavy exploration of the seas.
Now back to our movie...
-
This thread will not end well. :rolleyes:
ROX
-
We dont need to worry about either one (global warming...)
Yup. Just keep sticking our heads in the sand and let our kids deal with it. :rolleyes:
-
Your right Rox. I thought a great deal on the subject of global warming and even though I see it as political religion the discussions here in the OClub have proven that there will always be heated discussions on this subject. I feel now that the inevitable end of any 'intelligent society' (not so intelligent as proof is often provided by the illustrious Al Gore) is self-destruction because not only does discussion only get more heated and no solution found but the population still favors expansion which will only lead to over-population. Technology will eventually either lead to terrible creations of our own doom or fail us in the expansion of agriculture required to feed the ever increasing populations. Instead of worrying about global warming we should be working on food synthesis so we can get off this rock and move on or we will overpopulate and destroy ourselves.
-
Yup. Just keep sticking our heads in the sand and let our kids deal with it. :rolleyes:
The final proof of the scam was Al Gore requesting the $400 million for further research into science that has (in his words) already been proven to be sound and verified (even though there has not been any confirmed observation of the predictions of the theory in reality).
-
Our kids are screwed.
-
If thats the best you can do you arent helping them much. :D
-
And I don't think they'd show ficitional shows.
<Snort!>
-
Didn't mean for political discussion to erupt. If it does I think skuzzy should close this topic. I was just wanting peoples opinion to see the different ones from everyone.
<salute>,
Tmac73
-
You've already made your mind up that it's a money grab. I doubt you are willing to change your mind.
You see it as a money hoax. Big money energy companies have fronted lots of cash to fund projects attempting to tell us all that absolutely nothing is wrong and if there is something wrong we aren't the reason. By your exact argument above we should be worried.
I won't be very proud in 50 years if I have a "They told us so" moment... :uhoh
-
This is how the world will end; not with bang but with a whimper.
-
It wont be global warming that kills us all it will be mans weapons or starvation from over-population. The planet will survive whether it is hospitable to man or not but the idea that humans are causing the world to warm up even slightly is completely untrue. Go ahead and whimper all you want it wont change the environment but if concern and doing things differently helps you feel better go for it.
-
It wont be global warming that kills us all it will be mans weapons or starvation from over-population. The planet will survive whether it is hospitable to man or not but the idea that humans are causing the world to warm up even slightly is completely untrue. Go ahead and whimper all you want it wont change the environment but if concern and doing things differently helps you feel better go for it.
No response about who's footing the bill's on that research eh?
Yup, humanity will be screwed by our own doing.
-
Show me a link where big money energy companies are funding 'anti-global warming' research. It doesnt take research to see the bad junk science behind global warming.
-
Okay, my position is that there is no way that the human activities have no measureable effect on climate. That is subtle, but you still have people debating it.
We are not moving away from the sun BTW, and the last warm years and their temp records were set during a solar minimum. How's that?
An excellent question. If I understand the theory correctly, the reason for that is that the solar miminum equates to reduced solar wind and weaker magnetic flux. This in turn allows more cosmic rays and particles to reach the Earth, affecting cloud formation and resulting in increasing temperatures. It is perhaps no coincidence then that global temperatures have stabilized as solar activity is reversing its trend. According to the theory, temperatures should begin to go down now.
I do not deny that global temperatures fluxuate; the Earth's geological history tells a story of alternating warm and cold periods for eons. I simply believe the science does not support CO2 as a driving factor. CO2 is a minor component of the so called "greenhouse gasses". Further, there is evidence to suggest that it is a result of global temperature increases, rather than the cause. Finally, what impact CO2 has in trapping heat falls off as an exponential decay, meaning that doubling the amount has X effect, doubling it again has 1/X^squared, and so on. For this and many other scientific and technical reasons I've read, I believe CO2 to be inconsequential as a driver of global temperatures.
As for money, much more has been spent trying to prove man-made GW than the oil and energy companies have spent trying to disprove it. The science is anything but settled, and more and more scientists have come to the conclusion that MMGW is a sham.
-
Look up Dr (ha!) Fred Singer.
A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.
Of note is the fact that he was paid by Tobacco companies to deny the negative health effects of second hand smoke and now is paid by Oil to deny the negative effects of human induced climate change.
He's a crook and he's swinging for your "team".
ZING! :lol
-
Oh man, here we go again!
Heh, and Skuzzy thought pushing a few out would solve the problem....wrong! :devil
-
Bongaroo I would have to dispute that since nothing was ever done it seems there was no truth to it just a fantasy by Newsweek and hardly a bipartisan publication at that.
-
Good article today from John Coleman.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
-
I was hoping to get you interested enough to do some searching.
The man is an expert I tell you. Sitting in a room with a smoker over time isn't going to give you cancer according to him. Perhaps you'd like to test his theory out for him? :rofl
The final proof of the scam was Al Gore requesting the $400 million for further research into science that has (in his words) already been proven to be sound and verified (even though there has not been any confirmed observation of the predictions of the theory in reality).
Look. You gave this as "proof" that it is a scam. I give you a "scientist" obviously backed by big money corporations with vested interests as proof that you infact are getting the wool pulled over your eyes.
But as I said earlier, you've made up your mind. I doubt anyone here could help you change it.
-
Global warming is a crock of feces
-
Good article today from John Coleman.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
That's a "good" article????? When the last date of ANY of the scientific information which the author uses to illustrate his opinon is 1992. 1992! Are you SERIOUS?
The guy writes a column January 28, 2009, and uses, for his opinion piece, information that's at least 16 years old. Skipping all the advances in science in almost two decades..... And you think it's a good article?
Mankind will not die due to global warming. It will be of his own ineptitude and complete stupidity, illustrated by anyone thinking that that article was "good" for anything less than to wipe the backside with.
-
CO2 is a minor component of the so called "greenhouse gasses". Further, there is evidence to suggest that it is a result of global temperature increases, rather than the cause.
Would you possibly think that maybe just maybe... humans weren't around for all the other "warming" events? Meaning, this isn't the same kind of event?
Prehistorically, the CO2 came after an initial factor warmed this rock, and then was a magnifying factor for said "warming". Put quite simply... if it's not a natural event, then the natural order of things would not bear out to be true. Prior warming events followed this order due to natural events that started the cycle. This is why CO2 historically lags the warming by a statistically small percentage. If we skip the first step, and go right to the second....duh... CO2 will then lead the exponential curve. Simple deduction, sir.
This is exactly what is born out in coring records. An event warmed the planet, natural shift in orbit or solar radiation, which caused a release of CO2; the CO2 magnified the warming, until it was reduced by natural CO2 sinks, and then the temperatures followed. No one has ever said CO2 is a powerful global warming agent. It magnifies the energy that the planet receives. I've repeatedly said, we need to worry about CH4 (methane) stored in hydrate form. That's the really bad egg on the horizon, if the ocean continues to warm.
We are also in a solar minimum, at the start of solar cycle 24. (apparently, the sun can't make up its' mind, as evidenced by a Cycle 23 spot that formed a few days ago for about 6 hours.) Solar output is currently at about the lowest it has been measured. And, yet, this past summer the arctic still was almost ice free. Antarctic ice shelves are collapsing..... at a solar MINIMUM. It doesn't take rocket science or a PhD to figure out things are screwy.
-
double post
-
Just what I said. 2007 being somewhat the hottest on record at practically solar minimum. 2008 might have left the N-Cap ice free hadn't we seen some cooling effect from an Alaskan Volcanoe.
Cough, - I said Cooling effect :D
Now we must wait some 7 years, getting a little beyond Solar Maximum.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fc7db6ad-802a-23ad-43d1-2651eb2297d6 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fc7db6ad-802a-23ad-43d1-2651eb2297d6)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24934655-5017272,00.html (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24934655-5017272,00.html)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/)
Alrite now be a good slave and pay those CO2 taxes!
-
Didn't anyone hear about it? A Mini Ice Age is coming! And its gonna be just like "the day after tomorrow"
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html
-
lets tax the cows LOL
its nothing but a cycle - we are cooling now - give it a couple of years and the goracle will be telling us to warm it up LOL
-
It happens and we have to deal with it. We really don't know what the effects are since no one who is a scientist was here a few hundred thousand years ago to watch what happens when the world starts changing.
what a replay, so no one was there we should keep eyes & ears closed :/
Looks like alot of people from this board are thinking the same way, i call it SHS (Short-Horizon-Syndrom)
But with the technology today why are able to study the past very good, i.e. ice probe from deep ice, we can see what happened
thousand years before, what changed and what impact it had on. We can compare with todays situations and so questions will arise.
Unfortunately we just have this one spacecraft called earth we live on, we should be carefull, there is nothing around,
absolutely nothing where we could escape.
R
Gh0stFT
-
what a replay, so no one was there we should keep eyes & ears closed :/
Looks like alot of people from this board are thinking the same way, i call it SHS (Short-Horizon-Syndrom)
But with the technology today why are able to study the past very good, i.e. ice probe from deep ice, we can see what happened
thousand years before, what changed and what impact it had on. We can compare with todays situations and so questions will arise.
Unfortunately we just have this one spacecraft called earth we live on, we should be carefull, there is nothing around,
absolutely nothing where we could escape.
R
Gh0stFT
Stop being so freakin mellowdramatic. The earth was fine before we were here and it will be fine after we're gone. None of us are going to get out of this thing with our lives so get over yourself.
-
Stop being so freakin mellowdramatic. The earth was fine before we were here and it will be fine after we're gone. None of us are going to get out of this thing with our lives so get over yourself.
AKA: Screw it! The next generation will deal with it... :rolleyes:
-
Well I think I started a fight not a discussion.
-
By the way, where is Lazs? And Jacka1? Haven't noticed posts from them lately.
-
By the way, where is Lazs? And Jacka1? Haven't noticed posts from them lately.
They both moved on to flamewarriors. They couldn't do things here without political ideology, so they just moved on.
-
Well I think I started a fight not a discussion.
We could argue that you knew what you were getting into... :rolleyes:
-
We are also in a solar minimum, at the start of solar cycle 24. (apparently, the sun can't make up its' mind, as evidenced by a Cycle 23 spot that formed a few days ago for about 6 hours.) Solar output is currently at about the lowest it has been measured.
The solar cycle is about as accurate as a woman's period. This is not clockwork. Now that I think about it, if the sun is "late" maybe it is about to give birth to a new planet?
By the way, no one claims that the solar radiative output is what affects the climate - there are some suggestions that it is the solar wind which is launched from the solar upper atmosphere (the corona). This is considerably increased during high solar magnetic activity and have a very complicated effects on the earth, the cosmic radiation flux and in particular, the formation of clouds.
And, yet, this past summer the arctic still was almost ice free. Antarctic ice shelves are collapsing..... at a solar MINIMUM. It doesn't take rocket science or a PhD to figure out things are screwy.
To me it says that our model are the screwy thing. I wouldn't want to act based on these things. There have been absolutely crazy suggestions to partially eclipse the sun by orbit "blankets" or filling out upper utmosphere with crap to increase the earth's albedo - talking about polluting our planet...
-
Well, clockwork or not...:
(http://www.tmgnow.com/IMAGES/lassen2.gif)
It ticks roughly on a stable course just like a healthy woman...or a cow:D
And from a cow's ovulation cycle one can predict pretty much well about the next one...with in a reasonable margin of error. (Normal 21 days, but can go from 18 to 24). So, one learns about it and masters the art of prediction:
(http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif)
-
The solar cycle is about as accurate as a woman's period.
A bun in the oven? *click* (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/05/nasa-moves-the-goalposts-on-solar-cycle-24-again/)
-
Just wait till it pops out :D
-
global warming is a political ploy - you can't discuss it properly without bringing up political agendas..
thought political discussions were banned?
Global Warming in a scientific fact. If you're listening to a politician talk cons about it, then that's your first mistake. If I want to know about Taxes I'll ask a politician, if I want to know about science I'll ask a scientist.
Animl
-
Global Warming in a scientific fact. If you're listening to a politician talk cons about it, then that's your first mistake. If I want to know about Taxes I'll ask a politician, if I want to know about science I'll ask a scientist.
The problem is that politicians define politicians as 'scientists' because they study 'political science.' Political thinking at work for you...
Oops, Rule #14. :(
-
LOL like the end of the world Nostradamus shows the History Channel put on every week..... Not fictional????
Seriously... Read more. Talk less.
What that show was probably talking about is the recession of other GALAXIES away from our own.
Most of the other galaxies are accelerating away from each other..Except for the Andromeda Galaxy,which is on a direct collision course with earth.3 billion years from now our galaxy goes poof.
-
Maybe not collisions, but lots of interesting stuff.
Anyway, isn't that close to the time when our sun goes poof?
-
Actually most galaxies are holding relative position but the space in between the galaxies is expanding. Just think of it as the universe being a huge body hosting the galaxies and the space in between is growing with the host (and spontaneously creating dark matter).
-
Actually most galaxies are holding relative position but the space in between the galaxies is expanding. Just think of it as the universe being a huge body hosting the galaxies and the space in between is growing with the host (and spontaneously creating dark matter).
Most of the other galaxies are accelerating away from each other..Except for the Andromeda Galaxy,which is on a direct collision course with earth.3 billion years from now our galaxy goes poof.
It is a little more complicated than that. Most galaxies are falling into their local groups which is actual movement through space. Andromeda and the Milky-way are falling toward each other, as well as a few other small satellite galaxies around us. This bunch in turn falls toward our local group. This is the scaling of structure in the universe. Close galaxies eventually merge, not destroyed. This is a fairly "violent" event, but the stars do not collide, or destroyed, the environment will endanger life though. Actually, mergers usually lead to a renewed episode of rapid star formation.
The Hubble expansion is space being stretched that you described. Take a piece of stretching material and draw a few points on it - then stretch it. The distance between the points increase even though the ink spots cannot move on the sheet. If you put ants instead of ink, the ants will walk about while you stretch and this is the superposition of the two "speeds".
The nature of a stretch is that the farther a way a point is from you, the faster it will move away from you - the distance it gains is the sums of all the stretches between you and all the other points along the way. This means that the cosmological expansion dominates over large distances and essentially all distant galaxies move away from us. For nearby galaxies, the "falling" speed will dominate over the stretch and we may see them even coming toward us.
What is created in the added space is dark "energy", not dark matter. While dark energy tries to make the universe "shrink" (attracts by gravity just like normal matter), dark energy is the equivalent of "pressure" that makes the universe expand. The nature is this energy is completely unknown. The space density of the energy (the pressure) is taken to be constant for lack of better information - this is referred to as "Einstein's cosmological constant" if you heard the term.
-
All makes our GW look so...tiny :devil
-
Global Warming in a scientific fact. If you're listening to a politician talk cons about it, then that's your first mistake. If I want to know about Taxes I'll ask a politician, if I want to know about science I'll ask a scientist.
Animl
with over 90% of the US at 32 degrees or below yesterday - I think "global warming" now called "climate change" is the least of our worries.
restrictions need to be lifted now and worried about when companies stop laying off 10's of 1000's of people a month.
It is now as it has been a political ploy to push an agenda more than an actual concern.
-
There is only one cure for MAN made global warming, climate change, whatever it's being called today, and that cure is to get rid of at least HALF the worlds HUMAN population. If MAN is the problem then lets get rid of half the oxygen wasters on the planet. I vote for ALL of those who think man is the problem. Want to save the world from the damages that MAN causes, go kill your self and contribute. Otherwise STFU and stop telling me how I need to change my ways to "prevent" the end of the world acourding to your dumb ideas.
Have a nice green day, yeah right. :furious
-
That makes the US a good target, since each member there is 10 times more of a consumer compared to....a chinaman.
Seriously, if we want to pollute less, use less energy, and keep earth's resources for some time longer, we have plenty of opportunity.
-
Interesting. Wasn't sure I saw this coming, and I can't state the true significance of it. It remains to be seen what this means. The sun is still in an incredibly low minimum....solar wind today was down around 270 Km/s... I guess we'll just have to let things play out.
The average temperature for the United States in December, 32.5 F, was almost 1 degree Fahrenheit below the average for the 20th century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Much of the West and Midwest had a particularly frigid month, with temperatures plunging several degrees below average.
This winter in the Arctic has been a completely different story.
"It's warm everywhere in the Arctic. It's anomalously warm," said Julienne Stroeve, of the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo.
Both December and January have been abnormally warm months, which impacts the cyclical re-freezing of sea ice over the years, because these are "two crucial ice-growing months," Stroeve told LiveScience.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29038734/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29038734/)
-
That makes the US a good target, since each member there is 10 times more of a consumer compared to....a chinaman.
Seriously, if we want to pollute less, use less energy, and keep earth's resources for some time longer, we have plenty of opportunity.
we may consume more than the average chinamen (for now) but I'd guess our total footprint isn't as large considering the enviroment restrictions we have placed on ourselves and china thumbs its nose at...
-
You forget the "cheap" imports....
-
I admit we pollute but I don't see how its getting warmer. My state has had more snow then it should of had
If you think a year's snow fall in your backyard counts against global climate change predictions then you have a lot to learn about what 99% of scientists believe is happening. You should learn the nuts and bolts of the theory and the evidence that's presented for it, and then come to your own judgment about whether to believe it.
-
If you think a year's snow fall in your backyard counts against global climate change predictions then you have a lot to learn about what 99% of scientists believe is happening. You should learn the nuts and bolts of the theory and the evidence that's presented for it, and then come to your own judgment about whether to believe it.
Your 99% is way off. The fact is that most climatologists DO NOT believe in man made climate change.
-
Your 99% is way off. The fact is that most climatologists DO NOT believe in man made climate change.
Uh-huh.
-
Of the 2600 (not 99%) of scientists listed as sources for the GW mantra it has been said that 65% were political scientists (politicians). Not only is it easy to find scientists that use good proven science to dispute the theory of the GW mantra but most of them even study weather. Go figure.
-
Of the 2600 (not 99%) of scientists listed as sources for the GW mantra it has been said that 65% were political scientists (politicians). Not only is it easy to find scientists that use good proven science to dispute the theory of the GW mantra but most of them even study weather. Go figure.
Go to http://www.petitionproject.org/
Here is what the petition states.
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
To date 31,072 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,021 with PhDs.
The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
The qualifications of the signers of the petition can be found on the website link I provided above.
Now I SUPPOSE you could say that these 30,000 scientists are probably wrong...
And I GUESS you could write off nearly 10,000 phd's signing the petition as just a bunch of crazies who don't know what they are talking about..
But then then again if you do, you are probably so brainwashed that things like logic, reason, or scientific data would be wasted on you and no amount of fact will sway your opinion in the matter. Those unfortunate brainwashed souls should probably quit reading this post now.
BUT if you DO decide to look a bit deeper into the facts, the people at Petition Project have a fantastic "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research" that can be found HERE (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html)
Why did they do this petition you ask? What is its purpose?
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
But... but... Lute... the UN did it's own research on the matter...
The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.
(for some "interesting reading" on this U.N. study go to THIS (http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm) link and read "The UN IPCC's Artful Bias Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers" by David E. Wojick, Ph.D.)
If ANYBODY tries to tell you that "most" scientists believe in man made global warming (yes I'm looking at YOU Anaxogoras) simply refer them to the link(s) I provided. The fact of the matter is quite the opposite.
(and before what's his name jumps me about not quoting a source (snicker... 'cause you know I only copy/paste things and don't post sources) the peer-reviewed research has 132 sources cited at the end of the article.)
-
I don't even know where to begin, and I don't think we're going to find common ground in this thread.
But, I will say this: if man-caused global warming is real, and we're wrong about it and do nothing, we are f*cked. If man-caused global warming is a fiction, and we're wrong and do something anyway, we'll be more energy efficient and will still retain international credibility.
Even if the probability of man-caused global warming was 10:1 against, would you risk it? That's how I approach these kinds of decisions.
-
No we wont but we will have a huge pile of dog squeeze on our faces higher taxes and worse off then we started. If you waste time on non-starters we lose ground period. There isnt a problem so wasting money time and effort is nonsense. Besides the 'energy efficient' items like windmills and solar cells require more energy to produce then you can get out of them in the products lifetime. Its more like one chance in a googolplex that man will ever be able to influence the global temperature.
-
Look at the bright side. All that carbon-in-air=bad discussion leads to an effort for different energy usage and management. Way before we run out of fossil fuel.
Because....the business is always stupid to the last moment :devil
-
Yup, oil isn't going to last forever, but our efforts to slow down consumption and invest in realistic alternatives are desultory at best. If you want to talk economic melt-down, wait for oil to become expensive again when Americans are still driving cars that get less than 30mpg. What if, in 10 years, oil is $250 a barrel?
In all of these cost/benefit scenarios, the cost of being wrong about climate change, but doing something to stop it anyway is offset by the practical benefits of energy efficiency, clean air (medical care $), and strategic advantage over our enemies abroad.
No we wont but we will have a huge pile of dog squeeze on our faces higher taxes and worse off then we started. If you waste time on non-starters we lose ground period. There isnt a problem so wasting money time and effort is nonsense. Besides the 'energy efficient' items like windmills and solar cells require more energy to produce then you can get out of them in the products lifetime. Its more like one chance in a googolplex that man will ever be able to influence the global temperature.
I don't know about wind power, but your statement about solar-cells is perplexing. There are many businesses that make money by outfitting homes/businesses with solar-cells, which in turn make up the admittedly substantial investment in 10-20 years. If what you said were true, these businesses could not exist, simply as a result of physics+economics.
-
What I have said has always been true particularly of solar cells. There are people working on other solutions:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bill_gross_on_new_energy.html
-
Its more like one chance in a googolplex that man will ever be able to influence the global temperature.
Figures?
That's a pretty broad statement. Kind of like, "This ship is unsinkable."
I mean, we can already prove that mankind can create "heat sinks" around cities. In classic reductionist theory, then, aren't we already influencing the global temperature, however small, since we've influenced any given local local temperature to any +nth degree? (thermodynamics)
Therefore, I can already prove, at a 1.00 probability (100%, if you haven't been exposed to statistical probability), that your 1:googolplex is wrong, and your theory is dead, without even bringing CO2 into the mix.
-
lol. That was quite a zinger.
-
It also is nowhere near even touching global temperature.
Fail.
-
It also is nowhere near even touching global temperature.
Fail.
Simply from the existence of "heat islands" you can extrapolate man's effect on the planet, using only high school thermodynamics. Whether or not you choose to recognize this, is completely your choice.
-
And you can extrapolate out that when you create heat in one place you create cold in another. When you warm up a city it always develops more rain downwind. The overall global effect is nill.
-
So, when I warm my house, I create cold elsewhere.
Naaah. You have a long way to go bud....
-
And you can extrapolate out that when you create heat in one place you create cold in another. When you warm up a city it always develops more rain downwind. The overall global effect is nill.
Pretty sure you just stated an "effect" right there, and it's not "nill".
-
Im pretty sure it is obvious except to the most stubborn that what I am talking about is localized and not global.
If you think we (humans) can affect global temperature then I want you to prove it. Warm the entire globe by 1 degree. You have 100 years. Go!
Nil.
-
Im pretty sure it is obvious except to the most stubborn that what I am talking about is localized and not global.
If you think we (humans) can affect global temperature then I want you to prove it. Warm the entire globe by 1 degree. You have 100 years. Go!
Nil.
I think I'll just let you keep talking. I'll cut that time by 75%.
-
You have been in school too long and you have lost touch with reality and common sense.
-
I see somebody didn't look at the peer reviewed paper I posted...
Just curious, but does anybody else remember in the 1970's when there was a big "scare" that we were entering into another ice age?
I should also add that in this same period of time hydrocarbon use increased 3-fold.
The Earth has been warming as it recovers from the Little Ice Age at an average rate of about 0.5 ºC per century. Fluctuations within this temperature trend include periods of more rapid increase and also periods of temperature decrease. These fluctuations correlate well with concomitant fluctuations in the activity of the sun. Neither the trends nor the fluctuations within the trends correlate with hydrocarbon use. Sea level and glacier length reveal three intermediate uptrends and two downtrends since 1800, as does solar activity. These trends are climatically benign and result from natural processes.
According to this trend, in the next hundred years we will see a .9 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature if the current trend continues.
So Morray37, in the 25 year span you suggested, you will see an .225 increase in temperature Fahrenheit.
A hundred years is about right for a 1 degree F temp. increase.
and I would leave you with the following...
Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.
-
You have been in school too long and you have lost touch with reality and common sense.
At least you admit that there was a touch with common sense and reality. Chalenge, you have fallen into the pit of a typical GW denialist, - since you get pawned by lack of knowledge and logical thinkings, you enter the zone of shooting out rubbish.
Oh, and Lute, I got to know the ice age scare from Lazs. I have not found much of it. While doing college in the early 80's, our studies did involve speculations of a Nuclear winter (due to global dimming) as well as GW due to human activities. Now that was some 25 years ago. The cooling scare IMHO seems to have been a thing from USA.
And BTW, why the "F-WORD" do you always calculate in Fahrenheit!!!!!!!!! Who the "F-WORD" does that!!!! :mad:
-
At least you admit that there was a touch with common sense and reality. Chalenge, you have fallen into the pit of a typical GW denialist, - since you get pawned by lack of knowledge and logical thinkings, you enter the zone of shooting out rubbish.
Oh, and Lute, I got to know the ice age scare from Lazs. I have not found much of it. While doing college in the early 80's, our studies did involve speculations of a Nuclear winter (due to global dimming) as well as GW due to human activities. Now that was some 25 years ago. The cooling scare IMHO seems to have been a thing from USA.
And BTW, why the "F-WORD" do you always calculate in Fahrenheit!!!!!!!!! Who the "F-WORD" does that!!!! :mad:
Anyone who does anything in Fahrenheit doesn't do anything in science at all.
-
Out of curiosity, is it just the USA, - and as soon they get deeper into science it is still Celcius/Kelvin (same scaling, just geting rid of the negative) or the other one,,now what was that one again...
I am not a scientist (you know that Moray), but bloody hell, this one I had in school 20+ years before I took the odd decision of getting into various earth bound jobs....
-
It's just the USA. :( I can speak metric but reserve it for conversing with foreigners or when I'm abroad. ;)
-
I see somebody didn't look at the peer reviewed paper I posted...
Just curious, but does anybody else remember in the 1970's when there was a big "scare" that we were entering into another ice age?
I should also add that in this same period of time hydrocarbon use increased 3-fold.
According to this trend, in the next hundred years we will see a .9 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature if the current trend continues.
So Morray37, in the 25 year span you suggested, you will see an .225 increase in temperature Fahrenheit.
A hundred years is about right for a 1 degree F temp. increase.
and I would leave you with the following...
(http://photos.mongabay.com/07/0307iucn_ex-c.jpg)
(http://photos.mongabay.com/07/0314iucn.jpg)
Your final quote is particularly disgusting. Considering most biologists and ecologists are remarking we are currently in the midst of a global extinction event, don't look forward to a "lush new world" like your denialist handbook tells you to.
During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a period 55 million years ago marked by a rapid rise in greenhouse gases that heated Earth by roughly 9° F (5° C) in less than 10,000 years, climate warming caused widespread changes, including mass extinction in the world's oceans from acidification
To date, the most comprehensive forecast for the impact of climate change on global biodiversity was made in two 2004 papers published in Nature by Chris Thomas and colleagues. Analyzing the distributions of 1103 species of animals and plants from various parts of the world, the authors showed that 15-37 percent are likely to go extinct based on the best projections of future climate change.
Most biologists agree that we are presently in the midst of a sixth great extinction event, one where species loss is outpacing species birth. In a paper published last year in the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Camille Parmesan, a biologist from the University of Texas at Austin, argued that current global warming has already caused extinctions in the world's most sensitive habitats and will continue to cause more species to go extinct over the next 50 to 100 years. Parmesan's work shows that while some species—especially those with short generation times like insects—are evolving in response to climate change, they are not evolving in ways that could prevent extinction. Overall species evolution is not making up for species disappearance.
-
Considering most biologists and ecologists are remarking we are currently in the midst of a global extinction event, don't look forward to a "lush new world" like your denialist handbook tells you to.
So you say we are heating them to death? Silly me thought that we were just hunting them, poisoning them and cutting down their forests in order to make them go extinct.
-
Out of curiosity, is it just the USA, - and as soon they get deeper into science it is still Celcius/Kelvin (same scaling, just geting rid of the negative) or the other one,,now what was that one again...
I am not a scientist (you know that Moray), but bloody hell, this one I had in school 20+ years before I took the odd decision of getting into various earth bound jobs....
Angus, we use all metric in science here. It really doesn't make any sense not to. Don't ask me why they went with Mr. Fahrenheit's scale, when they adopted it as universal. Too in love with the king, those folks were.
What's really funny, is to say 2 degrees Celsius here in the states in public. <insert blank stare> Heads explode if you explain Kelvin."What? You mean at 273.15 degrees it's freezing???? WTH are you talking about?"
-
It doesnt help that environmentalists conjur up new names for the same species as they did in the classic case of the spotted owl and Californias mice populations. Tree huggers live here I see now and I been thinking they were just government indoctrinated I see its worse then that!
-
So you say we are heating them to death? Silly me thought that we were just hunting them, poisoning them and cutting down their forests in order to make them go extinct.
No, we're doing all that on top of it. I didn't use it as a blanket statement. It was a response to his post that we're making the planet a lush paradise for our children to play in. We are most certainly not doing that in any way, shape, or form.
-
It doesnt help that environmentalists conjur up new names for the same species as they did in the classic case of the spotted owl and Californias mice populations. Tree huggers live here I see now and I been thinking they were just government indoctrinated I see its worse then that!
Sir, environmentalists don't make species names. Scientists do. If you don't see the significant difference, don't comment on it. It takes around 10 years to two decades to get a species name amended once it's recognized.
-
Moray try not to tell me what to do or buzz off of commenting yourself. I know you think everyone is blind to reality except yourself but I for one dont care how much you think you know it doesnt give you the soapbox to preach from. You have been reading from the popular press for so long its warped your senses.
-
You just claimed he studied too much. Now it's reading too much popular press :uhoh
Neither applies to me, so I wonder what my problem is. I see GW from the boots I stand in, - from my basic education, reading, memory, and the profession(s) I've had. Now how's that?
It may look as if Moray is indeed standing on a soap-box. I guess it's because there is strong logic in his preaching, and you, Chalenge, cannot make a dent in it. Hence the desperate grab of decreasing manners.
-
It doesnt help that environmentalists conjur up new names for the same species as they did in the classic case of the spotted owl and Californias mice populations. Tree huggers live here I see now and I been thinking they were just government indoctrinated I see its worse then that!
:rolleyes:
Perhaps you'll back this claim?
-
So you say we are heating them to death? Silly me thought that we were just hunting them, poisoning them and cutting down their forests in order to make them go extinct.
Slight variations in temperature can embolden fungi to expand into higher altitudes where they previously could not survive. That's partially the explanation for the massive amphibian extinction going on in central America right now.
-
I actually had to do the conversion from C to F when I posted that. My source was of course in C.
More a habit than anything I guess.
I live in the USA and we use F.
So... Now I am being told that global extinction is happening because of man made global warming?
(sigh)
Claims (97) of an epidemic of inscribing diseases, extensive species extinction, catastrophic flooding of Pacific islands, ocean acidification, increased numbers and severity's of hurricanes and tornado's, and increased human heat deaths from the 0.5 °C per century temperature rise are not consistent with actual observations. The "humanised global warming" hypothesis and the computer calculations that support it are in error. They have no empirical support and are invalidated by numerous observations.
There is that Dun previewed paper again with all it's pesky "facts" and such.
All I have heard so far in this thread is the same drivel being spewed that, as I quoted above, has "no empirical support".
As atmospheric CO2 increases, plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves transpire less and lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally.
Explain how that is incorrect. Please, do tell how increased plant growth is BAD for animals and will cause their extinction.
Wheat growth is accelerated by increased atmospheric CO2, especially under dry conditions.
I can see where you would think that increased wheat growth would be a bad thing. (sigh)
Inventories of standing hardwood and softwood timber in the United States compiled in Forest Resources of the United States, 2002, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (111,112). The linear trend cited in 1998 (1) with an increase of 30% has continued. The increase is now 40%. The amount of U.S. timber is rising almost 1% per year.
I can also see where more trees would be a horrible thing. (sigh)
Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed.
Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist.
Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible.
They are surely not environmental pollutants.
So do tell me please how something that is GOOD for plants and animals is causing their extinction.
-
Is the lumber increasing from increased CO2 alone? I somehow thought that forest balancing had more factors, - the vital ones being re-planting, and even temperature....
For the global stock is decreasing.
I am well aware that if you whiff up the CO2, plants will respond by harnessing more carbon, thereby growing better, - especially on a certain level. We use this in agriculture, - in the GREENHOUSE business :D
Over where I live, the air is clear, and less ppm C than down on mainland Europe. But when we get the winds from the UK and mainland Europe, there is no need for adding CO2 no more...
As for the crops responding, they will also respond to increased temperature and droughts. The hottest areas will become less bearable, while cooler areas become...nicer. But the landmass on the hotter areas is more, so with GW carrying on, crops will eventually drop as a total.
Some of the really high crop areas today, where a lot of Earths stock of food is made, do not take a lot of heating...
-
:rolleyes:
Perhaps you'll back this claim?
Never heard of a 'spotted owl' until around 1990 when environmentalists decided to take on the logging industry. Somehow an owl that inhabits the entire span of Western States (and Canada) that also have fir trees is somehow 'endangered.' The 'spotted owl' is named 'Strix Occidentalis' in latin which means 'Owl Western' and in fact its real name is Western Owl but it encompasses about 24 seperate species more narrowly defined by environmentalists (scientists can be environmentalists too) as four subspecies. Note it was not named 'spotted owl' until the 90s or there abouts and it is a gross insult of ignorance. Note the range of habitation does not indicate the true expanse this bird actually inhabits. Most of Canada has this owl (given the gross labelling) living in its forests and you can easily find them in early and late winter. I have seen 'spotted owls' while soaring in the Rockies and particularly in Idaho which is not listed as within the range of this owls habitation - a dead giveaway to me.
Its cousin the 'Barred Owl' (Strix Varia) actually is much more 'spotted' and is more of a threat to 'spotted owls' (as defined popularly) then logging operations.
We had a body of water here in Florida with a newly discovered variation on the newt. It seemed this newt could only be found in one pond and it was right here in Florida so no one could be allowed to build anywhere near that pond to make sure the newt survived. Well that one newt disappeared anyway. Probably it was a fluke hybrid anyway but until the environmentalist movement is finished extorting money and sympathy that pond is safe. I would say if it only exists in one pond it was probably bad science that discovered the 'variation.'
Western States seem to suffer a lot from environwackos and any 'protected environment' should be suspect and more closely examined. There will always be this argument though because humans hate change and love to be victims.
-
(http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a967/a967_bm.gif)
My new T-Shirt.
LINK (http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/al-gore-didnt-invent-the-internet-but-he-did-make-up-global-warming/)
-
Never heard of a 'spotted owl' until around 1990 when environmentalists decided to take on the logging industry. Somehow an owl that inhabits the entire span of Western States (and Canada) that also have fir trees is somehow 'endangered.' The 'spotted owl' is named 'Strix Occidentalis' in latin which means 'Owl Western' and in fact its real name is Western Owl but it encompasses about 24 seperate species more narrowly defined by environmentalists (scientists can be environmentalists too) as four subspecies. Note it was not named 'spotted owl' until the 90s or there abouts and it is a gross insult of ignorance. Note the range of habitation does not indicate the true expanse this bird actually inhabits. Most of Canada has this owl (given the gross labelling) living in its forests and you can easily find them in early and late winter. I have seen 'spotted owls' while soaring in the Rockies and particularly in Idaho which is not listed as within the range of this owls habitation - a dead giveaway to me.
Its cousin the 'Barred Owl' (Strix Varia) actually is much more 'spotted' and is more of a threat to 'spotted owls' (as defined popularly) then logging operations.
We had a body of water here in Florida with a newly discovered variation on the newt. It seemed this newt could only be found in one pond and it was right here in Florida so no one could be allowed to build anywhere near that pond to make sure the newt survived. Well that one newt disappeared anyway. Probably it was a fluke hybrid anyway but until the environmentalist movement is finished extorting money and sympathy that pond is safe. I would say if it only exists in one pond it was probably bad science that discovered the 'variation.'
Western States seem to suffer a lot from environwackos and any 'protected environment' should be suspect and more closely examined. There will always be this argument though because humans hate change and love to be victims.
So do you believe any land, water, or defineable habitat shouldn't ever be protected? Where do you draw the line on sprawl that is further into wildlife habitats?
Do you believe that decreasing bio-diversity is not a bad thing, let alone a major disaster if it continues?
Just wondering your opinions.
-
I didnt say anything like that and what I did say implies you have to watch for situations like this.
Maybe the idea in India to consume more cow dung and cow urine appeals to our greenies?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5707554.ece
-
Never heard of a 'spotted owl' until around 1990 when environmentalists decided to take on the logging industry. Somehow an owl that inhabits the entire span of Western States (and Canada) that also have fir trees is somehow 'endangered.' The 'spotted owl' is named 'Strix Occidentalis' in latin which means 'Owl Western' and in fact its real name is Western Owl but it encompasses about 24 seperate species more narrowly defined by environmentalists (scientists can be environmentalists too) as four subspecies. Note it was not named 'spotted owl' until the 90s or there abouts and it is a gross insult of ignorance. Note the range of habitation does not indicate the true expanse this bird actually inhabits. Most of Canada has this owl (given the gross labelling) living in its forests and you can easily find them in early and late winter. I have seen 'spotted owls' while soaring in the Rockies and particularly in Idaho which is not listed as within the range of this owls habitation - a dead giveaway to me.
Its cousin the 'Barred Owl' (Strix Varia) actually is much more 'spotted' and is more of a threat to 'spotted owls' (as defined popularly) then logging operations.
We had a body of water here in Florida with a newly discovered variation on the newt. It seemed this newt could only be found in one pond and it was right here in Florida so no one could be allowed to build anywhere near that pond to make sure the newt survived. Well that one newt disappeared anyway. Probably it was a fluke hybrid anyway but until the environmentalist movement is finished extorting money and sympathy that pond is safe. I would say if it only exists in one pond it was probably bad science that discovered the 'variation.'
Western States seem to suffer a lot from environwackos and any 'protected environment' should be suspect and more closely examined. There will always be this argument though because humans hate change and love to be victims.
Your incredibly condensed visage to the spotted owl is way too short. The issue arose when it was proven that that there were sub-populations that had diversified from the progenitor species' habitat, meaning they were, in fact, a different and much more specialized species than the generalized "spotted owl" (S. occidentalis) The differences are so minute as to be nearly identical, but their habitat and foraging are totally different, and they are unable to interbreed.
Also, are you a trained ornithologist? You saw "an owl" in Idaho. Just because you think it is something, doesn't make it that, especially with dealing in specific species.
(http://www.exposure.travel/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/killer-whale-breaching.jpg)
(http://www.wildernesscommittee.org/campaigns/wildlife/orca/orcas_toxins/images/killer_whales.jpg)
Those are both killer whales right?
Yes, and NO. One is a distinct subspecies, and cannot interbreed with the other, from a divergence in genes about 10,000 years old. There are cetacean biologists still attempting to get them into different species classifications, for almost 30 years now. Neither types mix, one eats fish, the other marine mammals. One live offshore, the other in coastal waters. Even their echolocation is different. But, they look pretty much identical on the outside.
-
Well the global warming pundits said all the snow and rain are caused by global warming. We are now 10 inches behind on rainfall so I guess it's over.... :aok
-
Here in Michigan you cannot build on a piece of land that has a cattail on it.
-
Out of curiosity, I think it would be enlightening to know the ages of the major players in this forum debate. I suspect there's an inverse relationship between one's age and one's eagerness to drink Al Gore's Kool-Aid.
-
Whats really funny (and not haha funny) is the way the same people that claim evolution is responsible want to step in and pretend they know better then nature how things should be. Trying to save a species or even bring one back (as may well happen with the mammoth and sabertooth) is complete folly in my book. Then to gain sympathy they imprint human thoughts and emotions upon animals incapable of it.
-
Moray:
"Yes, and NO. One is a distinct subspecies, and cannot interbreed with the other, from a divergence in genes about 10,000 years old. There are cetacean biologists still attempting to get them into different species classifications, for almost 30 years now. Neither types mix, one eats fish, the other marine mammals. One live offshore, the other in coastal waters. Even their echolocation is different. But, they look pretty much identical on the outside."
That means that those two are less related than a horse and a Donkey. Of course those are the same species, right :devil
Anyway, the way nature wants things to be, may not mean to...cosy.
Neither is nature responding to drastic changes due to the works of one of natures species. So play it gently.....
-
Also, are you a trained ornithologist? You saw "an owl" in Idaho. Just because you think it is something, doesn't make it that, especially with dealing in specific species.
Obviously the answer would be no. However there is one man that visited uponus during the glider seasons over the last few years and that is both a glider pilot and ornithologist who delighted in my pointing out Elk at the edge of a tree line and so returned the favor concerning owls. He is not part of your university system and does not fall prey to political climates.
-
Also, are you a trained ornithologist? You saw "an owl" in Idaho. Just because you think it is something, doesn't make it that, especially with dealing in specific species.
What is your PHD in Moray?
I can't tell.
Is it in Climatology or Zoology?
I WAS leaning towards Climatology, but you just threw me a curve with the whole "ornithologist" bit so now I see it might be Zoology.
(i.e. none of here are "experts" and this thead will not change anything and should be viewed as entertainment)
-
(i.e. none of here are "experts" and this thead will not change anything and should be viewed as entertainment)
Yes, you and challenge would be rather funny until everyone realizes your serious.
-
Hillarious.
Lets make sure its all a joke so we can stay comfy in the nonsense spread around here. :aok
Time to fly now.
-
What is your PHD in Moray?
I can't tell.
Is it in Climatology or Zoology?
I WAS leaning towards Climatology, but you just threw me a curve with the whole "ornithologist" bit so now I see it might be Zoology.
(i.e. none of here are "experts" and this thead will not change anything and should be viewed as entertainment)
I'm sure you were laying on the sarcasm when you asked, but I'll answer straight up anyway.
My Master's is in biology.
PhD is another 6 months to a year away... I was planning to present my full thesis in June, but have stumbled on to some unforeseen results in the lab that have dictated a closer study in order to best present my conclusions.
I will be the first to say I'm not a climatologist. I will also be the first to say I work with climatologists regularly. I'll take what they have to say about this topic over what those on this board do, seven days out of seven.
-
PhD is another 6 months to a year away... I was planning to present my full thesis in June, but have stumbled on to some unforeseen results in the lab that have dictated a closer study in order to best present my conclusions.
Translation: "The unforeseen results in my studies of "global climate change" require more time to cook the books."
:aok
-
Obviously the answer would be no. However there is one man that visited uponus during the glider seasons over the last few years and that is both a glider pilot and ornithologist who delighted in my pointing out Elk at the edge of a tree line and so returned the favor concerning owls. He is not part of your university system and does not fall prey to political climates.
Political climates? Did you get that from watching "Higher Learning" on HBO last night or something? About the last thing in today's labs are politics. Everyone's too busy trying not to screw things up.
Your take on higher education belies the fact you probably never went and are irritated by those that do. Your take on science shows you, in fact, know no scientists.
You look at grant money like it goes to the scientist that is awarded it. The grant funds the research. It does not fund the scientist. Which, sir, is why almost every scientist teaches.
-
Translation: "The unforeseen results in my studies of "global climate change" require more time to cook the books."
:aok
Sir, screw off, with all due respect. My work is published and peer reviewed. If it isn't right, there will be 10,000 or more people telling me about it. Scientists are wolves scavenging each others' research, looking for mistakes.
"Cooking the books". What an idiot statement,as if you had any idea what you were talking about.
-
Sir, screw off, with all due respect. My work is published and peer reviewed. If it isn't right, there will be 10,000 or more people telling me about it. Scientists are wolves scavenging each others' research, looking for mistakes.
"Cooking the books". What an idiot statement,as if you had any idea what you were talking about.
Yes my last post was a bit tongue in cheek, but I do find your academic background interesting.
I am curious then what you thought of the information I have been posted, that is indeed peer-reviewed.
I would have thought something like that is right up your alley.
-
Sir, screw off, with all due respect. My work is published and peer reviewed. If it isn't right, there will be 10,000 or more people telling me about it. Scientists are wolves scavenging each others' research, looking for mistakes.
"Cooking the books". What an idiot statement,as if you had any idea what you were talking about.
LOL
How can you possibly stand to wallow in this cesspool of humanity? With all due respect? Don't be disingenuous. You are nor offering any respect; it's fairly obvious by your tone that you are holding your nose while trolling these boards. Why do you do it? Is it to "enlighten" the poor, unwashed masses? Or is it to to satisfy your own smug self-importance and self-perceived superiority? If you are half as smart as you think and profess than it certainly can't be the former, which only leaves the latter...
As if you had any idea what you were talking about.
-
Political climates? Did you get that from watching "Higher Learning" on HBO last night or something?...
No I dont put dog squeeze in the old blender if you know what I mean.
You assume too much all along that post but I think its habitual with you. :lol
-
I do not see a climate discussion here for many a post.
Anyway, biology is a very good background for realizing climate change. It isn't just some temperature gauges, - each and every living organ has it's own, and that amounts to...a lot. AFAIK the biologists do not differ much in their opinion about climate change, - but hey, I guess the oil companies forgot about that branch.
In my field, agriculture, we do not differ much about it either. Now our business has to do with both climate and biology, so we must adabt to new cirkumstances, either defensively, or by benefitting from them, - where I live it is the latter one. So, to us, a climate change, in this case warming, is not a theory, but a fact, and thereby a part of the job. And in my case, on my latitude, GW is good for us :t
-
... And in my case, on my latitude, GW is good for us :t
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/shrk.gif)
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/costumed-smiley-011.gif)
-
...
Anyway, biology is a very good background for realizing climate change. It isn't just some temperature gauges, - each and every living organ has it's own, and that amounts to...a lot. AFAIK the biologists do not differ much in their opinion about climate change, - but hey, I guess the oil companies forgot about that branch.
In my field, agriculture, we do not differ much about it either.
...
There is a great difficulty in discussing this topic due to poor definitions and choice of terms. "Climate change" is completely open to interpretations. The weather this year is different from last year so the "climate changed". The last 10 year average is different from the last 50 years averages so the weather changed. The last 50 years are different from the past milenia.. and so on. Everyone will agree that the climate is changing or not if they are allowed to choose their own definition of "change". Most discussions end up returning to whether there is or there isn't a "climate change" because everyone can choose the data and definition to suit their opinion.
Do humans affect the weather, is a slightly better defined question. Humans have a strong and clear effect on the biosphere without invoking any climate change caused by them or not. When people detect a "change" in the biological environment it is not easy to distinct the effects of the climate change from other human influence, or other "natural" causes.
It is the fashion today that the first hypothesis is that the cause is of human nature. It is driven by different world views about religion, new-age philosophies and technology. When bee hives are being abandoned (colony collapse disorder) one of the first things to be accused were cellphones - why? not because of any evidence or serious theory, but because there are certain groups that believe cellphones are a source of evil. Of course genetic engineered plants were also the immediate suspects. 500 years ago it would have been because of that weird looking woman with the wart on her nose. The media has an amplifying effect to human-related theories. Accusing cellphones or genetic-engineering will draw much more public attention than some complicated explanation about the bee's immunity system - even if humans had something to do with this. It also guaranties that some political groups will jump on this wagon.
The climate issue has two faces:
1. Is the climate changing.
2. Do humans affect it and HOW.
People tend to confuse the two and attack #1 when the do not agree with #2, or assume #2 and try to prove it by demonstrating #1 is true. We have to answer both parts. If we prove #1 we may know what is ahead of us, but we will have no idea of how to act, unless we answer #2. There is a lot of evidence to sort through in order to answer #1. We have extremely thin evidence and almost no theoretical understanding of #2. The CO2 craze as an academic discussion could have passed, but acting on a global scale without a shred of understanding of what we are doing and what will be the effect is sheer folly.
-
LOL
How can you possibly stand to wallow in this cesspool of humanity? With all due respect? Don't be disingenuous.
He's attempting to sound slightly civil in his response to your comment:
Translation: "The unforeseen results in my studies of "global climate change" require more time to cook the books."
Which to me and everyone else looks like your calling into question his life's work. I'm surprised he even sounded slightly civil in his rebuttal with how you spoke of him.
Get back under your bridge troll.
----------------
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
-
He's attempting to sound slightly civil in his response to your comment:
Which to me and everyone else looks like your calling into question his life's work. I'm surprised he even sounded slightly civil in his rebuttal with how you spoke of him.
Get back under your bridge troll.
----------------
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
I don't live for some elitist's approval. I'm no more calling into question his life's work than he is calling into question everyone's intelligence who slightly disagrees with his "sky is falling" mantra. The FACT of the matter is that every day more and more scientists are coming out AGAINST man made "climate change" to the detriment of their future grant money. I am much more inclined to believe a climatologist who is making a statement that could very well lose funding than a "scientist" whose statements will increase his funding
-
I don't live for some elitist's approval. I'm no more calling into question his life's work than he is calling into question everyone's intelligence who slightly disagrees with his "sky is falling" mantra. The FACT of the matter is that every day more and more scientists are coming out AGAINST man made "climate change" to the detriment of their future grant money. I am much more inclined to believe a climatologist who is making a statement that could very well lose funding than a "scientist" whose statements will increase his funding
My comments to you weren't about your belief or disbelief in climate change. This is about you treating people like trash.
Did you struggle in sunday school about lessons in manners as much as you must have struggled in any sciene courses later or do you just get your jolly's by being a jerk on the interwebs?
On another note your using "quotes" is making me laugh. I keep imaging someone making the motions with their fingers while they spew nonsense.
-
Learning manners in sunday school? :huh How far off topic will you go to attack someone? :devil
-
Learning manners in sunday school? :huh How far off topic will you go to attack someone? :devil
At least your fairly well mannered. <S>
:D
-
My comments to you weren't about your belief or disbelief in climate change. This is about you treating people like trash.
Did you struggle in sunday school about lessons in manners as much as you must have struggled in any sciene courses later or do you just get your jolly's by being a jerk on the interwebs?
On another note your using "quotes" is making me laugh. I keep imaging someone making the motions with their fingers while they spew nonsense.
I treat rude people with the same "respect" that they treat others. Stop being being a lap dog.
-
I treat rude people with the same "respect" that they treat others.
But this would require you being respectful in the first place to make any sense...
BACK UNDER THE BRIDGE FOR YOU!
-
But this would require you being respectful in the first place to make any sense...
BACK UNDER THE BRIDGE FOR YOU!
I will be when "he" is...
-
Political climates? Did you get that from watching "Higher Learning" on HBO last night or something? About the last thing in today's labs are politics. Everyone's too busy trying not to screw things up.
Your take on higher education belies the fact you probably never went and are irritated by those that do. Your take on science shows you, in fact, know no scientists.
You look at grant money like it goes to the scientist that is awarded it. The grant funds the research. It does not fund the scientist. Which, sir, is why almost every scientist teaches.
Bongaroo I just want to point out that this right here is a travesty of upper education. Politics is defined as the process by which groups make decisions and I would say that applies to scientists in labs also especially those competeing for funds and publication rights not to mention seniority and tenure. That someone could go so high into education as to masters level and not understand the definition of politics or know it when they see it... lets just say book smart alone doesnt bring success. But of course he will say he understands that but meant politics as in civil governing... he smacks of ignorance through his insults and therefore deserves what he gets.
I will ignore him henceforth as I have given him more then enough warning that his behaviour should lead to censure.
-
I would interprete the "ignore" as submission for your part Chalenge. BTW, wasn't that you who choked on the decimals regarding volcanic CO2 ouputs? Must be frustrating for a scientist to mud-wrestle with that kind of logics...
Anyway, Bozon:
"The climate issue has two faces:
1. Is the climate changing.
2. Do humans affect it and HOW. "
About time for a good post. Isn't climate constantly changing anyway? Are we humans effective enough with our various efforts to affect a climate change globally?
Here comes my shot at it. We know that locally we can easily affect climate, that is an old story. We also know that single natural disasters (like eruptions, meteors etc) can easily change global climate by quite some bit. So how big is the human effort, and where. Okay, what we know:
- Earths surface affects how much solar energy is trapped and how much bounced away. We have had a big effect on earth's surface, - however 2/3rds are oceans...
- Earths vegetation affects in the same way, as well as influencing the atmosphere. We have affected that on a grand scale.
- The atmospheric components affect temperature, which is why we are not frozen over completely. We seem to be able to jack up the carbon part quite easily, by fetching it from deep down.
IMHO it is but folly to think that we do NOT affect climate in some way. But by how much and in which direction.
Warming is the theory, since our doings all have effects in that direction, and it also seems to add up.
Climate change is a more subtle term than Global Warming, - maybe because it is less absolute, and gives a space for the fact that a global warming does not have to mean warming EVERYWHERE, but as a total. If GW for instance allows the Gulf stream to run in a different way (due to the ice-mass not pushing it where it goes), some places will warm up by quite a bit, while other will cool by quite a bit. That would be a climate change due to a warming effect....
But we can but wait and see. The next 10 years or so will probably see the end of the debate, - we will see if any records will keep falling during the next solar cycle. But bearing in mind that the hottest year on record (AFAIK) is during an almost solar minimum sort of gives the tune....
-
Politics is defined as the process by which groups make decisions
Hmm...you constantly voiceing your disdain of higher education is fairly ironic.
politics [pol-i-tiks]
–noun (used with a singular or plural verb)
1. the science or art of political government.
2. the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
3. political affairs: The advocated reforms have become embroiled in politics.
4. political methods or maneuvers: We could not approve of his politics in winning passage of the bill.
5. political principles or opinions: We avoided discussion of religion and politics. His politics are his own affair.
6. use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc.
7. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with the structure, organization, and administration of the state, esp. the city-state as known in ancient Greece.
I don't see anything about politics being group decisions. Your attempt to link peer reviewed science to politics fails even the basic definition test. :uhoh
That someone could go so high into education as to masters level and not understand the definition of politics
:rofl
Use a dictionary before you open up about how evil education is perhaps? Or wouldn't that just be education? :uhoh
-
Angus I dont afford you the same 'convenience'... yet.
From the USGS website: The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20), followed by carbon dioxide (C02) and sulfur dioxide (S02). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).
When I said that volcanic eruptions by a large percentage are more numerous beneath the ocean I was actually helping your argument (since your numbers were inflated). Beneath ocean eruptions are far more numerous then atmospheric eruptions and so the vast majority of volcanic eruptions do not emit gas into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (C02) comes from exposing methane (natural gas) to volcanic steam which if you have ever done any chemistry lab experiments (I have in University) you would know.
The climate is always changing. Human carbon dioxide emissions have no effect on weather or climate. If you think you can easily creat climate change I want to see rain in Ft Myers tomorrow and not just a little I want a downpour.
The term 'climate change' is proof that the original theory is incorrect and is being adjusted to maintain hold the status quo on the 'political climate' worldwide.
Bongaroo: Office politics... sorry bud you FAIL.
-
Bongaroo: Office politics... sorry bud you FAIL.
Yeah man, you really got me good... :rolleyes:
I'm still laughing about that last post.
Quote from: Chalenge on Yesterday at 04:36:20 PM
Politics is defined as the process by which groups make decisions
Quote from: Chalenge on Yesterday at 04:36:20 PM
That someone could go so high into education as to masters level and not understand the definition of politics
:rofl
-
Well I thought you would be able to see the poor definition you outlined by demonstrating the common every day usage of politics but obviously you are oblivious to the obvious.
-
Seriously?
I simply defang your "politics" argument and got to make fun of you for picking on Moray in the same post. Just admit you were wrong (I know it's hard buddy) and we can move on.
:devil
-
Keep it up and everyone will know for sure you:
1) cant see the obvious
or
2) cant be taken seriously ever.
-
Can't win the argument the old fashioned way, resort to attacking the messenger. Now who's playing politics?
-
You really think thats an attack? :rofl
Politics as a practice whatever its professions has always been the systematic organization of hatreds. -Henry Brooks Adams
Practical politics consists in ignoring the facts. - Henry Brooks Adams
As far as political science is concerned, there is no generally accepted definition of the term politics. In truth, this is not a bad thing. After all, the very nature of social sciences and humanities means that there can never be a single or, indeed, "right" answer to a problem. To this end, the rather fruitless search for a definition of the word politics has been wisely abandoned. Whether or not power, conflict, control, peace or something else forms the core of the term politics depends much more on the issue, the interests involved and much more besides. - Dadalos.org
Now type in 'definition of politics' in a google search bar and then continue in your argumentative state.
Global warming is fiction.
-
Second google entry. I went ahead and skipped the wiki since I know how much people hate to see it used as a source.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics
Main Entry:
pol·i·tics Listen to the pronunciation of politics
Pronunciation:
\ˈpä-lə-ˌtiks\
Function:
noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology:
Greek politika, from neuter plural of politikos political
Date:
circa 1529
1 a: the art or science of government b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2: political actions, practices, or policies
3 a: political affairs or business ; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b: political life especially as a principal activity or profession c: political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5 a: the total complex of relations between people living in society b: relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics> <ethnic politics>
-------------------------------
Humans can and do change the environment. To believe otherwise is foolish.
-
Well I play this other game and on the forums we had a discussion about Global warming and had quite a few debates. I personally don't believe in it, but a few people did on those forums. Give me your Views and thoughts about it. My Grandpa is a STRONG believer that there is no such thing and the earth is fine. I admit we pollute but I don't see how its getting warmer. My state has had more snow then it should of had, and oh not to mention that the universe is stretching out so we are getting farther away from the sun :devil. I'm only 15 so I might be viewed as stubborn to the ones who believe in it. If so let me know why I am, and see what happens. :salute
-Tmac73
Hey there Tmac. Glad to see you are thinking for yourself. Don't let too many know that until you get through college though, you won't find many professors that enjoy that free thinking attitude...it's only free thinking and free spirited when you agree with them. After all, liberalism IS a mental disorder - a 'cult of personality' scenario which transcends to ideas or a path of ideas.
GM is simply an attempt to control more of what we do. If we all have to submit for carbon credits you realize they have just created a commodity on something that is ever plentiful and is nothing but a waste product.
It's like tax on tobacco and alcohol, do you REALLY think they want people to stop smoking and drinking? If every stopped TODAY, the government would be bankrupt TOMORROW.
-
Second google entry. I went ahead and skipped the wiki since I know how much people hate to see it used as a source.
-----------------------
Humans can and do change the environment. To believe otherwise is foolish.
You skipped it because it goes into the most common and accepted use of the term today and not twenty years ago like the dictionarys and because it suits your agenda.
I believe if you keep chasing after the GW carbon hype you are a fool so here we are both pointing at the other and defining our targets as fools. Who will blink first? :rofl
-
:furious
So..global warming, yes or no?
-
:furious
So..global warming, yes or no?
Climate change? Definately. Man Made Global Warming? No way. A way for a segment of society to dictate terms to the masses and control all industry? Hell yes.
-
Pretty funny. I go away for three days of work in the Dry Tortugas, come back and see all this wonderful sludge about me. But, it was fun spending 3 days with 3 or 4 dives per day, doing fieldwork on the last really healthy, unspoiled reef our country has. Temp was mid 80's and water was 75.
I have no doubt Sluggish, that there are people like you speak of, the horrible scientists that are just begging for grant money by doing crap work. I've worked with some of them in the past. Most of them started in the Reagan days, although some of them came around when GW was initially in office. Many of them also left, or were pushed out of science, because we elitists don't like BS, or see our work cited and drug through the cesspool that is another guy's horrible attempt at research. We're pretty much snobs like that. Imagine whatever job you do for a living. Now imagine someone coming along doing a crappier job at your job, and getting payed more for it. How would you react?
Here's the thing.... sooner or later, the cat's outta the bag. You only get a couple of screw ups in the review process before your whole methodology comes into question. As soon as that happens, other scientists won't collaborate with you anymore. Once that happens, you might as well be workin in 7-Eleven, you won't get funded.
Again, I explain, funding does not get distributed for personal use. Every expenditure must be itemized down to the last pencil used. It doesn't go into my bank account. My salary is paid by the institute that hired me, not by my grant funding. You people are pretty damn dense, who don't understand this.