Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: stealth on March 07, 2012, 07:13:44 PM
-
The future brings bright and dark, warm and cold. Just remember the cold and the darkness are not things of their own, simply the absence of light and warmth.
When we look at the latest media it says an asteroid or aliens will kill us all. When really we'll all be dead because of our selves before any of this happens. I found this video, because I'm very interested what the future will bring. If you are as well I highly recommend watching this.
Watch This-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syKJP1lnjQA&list=PL72697D1EC82AE323&index=2&feature=plpp_video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syKJP1lnjQA&list=PL72697D1EC82AE323&index=2&feature=plpp_video)
“When it comes to the future, there are three kinds of people: those who let it happen, those who make it happen, and those who wonder what happened.”
John M. Richardson, Jr.
-
So this video knows the future? I will skip it, I want it to be a surprise.
Bob
-
So this video knows the future? I will skip it, I want it to be a surprise.
Bob
lol, if you have a brain just prepare for the best and the worst. Always be ready to help the world,(i feel like a hippy)
-
Someone is spending too much time on Youtube...
-
Someone is spending too much time on Youtube...
Someones spending to much time with me, wait don't leave.(door noise sound effect)
-
Nah, its more like this.
Year 2013, the end.
(http://www.prikol.ru/wp-content/gallery/april-2010/biloe-velichie-03f.jpg)
-
personally i couldnt care less about the parasitic infestation infecting our planet....you know the one named human kind. so the fact that one day the human race shall self destruct and implode completely destroying itself is no sad news to me.
so now that you understand that i couldnt care less about the collective future of our species, let me impart upon you a thought. if you are going to use the interwebz, and the garbage posted by every possible type of insane trash man therein, to look into the future and then you find fear and paranoia in the answers you discover there....well maybe you should be the first to take a long pull off the grape Kool-aid keg.....
-
Someones spending to much time with me, wait don't leave
Really? How many of your threads have I posted in lately? Here's a clue, not nearly as many as you have made!
-
In the late 1700's there was a philosopher of commerce (now days we would call him an economist) who predicted nothing but gloom and doom. He laid out in very great detail how mankind would destroy itself within decades. By the early 1800's mankind on earth would be reduced by some 90%! We would outlive our resources, destroy the land and everything on it.
By was he off. And since then we have had one prophet of doom after another. The Mayan calendar and Dec 21, 2012 is just the latest version of pending doom. It seems that almost all major religions have the 'end of times' so it is in the culture and DNA of man to expect it all to come to an end, so we ultimately all have our prophets, that thankful have proven false to this point.
An asteroid may hit earth. If that happens, could be major. Short of that pretty much every way we can dream of man destroying ourselves has been tried, and all have proven false...again.
About time for a new round of pending doom. I'll skip this one.
Boo
-
Really? How many of your threads have I posted in lately? Here's a clue, not nearly as many as you have made!
This is time for the weird drunk cop to investigate(Searching..........)
-
Just watched this, many falsehoods and conflicting predictions. Fun though clearly modern day Malthusians at play. Wrong then, wrong now, wrong tomorrow...but fun to watch. And as with all of these types of predictions the answer is always the deindustrialization of America, total government control of all means of production and redistribution of wealth to 3rd world countries. International marxism....
It never ends!
Boo
-
Yikes! I've really just been skeptical of those theories in general. If they were true, then they'd take the scientific community by storm like Darwin and Einstein did.
-Penguin
-
Having been around in the sixties, as a kid. Many of the same predictions were made for now. Overpopulation, moon bases, world war, automatic cars, robots etc etc.
Certainly some of the technology stuff is true. That will develop as it is now.
My own predictions: Global warming will disappear and people will laugh at our fears and wonder what the hell we were thinking. That's beginning to happen now.
There'll be no moonbases, no one is going back to the moon except maybe the Chinese and that only for prestige. The money required to build a moonbase would never be recouped no matter how much water or helium or gold that's found.
They're might a be Mars mission but only one as it will be ruinously expensive and pointless as no one is ever going to colonise Mars.
Space elevators? C'mon, lets get real here. Pure fantasy.
We won't be out there colonising the galaxy unless someone come up with a warp drive that n
There will be no hypersonic airliners. There is no way something that expensive could be built unless governments get involved and airlines couldn't make any money flying them anyway.
There won't be a WW3, there will be regional wars as usual. What's new about that?
Automatic cars sound great, except you have to build roads to suit them. Who is going to pay for that? Answer: You taxes same as all the other airey fairy ideas above.
-
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl
O.M.G!! LMAOROFLSTFC!!!! :x
Check out this revolutionary, totally new revelation from another scare mongering fool who thinks he "knows" things that no one else does!
Give me a freakin break. 100% conjecture and guessing. This is the same crap people have been saying since Plato talked about Atlantis if not even earlier than that.
Help yourself to a freakin textbook and get out from in front of Ancient Aliens for a few minutes.
Take a look at some of the "What the World Will Look Like" information from the early 90's looked like. For that matter keep going.. the 80's, 70's, 60's... keep going back to the World's Fairs.. even further....
FACT: That video is complete BS based on assumptions of what scientists,political hacks, and revisionists WANT to happen. I would have +1'ed it if you got off InfoWars.com or something. Maybe Coast to Coast AM would have been better... LMAO!!!!! What a tool!
-
Having been around in the sixties, as a kid. Many of the same predictions were made for now. Overpopulation, moon bases, world war, automatic cars, robots etc etc.
Certainly some of the technology stuff is true. That will develop as it is now.
My own predictions: Global warming will disappear and people will laugh at our fears and wonder what the hell we were thinking. That's beginning to happen now.
There'll be no moonbases, no one is going back to the moon except maybe the Chinese and that only for prestige. The money required to build a moonbase would never be recouped no matter how much water or helium or gold that's found.
They're might a be Mars mission but only one as it will be ruinously expensive and pointless as no one is ever going to colonise Mars.
Space elevators? C'mon, lets get real here. Pure fantasy.
We won't be out there colonising the galaxy unless someone come up with a warp drive that n
There will be no hypersonic airliners. There is no way something that expensive could be built unless governments get involved and airlines couldn't make any money flying them anyway.
There won't be a WW3, there will be regional wars as usual. What's new about that?
Automatic cars sound great, except you have to build roads to suit them. Who is going to pay for that? Answer: You taxes same as all the other airey fairy ideas above.
No, global warming is a painful reality. I don't see any signs of awareness of it slowing down anywhere, in fact, it's just about everywhere- and that's a good sign for the icecaps. We even go over it in French (albeit the teacher has some errors like thinking that CO2 causes the ozone hole; CFC's do it).
I think you underestimate the scientific value of space missions- research is somewhat like a slot machine, you just keep at it until it works or you're sure that nothing is there. In addtion, knowledge of climactic systems, geology, etc., gained there can generate income here, and that's neglecting the technology that we'll create to get us there. Don't forget the fact that sub-light propulsion and radioactive shielding will also improve, allowing longer missions beyond Mars.
Space elevators are perfectly reasonable, they're actually cheaper than rockets in the long run due to lower operating costs, reusabilty, and commericial opportunities.
I agree with the hypersonic airliners as long as hydrogen isn't cheap enough to burn en masse for the ramjets and scramjets. G-forces and maneuverability at lower speeds also pose problems. Perhaps take-off could be achieved by being towed to altitude and speed and then landing like a glider after a series of burns.
Automatic cars can be hybrids with secondary manual controls for dirt roads. You don't need roads built to suit them, either- LIDAR is giving them better eyesight than ever, and roads are already standardized for human drivers. AI would handle the rest and alert the driver if it couldn't. Don't forget GPS- it's pretty darn precise nowadays.
-Penguin
-
No, global warming is a painful reality. I don't see any signs of awareness of it slowing down anywhere, in fact, it's just about everywhere- and that's a good sign for the icecaps. We even go over it in French (albeit the teacher has some errors like thinking that CO2 causes the ozone hole; CFC's do it).
Sorry Penguin, it's not a real. Even though I'm a science enthusiast and a bit of a leftie. I stopped buying into it a long time ago. For one, the Antarctic ice is growing not melting. Not only that the polar ice cap thing is far from conclusive. For another temperatures have cooled since 1998. For another none of the computer models has even predicted the current situation. Then there's the whole issue of carbon trading which is one of the biggest scams in history.
Really my friend it's time to get sceptical. Don't believe that it's only looney right wing, good ole boys who think global warming is BS.
Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. You have a clue already, consider that your French teacher thinks there's a a connection with the ozone layer. What made him/her think something so stupid. Think for yourself on this one. Forget the the asinine simple minded propaganda on both sides. Clearly you're not stupid, the truth, to use a cliche, is out there.
BTW it's not a left wing conspiracy. No it's worse than that. It's genuine people who believe a fallacy. That's worse in my opinion.
-
Here's the global temperature index from NASA for the last 220 years. It shows no signs of 1998 being warmer than today, and NASA is quite the polluter, which eliminates any vested interest arguments.
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif)
The fact that Frenchie was wrong doesn't invalidate the science behind global warming- it just proves that she didn't understand it. Just like me getting anything less than a 100 on a chemistry exam doesn't invalidate the chemistry, I was just wrong (very small probability of test error).
The polar ice caps are indeed melting, here is another picture from NASA indicating severe melting in the Greenland region:
(http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grace20120208bot.html)
Here's an article by NASA on the subject of the rate of polar icecaps melting: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grace20120208.html (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grace20120208.html)
These guys don't keep stuff up if it's been proven wrong- science thrives on competition and taking on NASA and winning is too sweet for any scientist to pass up, and that's not even mentioning the zeal for discovery that's at the heart of science.
-Penguin
-
There'll be no moonbases, no one is going back to the moon except maybe the Chinese and that only for prestige. The money required to build a moonbase would never be recouped no matter how much water or helium or gold that's found.
The value of a lunar base isn't financial its logistical. When the space industry is viable and there is an in-system resources exploiting industry that needs it, the moon is an excellent 'hub'.
They're might a be Mars mission but only one as it will be ruinously expensive and pointless as no one is ever going to colonise Mars.
Its a matter of dimensions. You can bet the same was said of the New World and Australia when it was first discovered.
Space elevators? C'mon, lets get real here. Pure fantasy.
On the contrary. Its quite real and the only thing that prevents them from being built now is the cost and some material problems. The bulk of the tech already exists to build them.
We won't be out there colonising the galaxy unless someone come up with a warp drive that n
Albucierre Drive. So far all the physics and math say its possible... apparently we only need find/make an exotic particle to make it work.
There will be no hypersonic airliners. There is no way something that expensive could be built unless governments get involved and airlines couldn't make any money flying them anyway.
True its not going to be widespread but a niche just like the Concord was.
There won't be a WW3, there will be regional wars as usual. What's new about that?
I think there will be.. just not in the same scale as WW2. If the middle east flares up and forces from europe, asia, the americas and africa end up fighting between Pakistan and Morrocco it would be considered a world war.
-
2044, small number of veterans of WWII will still see the 100th anniversary of D-DAY? :headscratch:
-
2044, small number of veterans of WWII will still see the 100th anniversary of D-DAY? :headscratch:
Well yeah, to all the other post and comments. I just think its important to care about the future. Not even that I just think it's interesting, why not. So what if our estimates might be far off for getting a 50mpg car. It's a goal to get toward in life and the future. Some of you might have misunderstood the real meaning of the future. Even if the world ends 2012 I'm still looking forward to what will happen and the accomplishments as a whole that we all make.
-
Here's the global temperature index from NASA for the last 220 years. It shows no signs of 1998 being warmer than today, and NASA is quite the polluter, which eliminates any vested interest arguments.
-Penguin
2012 - 1880 = 132 not 220.
-
2012 - 1880 = 132 not 220.
nobody ever said NASA was very smart........................ ..
-
nobody ever said penguin was very smart........................ ..
FTFY
-
Frack, I messed up the math again. Ah well, triple digit in-my-head subtraction was never my strong suit. Khan Academy beckons me. However, it's still 132 years of data, all proving my point.
-Penguin
-
Revised data being published many places show no significant warming over the past 15 years. The 'Al Gore' of Germany just turned on global warming citing NASAs data. Global warming is a massive political fraud.
Penguin, one note about incentive. The scientific world is driven my money, as we all are. Either they are producing marketable technology or they are in the academic world. With academia there is very little research money to disprove Dr Hansen. Quite the contrary, for the past two plus decades all the incentive is to further the fraud.
Evidence? It's no longer global warming but man made climate change. Used to be mini-ice age,then acid rain, the holes in the ozone layer, then CO2, now here we are.
This is criminal...
Boo
-
And the data shown...roughly 1 degree of change in over a century.the medievil drift was much more then this. In fact, in the history of the earth going back billions of years over 90% of the time earth temps were to high to even snow, let alone have polar caps, which in fact are not shrinking.
Oh I could post some data, scholarship, etc but I'll save everyone the grief. This is fraud!
Boo
-
If the world flooded we could just take the water from earth and put it on the moon or something like that. Anybody agree or got a diffrent opinion?
(This informations from last year might be wrong)Did you know,that a gallon of clean water is worth more then a gallon of oil. Anybody know the real numbers?
-
Frack, I messed up the math again. Ah well, triple digit in-my-head subtraction was never my strong suit. Khan Academy beckons me. However, it's still 132 years of data, all proving my point.
-Penguin
mth you posted just before i did you bastage!!!
actually the only thing this proves is that people are fanatical about finding bs reasons to cry the sky is falling.......
the earth is how many years old?
it has had how many dramatic climate changes through out its history?
how long has man's industrialization been effecting the ozone?
with just the answers to those few questions you really think that 132 years of temperature history is a reasonable measure to base your theory of the sky is falling upon?
the woe the world is ending idiots are grasping at ridiculously pathetic straws just to create a panic and get people to live their way. if you take 6+billion years of climate history and peak through it you will see that warming and cooling phases are a naturally reoccurring event. just ask the dinosaurs...........
your point is invalid and your proof shows just how empty the thought process supporting it is.
-
If you won't present proof then why should I believe you? That's one degree, and that's not good. Think of how big Antarctica is. Now, think about how smooth the temperature gradient becomes with all that surface area. There are thousands of square miles less than a degree below the melting point- add a degree and bada-bing, bada-bang, you've got melting ice on a scale not seen for centuries. Now apply that logic to the crop belts, deserts, migration patterns, rivers, lakes, water consumption rates- one degree makes all the difference. The medieval warm period was tiny and localized. This is the whole world we're talking about here, from China to Singapore to Berlin to London to the Andes to the Pacific, the world temperature has risen everywhere. It shows no signs of stopping either- if we don't stop this, we're toast.
Lack of funding for academia causing fraud? Ridiculous. Where did the money come from in the first place? In addition, if you can disprove it, then a small-time climatologist could perform the same feat before you did. You have no research, either- all the data point to global warming. The new name refers to the fact that heating the earth can cause more dangerous weather (tornadoes, hurricanes), which isn't what global warming calls to mind. The problem was a bad name, not bad research. If there is only money in applied research, then King Coal would have quickly defeated the theory and scientists everywhere would agree. They don't. The controversy isn't there because scientists are too scared or underfunded- the funds are there and the scientists have the courage, like they always have. Finally, science is not all about money- look at CERN, it has no commercial application whatsoever, and yet billions pour into it. It's science at its finest.
For the medieval warm period, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period#cite_note-mann_etal.282009.29-12
It's well cited, so feel free to check the sources.
mth you posted just before i did you bastage!!!
actually the only thing this proves is that people are fanatical about finding bs reasons to cry the sky is falling.......
the earth is how many years old?
it has had how many dramatic climate changes through out its history?
how long has man's industrialization been effecting the ozone?
with just the answers to those few questions you really think that 132 years of temperature history is a reasonable measure to base your theory of the sky is falling upon?
the woe the world is ending idiots are grasping at ridiculously pathetic straws just to create a panic and get people to live their way. if you take 6+billion years of climate history and peak through it you will see that warming and cooling phases are a naturally reoccurring event. just ask the dinosaurs...........
your point is invalid and your proof shows just how empty the thought process supporting it is.
The earth is approximately 4.3 billion years old by uranium dating, and there have been Ice Ages. However, until there is a good deal of freezing or desertification, the actual temperature is irrelevant. It's the speed with which things are changing. A speed of this magnitude hasn't happened since the Great Dying, and even that took orders of magnitude longer than what we're seeing today. Now, life has even less time to adapt, and the extinction will be even worse. It's all about the rate of change. Lately, we've seen the greatest spike yet, which corresponds to the beginning of the Industrial revolution and the entrance of India and China into the world stage. The data is there, just look at it! Where are you getting the idea that scientists the world over have joined together in some conspiracy, though? That's quite the extraordinary claim and it warrants extraordinary evidence.
Specifically on the Great Dying, it wiped out over half of life on earth. It took millions of years to recover from it, just like it took tens of thousands of years to recover from the Ice Ages. Climate change certainly won't end life on earth. Life will always find a way, but don't expect people to stick around too well when the oceans swallow up the land. It'd be miserable, even cataclysmic, for changing one thing causes a cascade in that direction. Take the ice caps- as they melt there is less ice to reflect the sun and they melt faster, leaving less ice and so on. We need to act soon, before it's too late.
-Penguin
-
Gosh..I'm ignorant..when did last Ice Age end??
-
According to Wikipedia, it ended 8,000 years ago.
-Penguin
-
The indoctrination you cite Penguin has fooled many millions more experienced then you.
Where does the money come from? So many conflicted sources. GE makes billions making wind turbines fromtax payer dollars. GE funds tens of millions in research all directed at proving global warming. Government entities that desire statism direct billions down these rat holes. I've worked in this industry for 20+ years. Seen it first hand. Sorry Penguin, first hand knowledge of what I speak.
Fraud.
Boo
-
Worked in what industry, exactly? :headscratch:
-Penguin
-
Gosh..I'm ignorant..when did last Ice Age end??
funny thing is the last technical ice age was actually only a couple hundred years ago....not a big one mind you, but cold enough to classify as one.
According to Wikipedia, it ended 8,000 years ago.
-Penguin
get your nose out of wiki and start reading from both sides of the fence. http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html (http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html) just for starters.....
but if you feel you must quote from the gods of the wiki try here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age)
lets see now....hmmmm there was a warming period.......then there was an ice age......hmmmmmm where was the industrial age of man at this time....oh yeah thats right, it didnt exist yet!!!!! so how do your global warming tree huggers explain that? how do they blame it on the evils of industrial man? oh thats right they cant so they dont mention it!!!!
listen pen, only a fool hears one side of an argument and draws his complete answers from them, if you are not willing to research BOTH sides of a discussion before mouthing your opinion then you are just a parot spouting the propaganda of others.
-
Representing interests before government.
Global warming is a bigger money maker then war.
Boo
-
Besides the fact that the "Little Ice Age" was a local fluctuation according to both sources, if you read the first one about half way you get this:
"As late as 1930 the French Government commissioned a report to investigate the threat of the glaciers. They could not have foreseen that human induced global warming was to deal more effective with this problem than any committee ever could."
That's not evidence against man-made global warming, it's evidence for it.
-Penguin
-
Besides the fact that the "Little Ice Age" was a local fluctuation according to both sources, if you read the first one about half way you get this: local????? you better reread the articles before you talk further.....it states multiple areas that are outside of europe but additionally saw weather changes during the time period
"As late as 1930 the French Government commissioned a report to investigate the threat of the glaciers. They could not have foreseen that human induced global warming was to deal more effective with this problem than any committee ever could." and that is a fool inserting a personal view into a paper, nothing more than the promotion of personal propoganda......
That's not evidence against man-made global warming, it's evidence for it.
-Penguin
i tried to keep the reading light and simple but now your being a fool, so swallow this http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/04/21/little-ice-age-in-southern-south-america/ (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/04/21/little-ice-age-in-southern-south-america/) and try to work your argument around these http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455 (http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455) your a fool who has some intelligence but only a limited amount of reading, this is about the most dangerous type of person on the planet. you speak the propaganda of others with out bothering to truly research the facts behind the statements.
so i will say this, sit in your room and believe what you want and i will go outside and rev the peebag out of my car....see you at the cataclysm party!
-
The first article of the second post has convinced me that the Little Ice Age was indeed global, but the fluctuation caused by the "Little Ice Age" was very much less than that caused by modern CO2 emissions. Furthermore, if you read the first article of your first post you will indeed see what I quoted. I am not a fool, I'm just quoting what you gave me.
Now clearly there was a specific article that you wanted me to read from the second link, but it leads to a list. While reading them all is certainly nice, I'm sure that you intended to find one that supported your point more specifically.
I have no idea why you keep calling me a fool, though. It's like saying "potato" every few words. It makes your argument look less like a logical conclusion and more like an insult.
-Penguin
EDIT: Style
-
Here you go Penguin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8FhmuWWcGw
-
Everyone should relax and just embrace the "green" movement.
Couple reasons.
Point 1. Fossil fuels are not an infinite supply of energy. At some point we will run out.
Point 2 Even if your dont buy into MMGW (and I dont). It is undeniable that fossil fuels are massive pollutants. I certainly wouldnt mind cleaner air and water.
Point 3 and most importantly Green technologies are the next big growth industry. Growth industries bring about several things. Profits for investors. Jobs. and spinoff products and technologies. Which in turn create their own growth industries.
Growth industries are a good thing
-
Everyone should relax and just embrace the "green" movement.
Couple reasons.
Point 1. Fossil fuels are not an infinite supply of energy. At some point we will run out.
Point 2 Even if your dont buy into MMGW (and I dont). It is undeniable that fossil fuels are massive pollutants. I certainly wouldnt mind cleaner air and water.
Point 3 and most importantly Green technologies are the next big growth industry. Growth industries bring about several things. Profits for investors. Jobs. and spinoff products and technologies. Which in turn create their own growth industries.
Growth industries are a good thing
now see pen if you had approached your arguments in this manner instead of being the prophet of the next doomsday event then we would have a discussion on the matter in a less hostile fashion. i agreed with everything dred has said without reservations!
i meant read all those articles, not just one. the reason is because there are many many opinions and views not just the view of one person making one statement and basing their opinion on a very tiny set of specific facts that are removed from the context of their entirety.
i call you a fool because you are only parroting what others say without further research. like out of all the information in that article you focus only on one line and stand on that. what is even worse is that that one line, that one statement is not even supported in any fashion within the author own article. it was a personal opinion that had no place or purpose and should have been discarded and ignored by the reader when viewing the article as a whole. the article is a good light read of the events, not to techy not to over bearing, just enough to get an idea of the discussion.
don't ever be the fool or stooge of others, take nothing you are told as Gospel until you have looked over all of the pro's and con's of all sides of the arguments. be yourself think for yourself.....
let few men tell you what to think upon.....let no man tell you how to think upon it!!!!
-
Dred, sorry but wrong, wrong and wrong.
1. Oil wells that have long since dried up are suddenly producing oil again. To this day it is only theorized how oil is create. Peak Oil theory has been almost as Malthusian as Malthusians. There are more known reserves now then at any time.
2. Maasive pollutants, the air, water and land is cleaner now then it was 100 years ago. Very true that in the 1970s Lake Erie burned. Complete change. America produces less CO2 now then we did a decade ago and it continues to drop without Obama's cap and tax scheme.
3. The "green" energy investment sector is collapsing. It was a bubble like the dot com that only existed with government subsidies.
Boo
-
Seriously Penguin, you're an intelligent person. Even if you believe in man made climate change you need to approach it with a degree of skepticism. There are far too many exaggerated doom laden prophecys based on the scientific research. When people start predicting, war, famine, flood and other end of world scenarios unless we do something NOW! Then you really need to sit back and consider why they're doing this.
The inconvenient truth is that the Earth hasn't warmed since 1998 despite all the computer models saying otherwise. Remember these computer models can't even predict the past or the present. But we're expected to believe the future scenarios. The simple truth is that whether or not the Earth has warmed in the last fifty years or so. No one can really say if it's actually linked to Co2. It's possible but it's equally possible that it's natural.
But don't listen to me. Do your own research.
On the point of space travel. I still don't believe in future moonbases, mars missions or all the other science fiction stuff. There sheer cost of getting to the moon is enormous, staying there even more expensive and building on the moon prohibitive. All for some kind of supposed mining operation. Well it better be diamonds and gold because anything else just wouldn't be worth it.
-
WOW, nice camouflage fro a global warming video. Total BS since the world ends at the end of this year :O
-
well as someone who lives a block from the ocean, I can see a huge difference in sea levels. When I was a kid, the jetties were about 5-8 foot above high tide. Now during high tide, some jetties are under water. Bottom line, whatever is going on with the earth, caused by us, or the sun, change is coming. Im planning on moving in the next 5 years if Im still alive.
Cheers
-
4deck, your observation aside there is virtually no change in sea level. The debated amount is inches, not feet. Sorry, but an old fashiong 'no go' on that one.
Boo
-
Having followed this for a while I came across this gentleman about three years ago. This site is based out of the UK. It is manned by climatologists who, no way to sugar coat it, are honest. They note that the whole green thing is nothing but robbing from the poor and middle class and subsidize both a radical anti-industrialization agenda and well connected manufacturers.
This is the group that helped break "Climate-gate" and are often cited by experts in the debate. In any case, I'll stack their PhDs up against Al Gore, Jim Hansen and the whole lot of them. I'm not a climate expert but having been around the block on government largess...the truth will set you free.
http://thegwpf.org/
Boo
A taste:
http://thegwpf.org/science-news/5178-nasa-satellite-debunks-melting-glacier-myth.html
http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/5164-un-climate-scam-involves-land-grabs-in-peruvian-rainforest.html
http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/happer-the_truth_about_greenhouse_gases.pdf
http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/2165-james-hansen-1986-within-15-years-temps-will-be-hotter-than-past-100000-years.html
...enough
-
Well, though the truth is certainly not by a show of hands, it is impressive how successful the alleged conspiracy is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
The citations, they're everywhere.
Back to the main point. There is a controversy, yes. Survey enough scientists and you'll find quacks eventually. Look at the consensus on this, though. Why would they all want to keep their mouths shut? Any new scientists would certainly have every incentive to prove them wrong. Look at the modelling of the atom- it has gone from just a sphere to a fruit-cake to a planet with orbits to a tiny point surrounded by things that are there and not there at the same time. Science advances by challenging old ideas and replacing them- that's where the funding is, not defending old ideas.
On Coleman's analysis. First, the man has a vested interest in disproving global warming. He was clearly paid to do the interview, and would not dare to disagree with the Auto channel. If that's not science for money, I don't know what is. Clearly, we all need to learn more about our climate before we attempt geo-engineering, but the idea that well-connected manufacturers want to attempt de-industrialization is ludicrous. It would be against their self-interest because no-one attracted by the prospect would ever buy their products. It's like a Hindu selling beef and settling down to a steak dinner when he/she gets home- it's so far beyond hypocritical that it's surreal.
Furthermore, though CO2 is something produced naturally, so are arsenic and botulism. Let's say we have a river with 10 ppm As, and we argue that since Arsenic is natural, we can add more. So we bump it up to 50 ppm and wonder what happened to all the fish. Likewise for botulism- it's inside us, literally in our turds, but when a septic tank goes bad we run for the hills. It's quickly upsetting the balance that is the danger. When you look at those swings in temperature, you know that those were natural. However, what Coleman didn't mention was that if the warming had occurred as a natural event the hubbub wouldn't have started. The whole problem is that the warming is not in tune with any observed cycles, and started in earnest as we burned more fossil fuels. While there will be natural warming and cooling, think of it like thermostat that once spun freely, but now someone else is trying to crank it up. Sure, if you really heave you can move it down, but it's much easier for it to go up. In addition, the homogeneity of the opposition is startling- nearly all of them conservative, libertarian, or have vested interests, while those supporting the idea of global warming are very diverse- climate researchers, biologists, physicists (note I'm referring to the societies of these people and the people themselves) all of whom certainly disagree on just about everything political. That proves that the opposition carries the burden of proof with regard to disproving conspiracy or cultural beliefs. I'd feel the same way if it were socialists and marxists, mind you. This comes from an incredibly well cited Wikipedia article, and I didn't use anything that wasn't cited.
Again, it is the issue of honest mistakes that lead to such disagreements. Furthermore, don't forget that greenhouse gases kept our planet warm at night without us helping (i.e., they were at low levels) which means that even a small amount leads to big results. As we crank out the CO2, methane (CH4), and other such gases, we upset the balance and lead to the potential for serious toejam on the part of our food supply. As that warms the planet, we enter into a spiral. Remember, this assumes that we keep warming like we do now for hundreds of years. If we stop warming, then it doesn't happen. That's the big point that I believe was missed. Time is critical. Wait too long and the 'heat spiral' (so to speak) becomes inevitable, but it's not too late to prevent it. If it has slowed down (and I don't see that in the data) it is by the result of our efforts. Don't forget India and China entering into the world stage, either. Billions of people living like Americans do now will not lead to good effects for the climate or pollution.
-Penguin
-
Make it happen.
(http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e324/chainzaw2/waterboy_2.jpg)
-
Yes, we can prevent it, and while that was funny you're just being cynical.
-Penguin
-
We can prevent it? Then why is the "green" agenda being dumber worldwide? What do you know that the rest of the world doesn't? This is the Keynesian hubris I mentioned on another thread.
Scientific America recently noted that clouds would offset any possible CO2 effects.
The fraud, it is the beginning of the end.
Boo
-
Dred, sorry but wrong, wrong and wrong.
1. Oil wells that have long since dried up are suddenly producing oil again. To this day it is only theorized how oil is create. Peak Oil theory has been almost as Malthusian as Malthusians. There are more known reserves now then at any time.
2. Maasive pollutants, the air, water and land is cleaner now then it was 100 years ago. Very true that in the 1970s Lake Erie burned. Complete change. America produces less CO2 now then we did a decade ago and it continues to drop without Obama's cap and tax scheme.
3. The "green" energy investment sector is collapsing. It was a bubble like the dot com that only existed with government subsidies.
Boo
Cept that it doesnt happen in all oil wells only some and those are pretty few. which they find have faults leading them to beleive the oil is comming from elsewhere. While there may be some natural reproduction of oil. It is not infinate. Nothing on this planet is infinate.
And why is it cleaner? Because of mandates on emissions. To use todays favorite term."green mandates."
The green sector is not collapsing. As of Jan 12th worldwide green energy investment ROSE to $260bn.
this must be what your talking about "Three U.S. solar companies including Solyndra LLC went bankrupt last year, in part because of falling prices triggered by increasing competition from Chinese manufacturers." Hardly because of green technologies failures.
Public-markets fundraising dropped from $14.2 billion in 2010 to $11.9 billion in 2011 as clean energy company shares slumped.
But
Asset finance of utility-scale renewable energy projects rose to $145.6 billion. Venture capital and private equity investment rose 4 percent to $8.9 billion
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-12/clean-energy-investment-rises-to-a-record-260-billion-on-solar.html
Certain areas might fail while others are still growing. Just as has happened with every other industry. This is only normal and has happened since the innovation of using a rock as a weapon.
It would hardly be unusual for investing to rise and fall and then rise again. Seems to happen with just about everything.
-
well as someone who lives a block from the ocean, I can see a huge difference in sea levels. When I was a kid, the jetties were about 5-8 foot above high tide. Now during high tide, some jetties are under water. Bottom line, whatever is going on with the earth, caused by us, or the sun, change is coming. Im planning on moving in the next 5 years if Im still alive.
Cheers
Assuming the ocean does rise. You mean your not just going to sit there and wait to drown?
-
How could NASA,Esa and the Russians miss this asteroid making buzz in news this week with all the tools they have,and was discovered by spanish amateurs from backyard? :headscratch:
http://rt.com/news/paint-asteroid-earth-nasa-767/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n5hodafM9Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Talking about fufure,i don't know what to believe about remote viewing, but 39% of this trained viewers see large parts of ths earth under water by june 2013,; BS conspiracy but interesting :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pk8udsan2o&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
We can prevent it? Then why is the "green" agenda being dumber worldwide? What do you know that the rest of the world doesn't? This is the Keynesian hubris I mentioned on another thread.
Scientific America recently noted that clouds would offset any possible CO2 effects.
The fraud, it is the beginning of the end.
Boo
Scientific America or Scientific American? I'm not nitpicking, I'm genuinely confused about what you're talking about. Clouds? Clouds of what? Acid rain? Yeah, they pick up CO2, turn it into carbonic acid, and the rain melts the toejam out of everything and acidifies the oceans, which can only hold so much (it's not very much compared to how much we produce). Fraud? What fraud? Who is committing it? The entirety of the scientific community, which has little to gain and much to lose by incorrectly supporting the notion of climate change? The beginning of the end of what, exactly? Gas-guzzling cars and breezy windows? So what if the government mandates that my car must get a certain gas mileage? Put it this way, why would I want to pay more and get less? Though I'm no patriot, in this case I'm cheering Uncle Sam along.
-Penguin
-
On Coleman's analysis. First, the man has a vested interest in disproving global warming. He was clearly paid to do the interview, and would not dare to disagree with the Auto channel. If that's not science for money, I don't know what is.
So the founder of The Weather Channel has a vested interest in disproving global warming because he's after that Auto Channel money, but Al Gore's just trying to save the world? There's nothing wrong with trying to get off fossil fuels and trying to pollute less, the problem comes in when people try to turn those issues into something they're not in an attempt to obtain more power. It's pretty simple, everytime some new threat comes along where the solution requires some kind of global authority you can be sure it's a con. At the end of every collectivist rainbow is a mass grave.
-
Penguin you need to realise that Wikipedia is notably pro AGW and any attempt to post something that contradicts this policy is removed. This is no secret and they don't even bother to deny it.
But seriously you really need to study the subject more before you come to a conclusion. You also need to separate the science and the hype. Forget about the conspiracy theories on both sides. Look at the science. Does it stand up?
I'll tell you that it doesn't but it's up to you to work out.
Also the onus is not the skeptics to prove AGW is wrong. The onus is on the Pro AGW scientists to prove it's real. So far they have completly failed in this.
-
So the founder of The Weather Channel has a vested interest in disproving global warming because he's after that Auto Channel money, but Al Gore's just trying to save the world? There's nothing wrong with trying to get off fossil fuels and trying to pollute less, the problem comes in when people try to turn those issues into something they're not in an attempt to obtain more power. It's pretty simple, everytime some new threat comes along where the solution requires some kind of global authority you can be sure it's a con. At the end of every collectivist rainbow is a mass grave.
Al Gore? When did I mention Al Gore as some sort of a savior? The man wants to make money off the global warming threat, that much is clear. Half of An Inconvenient Truth is just self-glorification, and that makes my stomach churn. However, you're making sweeping generalizations based on data that proves you wrong. Look at atomic energy, it's regulated by an international body in order to prevent disasters such as Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl. How does the cause of preventing global warming have anything to do with collectivism? How did you draw the conclusion that all collectivism leads to mass graves? Neither of these statements are supported (at least in your argument) by facts.
Penguin you need to realise that Wikipedia is notably pro AGW and any attempt to post something that contradicts this policy is removed. This is no secret and they don't even bother to deny it.
But seriously you really need to study the subject more before you come to a conclusion. You also need to separate the science and the hype. Forget about the conspiracy theories on both sides. Look at the science. Does it stand up?
I'll tell you that it doesn't but it's up to you to work out.
Also the onus is not the skeptics to prove AGW is wrong. The onus is on the Pro AGW scientists to prove it's real. So far they have completly failed in this.
Wikipedia is based on the notion of using primary sources to provide a reliable secondary source. A score of the world's largest scientific societies have put their weight behind global warming, so what is Wikipedia to do? Say no? If it did, then it would not accurately reflect the scientific consensus. That's not bias, that's looking at the data and drawing conclusions. If 90% of the times that I add Cesium to Water I get a gigantic explosion, then it's not biased to conclude that the cesium is reacting with the water. If you want the individual scientific communities' statements, then here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#References (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#References)
Now, from what I've gathered from the opposition page on Wikipedia (there is one, and linked to the main scientific consensus page) the big catfight is not over what influences temperature, but how much greenhouse gases do. It's about the sensitivity of the earth to greenhouse gases. There are many factors, such as, solar activity and internal forcing. However, the atmosphere keeps us warm at night, so greenhouse gases are a factor. When you look at the data, you can see that the models have predicted it accurately (except for an overestimation in the thirties).
-Penguin
-
Dred, I'm looking for a document from the Fed Reserve bank of St Louis (?) showing investments in "green" and "renewable" droping and subsidies replacing many of these dollars. It also shows realignment of funds within firms away from "renewable"(s). As soon as I find that document I will post it.
Bring the two together, I'm not suprised that Bloomberg reports funding with an increase greater then published inflation. What it does not show is the realignment within those firms touting green. An example would be Chevy dumping the Volt, while touting replacments as "green" though clearly moving away from it.
Admitted, pretty nuanced.
Penguin, there are many internal souces to include the Global Warming Scientists themselves noting that there has been no warming for the past 15-years. Thus we are moving from "man-made global warming" to the broader "climate change." The magazine is Science Illustrated, Mar/Apr 2012 Page 15. I'm glad you asked for clarification, quoted the wrong one. You will also note that it is uncited. This magazine is one of many shills for the global warming religion. They cite "Climate scientist." The whole framework is unraveling and they are dropping little hints as to why they were never wrong.
The end of their religion is near.
One note on my own thoughts. There is a real need for smart use of the environment. And some regulations are great, such as anti-dumping, etc. What we have seen over the past three decades is the environmental movement being taken over by forces with little interest in the environment. The traditional radical-left jumped on because it was their cause for central control and redistribution of assets; the scholarly class jumped on the bandwagon because with all the concern they were guaranteed lots of research dollars; and then a collection of odd balls who fit neatly into Malthusian nigh stalkers, who really see man as a parasite that be controlled.It is this very reason that the founder of Green Peace left the movement he started to focus on real environmental concerns. Al Gore really sums this up for me.
Does every one know the Gore family history? If you don't you'll see why he gravitates.
Boo
-
Dred, I'm looking for a document from the Fed Reserve bank of St Louis (?) showing investments in "green" and "renewable" droping and subsidies replacing many of these dollars. It also shows realignment of funds within firms away from "renewable"(s). As soon as I find that document I will post it.
Bring the two together, I'm not suprised that Bloomberg reports funding with an increase greater then published inflation. What it does not show is the realignment within those firms touting green. An example would be Chevy dumping the Volt, while touting replacments as "green" though clearly moving away from it.
Admitted, pretty nuanced.
Penguin, there are many internal souces to include the Global Warming Scientists themselves noting that there has been no warming for the past 15-years. Thus we are moving from "man-made global warming" to the broader "climate change." The magazine is Science Illustrated, Mar/Apr 2012 Page 15. I'm glad you asked for clarification, quoted the wrong one. You will also note that it is uncited. This magazine is one of many shills for the global warming religion. They cite "Climate scientist." The whole framework is unraveling and they are dropping little hints as to why they were never wrong.
The end of their religion is near.
One note on my own thoughts. There is a real need for smart use of the environment. And some regulations are great, such as anti-dumping, etc. What we have seen over the past three decades is the environmental movement being taken over by forces with little interest in the environment. The traditional radical-left jumped on because it was their cause for central control and redistribution of assets; the scholarly class jumped on the bandwagon because with all the concern they were guaranteed lots of research dollars; and then a collection of odd balls who fit neatly into Malthusian nigh stalkers, who really see man as a parasite that be controlled.It is this very reason that the founder of Green Peace left the movement he started to focus on real environmental concerns. Al Gore really sums this up for me.
Does every one know the Gore family history? If you don't you'll see why he gravitates.
Boo
Alright! mthrockor's here! This debate'll be fun! :D
Hmm, it might also be that the demand for them wasn't there or the Volt was too expensive and/or of poor quality. That would be more likely than a collapsing conspiracy which hasn't been proven. A more likely reason for the change is what's known as 'condom fatigue'. It occurs when a large society must make long-term changes, such as in Africa where condoms are a recent idea. After a while, people got tired of using condoms to prevent AIDS from spreading and their use declined. The same applies here; global warming is old news and the zeitgeist to buy green cars from Chevy may decrease. However, if you look at Toyota, they are cranking out Priuses and people are buying them. It's good business for Toyota, but Priuses are seen as 'green' (they aren't, but it doesn't matter for what I'm trying to prove) and swift business indicates a continued emphasis on hybrids on the supply and demand sides. However, you don't just get money for all your research- you get grants piecemeal at lower levels. Groups like NASA depend on their good names for things like temperature data. Even if they would do something like this (I doubt it- it takes guts to be a scientist) they wouldn't dare to risk it for something like this- it's too big and falsified data would be swiftly removed due to conflicts with outside sources.
The main problem with a scientific hoax is that it would require a huge cabal that couldn't support itself for long enough to pull this off. Though big-government supporters might use global warming to get more power, you assumed that they think that it's false. They may also know that it's true and be operating from ideals. Laissez-faire, however, also has this problem- its advocates often come from places such as Koch industries, which has used FUD tactics on the subject of MMGW before, and has a special interest specifically in reducing environmental regulations. We have the potential for shills on both sides, but those most actively arguing against MMGW have a far greater chance to be paid off due to their connection to groups that have an inelastic demand for loose environmental regulation, wheres scientists have only an indirect one that can only happen if the politician and scientists involved are all sufficiently and simultaneously unscrupulous.
-Penguin