The Great Global Warming Swindle

[LouCipherr]

This is something that bugs the sh*t out of me, so prepare for a long read. My apologies in advance for my long-winded post...

____________

Hmmm, seems someone has finally wised up to the 'so-called' global warming claims and will be making a documentary about it. I bet, however, they won't win an award for the film though next year. It's not politically correct to argue with Gore and Co. nowadays, is it?

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html)

A quick excerpt:

"In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired."

Boy, that's a surprise, isn't it? The government using scare tactics to control your life? Other explanations for climate change not aired? Think that's because someone is being bullied to not disagree with the global-warming crowd?

The most important statement in the above excerpt is this: "other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired." The idea that global warming is man-caused and there is no other reason for it is incorrect. It's obviously not the only factor of global warming (if a factor at all - remember the grand canyon in colorado? melting and migrating glaciers formed that - but there were no humans around at the time, so why did they melt & migrate? Was it forest animal farts that caused CO2 buildup, heating the planet and causing them to melt & move? :rolleyes:)

I realize most people won't like to read this, as it seems everyone I talk to has bought into the man-caused global warming theory. I, however, don't just buy what's spoon fed to me by environmentals. I understand the need to take care of the planet, but I also don't understand how people think humans are a 'threat' to the planet. Go ask the people in New Orleans (all the victims of hurricane Katrina) if they feel like they're a "threat" to the planet. How about the massive amounts of people in Florida killed and made homeless due to Hurricane Andrew back in the 90's? Ask the people up in New York, who have been buried in over TWELVE FEET of snow over the past month if they feel like they're a "threat" to the planet or mother earth - or if they believe global warming is real. Give to me a large break.

...and please don't tell me "you can't pick a single weather event and claim global warming isn't true" - the global warming bozos do it all the time. Does this sound familiar? "A record high temperture here today in Phoenix. This is probably due to the climate change and man-made global warming."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

All this being said, I do believe man has hurt the environment - there's no question about that, but to honestly believe that most of the planet will be underwater in 10 years (as claimed by Al Gore in his movie), hell, even in 100 years, is the most outlandish thing i've ever heard. Last time I checked my history books, the majority of the US was covered in ice thousands of years ago - but it's all gone, and was before man showed up. What happened there? What explanation is there from the environmentalist whack-jobs as to why that happened? It just COULDN'T be a natural occurrence now could it? Al and Co. don't believe in naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles, apparently.

Not only that, did anyone ready recently about how Mars is now increasing in surface temperature? No humans or farting animals living there, so what's the cause?
Sorry, but I'm about sick and tired of 'man caused global warming' BS. We were, a few decades ago, heading for "another ice age" according to climatoligists - but now, a few decades later, we're worried about the planet heating up and becoming unlivable? Which is it? For the love of God, weathermen can't even predict the weather next WEEK much less a few years from now! Lets get serious!!

I'm also not bashing 'democrats' (so cool your jets, Dj), nor do I support any political party, period. Republican, Democrat, doesn't matter - they're all boneheads to me, and I subscribe to none of their ideas. The political party I consider myself a part of is the "common-sense" party. Too bad not many others fall into that catagory.


...and on that note, I await my bashing from the environmentalists. :D

LC

[axlish]

Good Job Lou. I don't agree with every little detail but I do feel like Global Warming is nothing short of political B.S.

[DjfunkmasterG]

So when the planet melts around you and our winters are 75 degrees does that not make you question WTF is going on?

20 years ago we never had 75 degree days in January, especially not in Upstate Ny, but in 2007 they recorded a temp of 72 degrees on a normal weekday. So if its not global warming what is it?

[LouCipherr]

So when the planet melts around you and our winters are 75 degrees does that not make you question WTF is going on?


First off, the planet ain't melted yet, my friend, so until it does (which should happen in 10 years according to your democrat buddy Al Gore), you have no legs to stand on.

Ok, then explain this, Dj: thousands of years ago, the planet was cold enough to support ICEBERGS in what is now the GRAND CANYON (and all over north america to be exact). So what happened there? Did forest animal farts heat up the planet? It certainly wasn't humans, because we weren't around at that time. So until you and the tree-hugging global-warming nutbags can explain that, I can't even relate to your projections of what "might" happen in a few years/decades.

Did you ever stop to think that the planet warming is a natural occurance and not one caused by people or animals?

Once again, I state, yes, we have an impact on the environment, but to say that we, humans, are a threat that will destroy this planet is laughable (barring a nuclear war or something along those lines. I'm talking about natrual progression).

Oh, and Dj, along the same lines as your 72 degrees in upstate new york - you're also not mentioning the catastrohpic snows up there. Not to mention, don't you find it funny that a national global warming conference in Minnestoa was cancelled due to a blizzard? If there's global warming, what's with all the flippin' snow burying everyone this year?

It's called "weather cycles", and that's what the planet is working through.

[DjfunkmasterG]

First off, the planet ain't melted yet, my friend, so until it does (which should happen in 10 years according to your democrat buddy Al Gore), you have no legs to stand on.

Ok, then explain this, Dj: 2000 years ago, the planet was cold enough to support ICEBERGS in what is now the GRAND CANYON (and all over north america to be exact). So what happened there? Did forest animal farts heat up the planet? It certainly wasn't humans, because we weren't around at that time. So until you and the tree-hugging global-warming nutbags can explain that, I can't even relate to your projections of what "might" happen in a few years/decades.

We were around 2,000 years ago. Christ was born 2000 years ago.



Did you ever stop to think that the planet warming is a natural occurance and not one caused by people or animals?

Yes, and then I thought about it some more, and to this day I still think about it.



Once again, I state, yes, we have an impact on the environment, but to say that we, humans, are a threat that will destroy this planet is laughable (barring a nuclear war or something along those lines. I'm talking about natrual progression).

Natural progression will lead to us having a nuclear war which will destroy the planet



Oh, and Dj, along the same lines as your 72 degrees in upstate new york - you're also not mentioning the catastrohpic snows up there. Not to mention, don't you find it funny that a national global warming conference in Minnestoa was cancelled due to a blizzard? If there's global warming, what's with all the flippin' snow burying everyone this year?

Global Warming can also affect weather. Now while 11ft of snow is nothing new for New York I do find it strange that what was once a common occurance every few years about there now only happens every 10+ YEARS. Like I said, if we discredit global warming we need another theory.



It's called "weather cycles", and that's what the planet is working through.

Do you have scientific data to support this?

Practice this in front of the mirror. "Although we continue to explore the subject, at the present time we cannot find any link to global warming being caused by the advancement of the human race." :D

[LouCipherr]

We were around 2,000 years ago. Christ was born 2000 years ago.

First, that's if you believe in Christ/God :lol: and second, ok, ok, so the icebergs go back much further than that - maybe more like 5-6000 years ago or more. Stop trying to pull a technicality when you know you're incorrect. :p Excuse the typo, now move along.. :)



Natural progression will lead to us having a nuclear war which will destroy the planet

Now THAT is totally possible, and I agree. But I do not agree that humans and their 'carbon footprints' will be the end of the planet as we know it.



Global Warming can also affect weather. Now while 11ft of snow is nothing new for New York I do find it strange that what was once a common occurance every few years about there now only happens every 10+ YEARS. Like I said, if we discredit global warming we need another theory.

...and how long have you been living? 35 years? hardly enough to make a prediction on the planet over hundreds of thousands of years, eh? we have another theory, my friend: it's a normal trend the planet goes through. The simple fact that the ice melted away from north america (which was almost covered in ice many centuries ago - and this has been proven) is enough for a proper and provable theory, unlike the 'global warming' theory of today being spread by fear-mongers like Al Gore.




Do you have scientific data to support this?

To support what, that global warming is a farce? Sure, many scientists believe it. What is your point? Nothing has been "proven" - let me say that again - THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE that there is global warming, but we can certianly prove the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles based on the historical data we have.

So which would you believe? something someone tells you and just demands you believe it because they say it's true, or do you take a look at proven facts and make your own judgement based on what can be shown to you with hard data?




Practice this in front of the mirror. "Although we continue to explore the subject, at the present time we cannot find any link to global warming being caused by the advancement of the human race." :D

That's much more logical thinking, dontcha think? :)

[DjfunkmasterG]

First, that's if you believe in Christ/God :lol: and second, ok, ok, so the icebergs go back much further than that - maybe more like 5-6000 years ago or more. Stop trying to pull a technicality when you know you're incorrect. :p Excuse the typo, now move along.. :)

Ok moving along..... still moving.......moving some more...... ok is this far enough?


Now THAT is totally possible, and I agree. But I do not agree that humans and their 'carbon footprints' will be the end of the planet as we know it.

It may not happen in our lifetime but maybe in 100-200 years.



...and how long have you been living? 35 years? hardly enough to make a prediction on the planet over hundreds of thousands of years, eh? we have another theory, my friend: it's a normal trend the planet goes through. The simple fact that the ice melted away from north america (which was almost covered in ice many centuries ago - and this has been proven) is enough for a proper and provable theory, unlike the 'global warming' theory of today being spread by fear-mongers like Al Gore.

But didn't the great meteor, and the great pumpkin, come crashing to earth 65 billion years ago and that started the ice age, and now we are recovering from that ice age, getting ready for the next one?



To support what, that global warming is a farce? Sure, many scientists believe it. What is your point? Nothing has been "proven" - let me say that again - THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE that there is global warming, but we can certianly prove the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles based on the historical data we have.

Is there evidence to support global warming ISN'T Happening? (Not being a smart ass, just asking a question)



So which would you believe? something someone tells you and just demands you believe it because they say it's true, or do you take a look at proven facts and make your own judgement based on what can be shown to you with hard data?

Normally I just shake my magic 8 ball, but I seemed to have misplaced it.

[slickwilly13]

I hope the planet does warm up. I don't want to see snow or ice in my area ever again. Plus I enjoy watching how people react during chaoic situations. :evil:

[LouCipherr]

Ok moving along..... still moving.......moving some more...... ok is this far enough?

perfect, stay right there. Not too far to the left, not too far to the right. :lol:


It may not happen in our lifetime but maybe in 100-200 years.

This is my point. Why the fear mongering from Al & Co saying this could and will happen (if we continue at the rate that we are) in the next 10 years? Bullsh*t. I mean, c'mon, we are no threat to this planet in the grand scheme of things. I think we all know that. Mother Nature and this planet could wipe all of us out in a matter of minutes if she wanted to.



But didn't the great meteor, and the great pumpkin, come crashing to earth 65 billion years ago and that started the ice age, and now we are recovering from that ice age, getting ready for the next one?

Do you believe that is the only 'ice age' we have gone through? The icebergs didn't migrate through the colorado and the US 65 billion years ago, y'know. They may have, but there's evidence that shows that this has been happening a lot more recent than 65 billion years ago.


Is there evidence to support global warming ISN'T Happening? (Not being a smart ass, just asking a question)

I don't take is as a smartass question, that's a VERY good question Dj.

Is there TRUTHFUL and undisputed evidence there IS global warming? No.

Is there truthful and undisputed evidence there is NO global warming? No, but the facts that are available show that there's more of a chance this is all BS than truth. I choose to look at it from a realistic perspective, and the data shows this is a trend, not a freak occurance. I'm sorry, but I don't worry about what "could" happen, I look at the evidence to determine the possible future. That evidence does not show the north pole melting in 10-20 years and killing us all.

Let me put it to you this way: there are just as many articles refuting global warming as there are supposedly 'proving' it. The thing that makes me wonder is, the first group of scientists to state there was a warming trend, said it was just that: a trend. However, then you get some d*ck like Gore who takes that statement and runs away with it making up his own story of what is going to happen. The group of people who first noticed the trend have said themselves (and I should dig up this link, but i'm supposed to be working.. :lol:) that their findings and what is being said about global warming have been "blown out of proportion."

But no one is listening because their heads have been filled with a "convienent lie" - which is just a way of controlling people. "Don't buy that SUV, don't burn that fossil fuel... here, use this global-friendly energy source that costs a hell of a lot more and is inconvienent to use, but will save the planet (oh, and did i happen to mention that I own 90% of the stock in the company? I didn't? oops, sorry about that)"



Normally I just shake my magic 8 ball, but I seemed to have misplaced it.

to be honest, you probably have more of a chance of predicting what's really going to happen with an 8-ball. *sniff* :lol: :lol: :D

[Tricky]

So when the planet melts around you and our winters are 75 degrees does that not make you question WTF is going on?

20 years ago we never had 75 degree days in January, especially not in Upstate Ny, but in 2007 they recorded a temp of 72 degrees on a normal weekday. So if its not global warming what is it?

It is global warming,but it doesnt mean we're the cause of it!i agree with lou,its a whole load of political bullsh!t!especially seen as the main way of tackling global warming that they've come up with is just to tax the hell out of everyone for things they need to go about day to day life!
A village 2 miles away from me has just lost its fight against having dozens of wind turbines built around it,so i imagine the people living there will leave very soon.Those wind farms are crap,they cant run if the wind is too high or too low,they only ever run at about 25% capacity,they cost an absolute fortune to build,they are an eyesore & each one makes as much noise as a motorbike,imagine having to sleep with all that noise round the clock!plus the pollution caused building the components for them means that they arent saving anything!
My attitude to global warming is "so f*ck!"

Oh yes and il be blasting a large amount of Co2 out of my paintball gun and into the atmosphere this weekend ;p

[Terran]

The arguement that humans are not causing global climate change currently has very little footing. The crux of their arguement is CO2.
If someone can actually show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas most scientists will be swayed to think that humans are not causing global climate change.


If not though, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas like conventional wisdom and previous research has told us, then human activity unquestionably has been a major cumulative effect on the global climate since the mass burning of fossil fuels began.

We know that CO2 stays in the atmosphere anywhere from 50-100 years. We know that all fossil fuels release CO2 into the atmosphere amongst other claimed greenhouse gases. We know that all of our livestock release methane gas which is also a claimed greenhouse gas and methane then further breaks down in the atmosphere into CO2. Cattle especially release high levels of Methane due to the nature of the food they eat and their digestion methods.
Then to magnify this probelm we are destroying forests all around the globe. This is important because of a couple of factors. Forests fix carbon from the CO2 gas into their cells essentially removing CO2 out of the atmosphere. Most of these forests are being destroyed so that more crops can be grown to feed more livestock to feed even more people.

So imagine all the methane/CO2 released from all of our livestock per year.
And imagine all the CO2 released from the fossil fuels we burn per year.
From 6 billion people.

Then realize this means that at any given time there is 50-100 years worth of all that activity up in our current atmosphere. Since we are destroying the forests at the same time the CO2 will stay in the atmosphere longer so more in the 100 year range.
This does not even include all the other claimed greenhouse gases that we are the direct cause of.


But all this means nothing if CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.



One of these days Im going to do the math of 100 years worth of human fossil fuel burning and livestock methane production and compare the CO2 produced to the CO2 released from a single climate changing super volcano....

[coma]

Simply put
If you introduce a foreign element or ratio in to a chemical composition it will change the outcome.

Industry, vehicle emissions and waste is making everthing polluted and nasty, so it should be cleaned up no matter what

Just because a politician or group or people someone disagrees with or dislikes support an idea does not make it untrue.

Personally I tend to listen more to scientists I respect about the issue than any political group. And Most scientists believe it to be true. You can always trot out some who dont. There are always those who disagree and tell you you can keep on how you do things.

I think, respectfully Lou and others, to say it is definatly a hoax is a very Luddite way of looking at things.

[axlish]

There have been volcanic eruptions that emitted more harfmful gasses into the atmosphere in one go than the entire industrial revolution combined. Imagine how fires used to rage before civilization, covering large parts on continents. No one is saying that the planet isn't heating up, people are disputing the reasoning is all.

[HLS]

So when the planet melts around you and our winters are 75 degrees does that not make you question WTF is going on?

20 years ago we never had 75 degree days in January, especially not in Upstate Ny, but in 2007 they recorded a temp of 72 degrees on a normal weekday. So if its not global warming what is it?


I agree with you 100% I mean we pump so much pollution in the atmosphere I do not see how people can think it will have no effect on the environment and global warming. The winters have indeed been getting increasingly warmer year after year.

[MinionZombie]

Lou, I will most definitely be watching this documentary. I saw it trailed last night and will be watching it very closely. I am very much of the school that yes, global warming does exist, but the doomsayer "we're all gonna die!!!" stuff is complete bollocks and classic human self-obsession, like we're the be-all and end-all of everything.

A few years ago it wasn't an issue, now all of a sudden we're all going to die in either a new ice age or the fires of hell made flesh.

The answer is simple - work towards clean, renewable sources of energy and don't be wasteful, also look to replenish areas you've affected (e.g. WHACK UP A SH*TLOAD OF TREES!).

Tricky is spot on, Labour's response to saving the world (despite the fact that if Britain suddenly gave up modern living to return us to the era of the Bubonic Plague the space we left would be filled within a matter of months by either China or America) is to simply tax an easily taxable thing - the car.

Fact is, the car is so successful because it's an incredibly useful tool. I mean honestly, who travels on the roads for fun anymore? The only fun you can have in a car is on a race track for those track days, the normal roads are for doing a task that needs doing. I don't know of anyone who drives for pleasure. I get some pleasure out of driving, but the only time I drive is when I need to drive - especially being out in the sticks (or relative sticks) - which is, after all, where two thirds of the British populace lives! - NEWS FLASH LABOUR, LONDON ISN'T REPRESENTATIVE OF BRITAIN, YOU UTTER WANKERS.

There are many people in the green brigade who just make me laugh so hard due to their utter hypocrisy, they'll often be the chattering champagne socialist class of people, jetting off to all these holidays abroad, they're running some rather expensive and gas guzzling car (or cars, including a "Chelsea Tractor").

The electric car - at first it was complete sh*t - you PLUG IT IN!!! Where does the f*cking electricity come from?! A F*CKING POWER STATION YOU COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON WHO IS RAPING THE WORLD OF ALL INTELLIGENCE!!!

Even now, that hunk of poorly made celebrity-loving sh*t - The Prius - has nothing better than average (or even below average) fuel consumption and the battery itself is filled with the most hideous sh*t that is far more damaging to the environment.

There was a nice thing on Top Gear at one point, they were reviewing a brand new fancy Mercedes, which had some beasty engine, and they sat it next to a Prius and asked which was most environmentally friendly? - answer - the beast-engined Mercedes, because the materials used to make it were all recycled.

This whole green movement is completely inundated with retards. Apparently we're all to blame, meanwhile the earth is hurting itself just as much, if not more, than we have/are/will. Also, apparently planes and cars are the devil, meanwhile they actually aren't, they're just easy to tax so some socialist champagne supping wanker can feel better about themselves and their hollow little lives that they live.

Don't be wasteful - simple solution.
Find practical renewable energy sources
Don't leave your TV on stand-by
Don't buy a f*cking Hummer

Just two of the things that need doing, not taxing the f*cking roads. :rolleyes:

Just think about it - all those office buildings across the globe. They've all got their lights and computers (among other appliances) running 24/7.

*ahem*

SWITCH THE F*CKING LIGHTS OFF AT NIGHT AND TURN THE F*CKING COMPUTERS OFF!!!

Install motion-sensitive lights in all the floors above the ground and first floors. Those two bottom floors would still have the lights on, but the computers would be shut off.

Just think of the energy conservation you could achieve from that simple step, and just think of how much money each business would save on elecricity bills?

Green Facists ... it's the new religion, I'm tellin' ya...it's f*cking nuts.

We need realistic approaches to bettering the environment, but also face up to the fact that the earth is doing a lot of damage to itself of it's own accord. Then what about the sun itself - I heard that was burning brighter now than it used to - well if you turn up the fire, of course it's gonna get hotter. That Mars note was also intriguing...

I look forward to seeing this documentary, there is a distinct lack of media attention on the other side of the argument, and that is very wrong.

There's just something very dodgy and rather suspicious and ever-so not-simple about the whole global warming "thing" to me.

[DVW5150]

Humans will complain & call eachother names , all while Iceland melts and everyplace that is 8-10 feet below sea level is consumed by water . This planet is sick to death of our treatment of it . Check out the retorts I have prevoked by stating this ... If you toss a frog into boiling water , it will jump out . If you put the frog in the water at room temp and then bring it to a boil , it will boil to death . Humans are much the same , unwilling to to do anything until it makes them uncomfortable .:mad: Like George Carlin once said : " The earth is going to shake us off like a bad case of fleas !" We are not in charge of the planet , we are mere residents ...

[coma]

Humans will complain & call eachother names , all while Iceland melts and everyplace that is 8-10 feet below sea level is consumed by water . This planet is sick to death of our treatment of it . Check out the retorts I have prevoked by stating this ... If you toss a frog into boiling water , it will jump out . If you put the frog in the water at room temp and then bring it to a boil , it will boil to death . Humans are much the same , unwilling to to do anything until it makes them uncomfortable .:mad: Like George Carlin once said : " The earth is going to shake us off like a bad case of fleas !" We are not in charge of the planet , we are mere residents ...
Great Analogy, that frog bit.
I dont see whats so hard to grasp about it. To me, it's elementary.
It truly think those who disagree do so only because
It is a cause represented by people whose politics they dislike
and
They dont want to modify their behavior one iota.
besides
No one can control a volcano but you can control a coal plant or a frigging SUV.
Just because someone is a goofy tree hugger doesnt mean they are wrong. Even a busted clock is right once a day.

[Terran]

Even a busted clock is right once a day.

Dang I like that one!....

Im gonna start using it all the TIME!....

I guess there is three camps.

1) Those who think human activity is causing severe global climate changes.

So most of these people want to support alternative energy, etc etc... to try to minimize the level of the approaching catastrophy (because supposively we will still have one even if humans suddenly just up and drastically cut down their CO2 emissions)...

2) Those who think the global climate change is part of some yet to be determined natural phenomenom.

So these people either must feel that we are helpless and screwed or they havent bothered to try to understand what will happen if the global temperature increases 15 degrees or even more!

3) Those who think that global climate change is not occuring at all.

So they feel if it aint broke dont fix it.

Any other camps Im leaving out?

[axlish]

No one can control a volcano but you can control a coal plant or a frigging SUV. Just because someone is a goofy tree hugger doesnt mean they are wrong. Even a busted clock is right once a day.

The vehicle issue has been touched upon earlier in this thread. The Prius isn't the answer. No one can control a volcano, and I believe that no one can control the atmosphere. If we are so certain what is causing ozone depletion, then we should have a good idea on how to reverse it. I don't believe that we are so certain, so what should be done? If global warming is real, then as a species, we should be preparing for our survival. not by fighting and challenging theories, but taking action that will ensure our physical survival, such as UV ray blocking walkways &windows, dams/dikes around major water sources, etc. For something that is talked about with such certainty, we as a species are not preparing ourselves for it at all.

[Tricky]

I really arent bothered,in another 50 years il be staring death in the face anyway through old age!Im in the natural phenomenon camp as far as this global warming stuff goes,and what will be will be.

[LouCipherr]

Any other camps Im leaving out?


I pick #4:

Those who believe global climate change is a normal, natural occurance and will continue whether or not humans interfere - as it has in the past. Also, it is noted that humans do in fact have an affect on the earth, but the 'doomsday' stuff that's being preached is just plain ridiculous, and humans are not the main cause of climate change on the planet. It is also important for us to try and take care of the earth, conserve energy, and reduce pollution, regardless of the farce that is being preached about 'global warming'. The earth provides much for us - the least we can do is treat her with respect.

I think that covers most of it. :)

Here's another interesting article:

Greenhouse Gases a Myth? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965)

A quick excerpt:

"Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.

Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. "

more info in the link...

[Khardis]

So when the planet melts around you and our winters are 75 degrees does that not make you question WTF is going on?

20 years ago we never had 75 degree days in January, especially not in Upstate Ny, but in 2007 they recorded a temp of 72 degrees on a normal weekday. So if its not global warming what is it?

Yes we did. 1000 years ago Greenland was so beautiful and fit for farming that the Vikings named it...well Greenland.


The arguement that humans are not causing global climate change currently has very little footing. The crux of their arguement is CO2.
If someone can actually show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas most scientists will be swayed to think that humans are not causing global climate change.


If not though, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas like conventional wisdom and previous research has told us, then human activity unquestionably has been a major cumulative effect on the global climate since the mass burning of fossil fuels began.

We know that CO2 stays in the atmosphere anywhere from 50-100 years. We know that all fossil fuels release CO2 into the atmosphere amongst other claimed greenhouse gases. We know that all of our livestock release methane gas which is also a claimed greenhouse gas and methane then further breaks down in the atmosphere into CO2. Cattle especially release high levels of Methane due to the nature of the food they eat and their digestion methods.
Then to magnify this probelm we are destroying forests all around the globe. This is important because of a couple of factors. Forests fix carbon from the CO2 gas into their cells essentially removing CO2 out of the atmosphere. Most of these forests are being destroyed so that more crops can be grown to feed more livestock to feed even more people.

So imagine all the methane/CO2 released from all of our livestock per year.
And imagine all the CO2 released from the fossil fuels we burn per year.
From 6 billion people.

Then realize this means that at any given time there is 50-100 years worth of all that activity up in our current atmosphere. Since we are destroying the forests at the same time the CO2 will stay in the atmosphere longer so more in the 100 year range.
This does not even include all the other claimed greenhouse gases that we are the direct cause of.


But all this means nothing if CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.



One of these days Im going to do the math of 100 years worth of human fossil fuel burning and livestock methane production and compare the CO2 produced to the CO2 released from a single climate changing super volcano....


More Carbon is released from Volcanos than all human activity combined.


Simply put
If you introduce a foreign element or ratio in to a chemical composition it will change the outcome.

Industry, vehicle emissions and waste is making everthing polluted and nasty, so it should be cleaned up no matter what

Just because a politician or group or people someone disagrees with or dislikes support an idea does not make it untrue.

Personally I tend to listen more to scientists I respect about the issue than any political group. And Most scientists believe it to be true. You can always trot out some who dont. There are always those who disagree and tell you you can keep on how you do things.

I think, respectfully Lou and others, to say it is definatly a hoax is a very Luddite way of looking at things.

Science by consensus is not science. The scientists who believe it to be true and whom dont back it with facts (Al Gores friends) have a lot to gain by claiming its true. Grants for research.

All real scientists however have determined time and time again that global warming is a natural phenominon that has been happening off and on with global cooling since the formation of the earth. We are simply coming out of a global cooling trend that started a 1000 years ago. The Brits used to be able to grow thier own grapes and make thier own wines and the vikings cultivated a very fertile Greenland for some time. Then the climate cooled down considerably. Encasing Greenland in ice and making grape growing in most of england almost impossible. (much to the releif of the French and Italians).


I agree with you 100% I mean we pump so much pollution in the atmosphere I do not see how people can think it will have no effect on the environment and global warming. The winters have indeed been getting increasingly warmer year after year.

Does it effect it? Yes. minimally. If you knew how insignificant you really were compared to the rest of the world you would understand that your car doesnt compare to a volcano.


Humans will complain & call eachother names , all while Iceland melts and everyplace that is 8-10 feet below sea level is consumed by water . This planet is sick to death of our treatment of it . Check out the retorts I have prevoked by stating this ... If you toss a frog into boiling water , it will jump out . If you put the frog in the water at room temp and then bring it to a boil , it will boil to death . Humans are much the same , unwilling to to do anything until it makes them uncomfortable .:mad: Like George Carlin once said : " The earth is going to shake us off like a bad case of fleas !" We are not in charge of the planet , we are mere residents ...

Gosh I guess people should stop building thier homes below sea level then. As for the increase in ocean, I say bring it on. That will make my backyard beachfront property.

[HLS]

Humans will complain & call eachother names , all while Iceland melts and everyplace that is 8-10 feet below sea level is consumed by water . This planet is sick to death of our treatment of it . Check out the retorts I have prevoked by stating this ... If you toss a frog into boiling water , it will jump out . If you put the frog in the water at room temp and then bring it to a boil , it will boil to death . Humans are much the same , unwilling to to do anything until it makes them uncomfortable .:mad: Like George Carlin once said : " The earth is going to shake us off like a bad case of fleas !" We are not in charge of the planet , we are mere residents ...

WOW thats deep:)

[triste realtà]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_492572.html

Here's a very recent interview with a scientist not on the payroll of an oil company. From a Pittsburgh newspaper! I used to be "the planet's going to kill us you carbon ****ting sheep!" and still am a little. I mean the weather seems more violent and freakish recently and people are consuming energy willy nilly. But you got to read lots of articles against the issue. For example, why would melting glaciers raise sea levels? Don't they displace as much water as they hold frozen? I think if we get too much CO2, the planet might go into cooling mode, but it could go the other way, too(?). I read one of the IPCC scientists tried to strike the meideval warm period to produce the hockey stick graph. www.globalwarminghysteria.com collects info also.

[DeadJonas190]

Yes we did. 1000 years ago Greenland was so beautiful and fit for farming that the Vikings named it...well Greenland.


Actually Khardis, you are wrong about that. Greenland was named Greenland to lure people there. See, the Vikings were tricky folks, often raiding and killing, yet they were still very smart. They used the name Greenland and sold the land to unsuspecting folk as a promise of better life. When those folk were brought to Greenland by the Vikings, they were left there. It was icy and bitterly cold except for the southernmost regions.

At the same time, Iceland was much better suited for the Vikings needs, it was beautiful and fit for farming. They named it Iceland to make it less attractive to settlers.

Look it up if you think I am lying.

Onto the subject at hand.

I agree with Terran. To deny that the pollution we cause day in and day out has no effect on the planet is just insane. Have any of you people who claim this is a natural warming process stopped to think about how our increased release of harmful gasses has accelerated the natural warming process?

Like Terran said, we are cutting down trees at an alarming rate and producing more carbon dioxide than ever before. There is not enough trees to process all the carbon dioxide we are spitting out, an overabundance of CO2 is not a good thing.

Global warming aside, we need to reduce pollution, it is harmful for every living being on the planet and is only going to continue to get worse unless we do something about it. Lets set all our personal beliefs aside and ask ourselves "What harm will come out of reducing the amount of pollution and greenhouse gases?" None. The only reason not to do act is laziness.

[Khardis]

Actually Khardis, you are wrong about that. Greenland was named Greenland to lure people there. See, the Vikings were tricky folks, often raiding and killing, yet they were still very smart. They used the name Greenland and sold the land to unsuspecting folk as a promise of better life. When those folk were brought to Greenland by the Vikings, they were left there. It was icy and bitterly cold except for the southernmost regions.

At the same time, Iceland was much better suited for the Vikings needs, it was beautiful and fit for farming. They named it Iceland to make it less attractive to settlers.

Look it up if you think I am lying.

Onto the subject at hand.

I agree with Terran. To deny that the pollution we cause day in and day out has no effect on the planet is just insane. Have any of you people who claim this is a natural warming process stopped to think about how our increased release of harmful gasses has accelerated the natural warming process?

Like Terran said, we are cutting down trees at an alarming rate and producing more carbon dioxide than ever before. There is not enough trees to process all the carbon dioxide we are spitting out, an overabundance of CO2 is not a good thing.

Global warming aside, we need to reduce pollution, it is harmful for every living being on the planet and is only going to continue to get worse unless we do something about it. Lets set all our personal beliefs aside and ask ourselves "What harm will come out of reducing the amount of pollution and greenhouse gases?" None. The only reason not to do act is laziness.

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

The pollution we cause is a spec on the radar compared to the poisons spewed by underwater and land based volcanos. Its utter arrogance to beleive humans are the end all of the world.

[Terran]

2) Those who think the global climate change is part of some yet to be determined natural phenomenom.

So these people either must feel that we are helpless and screwed or they havent bothered to try to understand what will happen if the global temperature increases 15 degrees or even more!

I pick #4:

Those who believe global climate change is a normal, natural occurance and will continue whether or not humans interfere - as it has in the past. Also, it is noted that humans do in fact have an affect on the earth, but the 'doomsday' stuff that's being preached is just plain ridiculous, and humans are not the main cause of climate change on the planet. It is also important for us to try and take care of the earth, conserve energy, and reduce pollution, regardless of the farce that is being preached about 'global warming'. The earth provides much for us - the least we can do is treat her with respect.


I do not see how your 4 is different from my number 2.
Looks like you might fit into the part of category 2 that doesn’t understand what happens when global temperatures increases 15 degrees or more. Because if you believe that global climate change is occurring and you knew what happens with global climate changes then you would know if it continues in that direction that drastic changes are in the “near” future. (Near being 100+ years)…
By your own description you labeled yourself a different category that is identical to my category two…? If Im misinterpreting could you clarify how your 4 is different from my 2?




More Carbon is released from Volcanos than all human activity combined.

Where did you find this information….or are you just speculating?

Looks like I do not have to calculate anything….the calculations have already been done….


Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Note that this doesn’t even include our CO2 production resulting from our livestock.


So not only do we release more than 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually We’ve accumulated 50-100 years worth of this CO2 in the atmosphere while destroying the natural methods for getting rid of it out of the atmosphere.

Also somewhat related

Volcanoes and other natural processes release approximately 24 Tg of sulfur to the atmosphere each year. Thus, volcanoes are responsible for 43% of the total natural S flux each year. Man's activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year. In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources. Andres and Kasgnoc (1997) noted that the bulk of the anthropogenic flux is located in the northern hemisphere while volcanic fluxes occur in much more focused belts around the world.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
What else do you guys got?


So again, the only way humans are not causing global warming is if CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Im looking into the evidence against.

[Neil]

The electric car - at first it was complete sh*t - you PLUG IT IN!!! Where does the f*cking electricity come from?! A F*CKING POWER STATION YOU COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON WHO IS RAPING THE WORLD OF ALL INTELLIGENCE!!!

Not quite as simple as that... The question is what is more efficient?

1) Digging and big whole in the ground, pumping up mushed up dinosaurs, refining it, shipping it across the world, putting it a lorry and driving it across the country, and then pouring it into a car.

or

2) Having a central powerstation which passes electricity across the country to where electric cars charge up.

Yes, electric cars are responsible for polution, but I imagine they produce far less that petrol vehicles.


Of course one of the cleverest solutions is that french air engine! It doesn't got very fast or far, but basically you just have an electric pump to compress air into your tank. The fuel (air) has already shipped everywhere :) And when you drive the car it simple releases it back out :)

[MinionZombie]

Those who believe global climate change is a normal, natural occurance and will continue whether or not humans interfere - as it has in the past. Also, it is noted that humans do in fact have an affect on the earth, but the 'doomsday' stuff that's being preached is just plain ridiculous, and humans are not the main cause of climate change on the planet. It is also important for us to try and take care of the earth, conserve energy, and reduce pollution, regardless of the farce that is being preached about 'global warming'. The earth provides much for us - the least we can do is treat her with respect.

That sums me up, this whole doomsday thing is complete bollocks, and often the people preaching it are either regurgitating what some Al Gore wannabe said on the radio or are just preaching bizarre pseudo-science.

How can you ever be fully prepared to face a problem if you don't look at both sides of the argument? Answer - you can't.

If, for lack of a better analogy, the car was invented with 3 wheels and everyone just barged forth to only create 3 wheeled cars as they didn't want to be bothered analysing all the sides of the situation, then we'd be stuck with a mode of transport that isn't ideal.

It's stupid to just say "BOOM, that's it, right let's tax everything" - that isn't fixing anything. You must fully understand the whole problem, then effectively spend money to produce effective solutions - not flash in the pan ideas that just ease Leonardo DiCaprio's conscience about having 8 cars and jetting all over the world.

Moderation is the simple key with which to start, and many people can do their part easily, and here at my house we're already pretty green because:

1) We have one of those biodegradable waste bins to make compost.
2) We have energy saving lightbulbs.
3) We don't leave the TV on standby.
4) We only drive when it's necessary.
5) We don't go jetting off on holidays, mainly because we can't afford it, but even if we could we wouldn't be flying all over.
6) We have two cars, both of which do a good MPG, the diesel can do up to 55mpg and it's a 2 litre Audi.
7) We don't leave lights burning all over the house.
8) We only use the central heating when we need it.
9) We close doors in the house to help keep it warm by creating warmer, smaller pockets of air rather than one massive, harder to keep warm pocket with all the doors open.
10) We recycle clothing, bottles, cardboard, newspapers and when the time comes - computers.

The list goes on, but it's simple things we can all do to help the situation, don't be wasteful and use moderation - cut the doomsaying bullsh*t and cut out the tax "solution", that's just abusing a current trend to try and make a fast buck.

If there is legitimate scientific debate concerning the other side of the global warming argument, then it most definitely deserves to be heard and paid some serious attention and consideration.

[LouCipherr]

I do not see how your 4 is different from my number 2.
Looks like you might fit into the part of category 2 that doesn’t understand what happens when global temperatures increases 15 degrees or more. Because if you believe that global climate change is occurring and you knew what happens with global climate changes then you would know if it continues in that direction that drastic changes are in the “near” future. (Near being 100+ years)…
By your own description you labeled yourself a different category that is identical to my category two…? If Im misinterpreting could you clarify how your 4 is different from my 2?

Your #2 stated: "So these people either must feel that we are helpless and screwed or they havent bothered to try to understand what will happen if the global temperature increases 15 degrees or even more!"

That is why my #4 is different than your #2. You state that "people feel helpless and haven't bothered to try to understand what will happen if the global temperature increases 15 degrees or even more" well, I have thought about it, and I don't think a 15 degree difference is going to cause a global catastrophe - and to top it all off, I don't think in our lifetime that the average mean temperature of the planet could increase that high. Considering it has only risen what, around 3 degrees over the past few hundred years - and we're worried about it hitting 15 degrees?

In my #4, I also state that I understand that people do indeed have an effect on climate change, but to think that humans will be the destruction of this planet is hilarious. Like someone quoted from George Carlin ealier, if the planet wanted to, it could shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

It's still amazing to me that people think we are a threat to this planet. The earth could wipe out the human race with a single event - yet there are people who believe that some plastic that won't biodegrade, or that the fossil fuels we burn will destroy the planet? But yet we have volcanoes that can put out more garbage into the atmosphere than all the humans on the planet combined?

Although this really doesn't have much to do with 'global warming' other than Al & Co. seem to think our polar icecap is melting, but someone mentioned something about icebergs and the melting of them. Now that I think about it, they are indeed correct - when water freezes, it expands, so when an iceberg melts, technically it will take up one hell of a lot less area than when it is frozen. Interesting thought.

[Danny]

wether its our fault or not, if it's threat of global human annialation that gets people to be more enviromentaly cnosious, and unfortunatly it does, then hey ends to a means.


though i gotta say given your the devil im more enclined to agree with dj:lol:

[LouCipherr]

wether its our fault or not, if it's threat of global human annialation that gets people to be more enviromentaly cnosious, and unfortunatly it does, then hey ends to a means.


though i gotta say given your the devil im more enclined to agree with dj:lol:

:lol:

[axlish]

"Volcanoes and other natural processes release approximately 24 Tg of sulfur to the atmosphere each year. Thus, volcanoes are responsible for 43% of the total natural S flux each year. Man's activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year. In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources. Andres and Kasgnoc (1997) noted that the bulk of the anthropogenic flux is located in the northern hemisphere while volcanic fluxes occur in much more focused belts around the world."

Terran, no one said that volcanoes were the cause. There have been MASSIVE volcano eruptions previously in history that put out more CO2 that the entire industrial revolution combined. We're talking about one time events that somehow didn't slam us into another ice age, not trying to place current blame.

[LouCipherr]

Just a few more things I'd like to add that relate to the discussion:

Strongest Snowstorm in Half a Century in China (http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=307881&type=National)

"THE strongest March snowstorm to hit northeast China's Liaoning Province in 56 years has left at least one person dead and seven injured after the roof of an agricultural trade building collapsed under the weight of the snow, local sources said."

But wait, the planet is getting warmer and the polar ice caps are melting, how is this possible?

Another one:

Toronto Has Coldest February in 28 Years (http://www.thestar.com/article/188324)

"Not since 1979 has February dished up such bone-rattling conditions. The average temperature was -8.4C, which was three degrees colder than normal. "

But the mean temperature of the planet is going to go up 15 degrees and kill us all!

C'mon, isn't this just further evidence that it's all 'cycles'? If the global warming "gloom and doom" bullsh*t was true, we wouldn't be seeing headlines like this would we? Would we be seeing "this is the warmest winter in the past century " - but we're not seeing that. Even in the summer time - sure, every state/area sets it own warm temperature records in the summer at times, but if this global warming stuff was true, it wouldn't just be a single state or area here and there, there would be reports of entire countries showing a warming. That's not happening.

Lets not forget here in the USA this year: record snows in New York this year (well over 10 feet of snow in one shot!), record snows in Minnesota... hell, even my state had an unexpected ICE storm 3 weeks ago that put a few counties in my state out of commission (and power) for almost a full week, myself included - and I'm supposed to buy into the fact that the planet is going heat up, ice caps and icebergs will melt and cover the country I live in with water? :lol: Sorry, I don't buy it.


I have considered both sides of this issue - I have looked at what the global warming people believe and their evidence, and I have looked at the evidence that GW non-believers provide. Sorry, but the evidence weighs so heavy on the 'this is a natural cycle for the planet' that I can't buy into Gore & Co's "you're gonna die from global warming" threats.

Again, we ALL need to take care of the planet - we DO have an effect on it, but we will not be the cause of the end of the planet, barring some dumbsh*t doesn't start a nuclear war. The earth itself, in my opinion, will probably cause a catastrophic event to end the human race, but that event will not be caused by humans. It will be a natural event that would've happened regardless of human activity.

I guess my bottom line to this whole discussion is this:

Think for yourself. Don't let some dingbat with a cute movie that stretches the truth put the fear of impending doom into you. Study the facts that have been presented on both sides and educate yourself. If you do this, the answer to human-influenced global warming should become clear.


Thanks for the heartfelt discussion and views from both sides, everyone. I have to admit, I'm extremely surprised anyone even remotely agreed with me regarding anything having to do with this topic. Most people I know are so struck by fear about global warming, they don't even bother to search out the facts. It seems many here have done this already, and have come to their own conclusions. I don't, and never will, claim to know everything about this, but I do know how to look at the facts from both sides and come to a logical conclusion. I hope the rest of you do the same.

May the icecaps near your home never melt and bury you underwater. ;)

Cheers

LC

[Danny]

Just a few more things I'd like to add that relate to the discussion:

Strongest Snowstorm in Half a Century in China (http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=307881&type=National)

"THE strongest March snowstorm to hit northeast China's Liaoning Province in 56 years has left at least one person dead and seven injured after the roof of an agricultural trade building collapsed under the weight of the snow, local sources said."

But wait, the planet is getting warmer and the polar ice caps are melting, how is this possible?





uhh lou, global warming doesnt just mean everythings gonna get hotter, thats why its called climate change more often, since many places are gonna get colder with the rise of the sea levels.

[Terran]

"Volcanoes and other natural processes release approximately 24 Tg of sulfur to the atmosphere each year. Thus, volcanoes are responsible for 43% of the total natural S flux each year. Man's activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year. In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources. Andres and Kasgnoc (1997) noted that the bulk of the anthropogenic flux is located in the northern hemisphere while volcanic fluxes occur in much more focused belts around the world."

Terran, no one said that volcanoes were the cause. There have been MASSIVE volcano eruptions previously in history that put out more CO2 that the entire industrial revolution combined. We're talking about one time events that somehow didn't slam us into another ice age, not trying to place current blame.


Yeah I know... I was just putting it in perspective ...because we know that large volcanoes have caused global climate change in the past and we produce 150 times more annual CO2 than all the volcanic activity on the planet both on land and in sea.



In my #4, I also state that I understand that people do indeed have an effect on climate change, but to think that humans will be the destruction of this planet is hilarious.

It's still amazing to me that people think we are a threat to this planet. The earth could wipe out the human race with a single event - yet there are people who believe that some plastic that won't biodegrade, or that the fossil fuels we burn will destroy the planet? But yet we have volcanoes that can put out more garbage into the atmosphere than all the humans on the planet combined?


You did see the stuff I posted about volcanoes and how we annually put 150 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than off of them combined annually?
And we put more Sulfur into the atmosphere.....


And I do not understand why you and others keep saying "but to think that humans will be the destruction of this planet is hilarious."....
It is hilarious because of course it will not going to destroy the planet.
I dont believe I have ever said it will "destroy" the planet unless perhaps I slipped into overly powerful language to describe a mass extinction.
Massive climate changes have occured on earth in the past and it did not destroy the planet but climate changes do cause mass extinctions....almost every mass extinction event that has occured on this planet is linked with drastic climate change.

As it relates to humans a 15 degree temperature swing can cause dozens of probelms. Crop failure as different regions change. Farm land could change either become too dry, become too wet, too cold, or too hot. So you would get a global famine which would spark wars all while people starve.

Maybe humans will survive it seems like we would be perfectly capable since we are so adaptive but one would think that the global population of humans would drop significantly maybe from 6 billion to 1 billion while adjusting to a new world....

[axlish]

Yeah I know... I was just putting it in perspective ...because we know that large volcanoes have caused global climate change in the past and we produce 150 times more annual CO2 than all the volcanic activity on the planet both on land and in sea.


I assume you are talking about current averages there. These numbers would be skewed by a major blast, which we haven't had in some time now.

[LouCipherr]

And I do not understand why you and others keep saying "but to think that humans will be the destruction of this planet is hilarious."....
It is hilarious because of course it will not going to destroy the planet.
I dont believe I have ever said it will "destroy" the planet unless perhaps I slipped into overly powerful language to describe a mass extinction.


Terran - when I say that, about GW being the destruction of this planet, I wasn't referring to a quote you made, I was referring to the global warming conspiracy theorists who believe we (humans) will destroy the planet due to human-caused global warming.

Don't take it personally, it wasn't meant like that at all, and I wasn't quoting you directly. ;)


uhh lou, global warming doesnt just mean everythings gonna get hotter, thats why its called climate change more often, since many places are gonna get colder with the rise of the sea levels.

That's not what we're told by Gore & Co. We're told that the planet itself will heat to a point that everything ice will melt, and that water from the melted ice will cover the planet and kill most if not all of us. Those are his theories, I didn't just make it up. Not to mention, the people behind the GW theories will always point to one weather event ("look! today is the hottest it's EVER been in Missouri! We told you GW was real!") and blame it on global warming.

As the saying goes, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."


...and personally, I think they are trying to change it from "global warming" to "climate change" for a reason, don't you? Maybe because they realized this 'warming' stuff ain't all it's cracked up to be. I could agree more with someone who said "we are having climate changes" than "there is global warming and it will eventually do us all in"

[DjfunkmasterG]

Will it happen in the next 20-30 years? If not I ain't worrying about it.

[LouCipherr]

Will it happen in the next 20-30 years? If not I ain't worrying about it.

:lol:

Leave it to Dj. :lol:

[Terran]

I assume you are talking about current averages there. These numbers would be skewed by a major blast, which we haven't had in some time now.



Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year).

So these were the averages from almost 10 years ago. Our emissions of CO2have only increased since.

Ill be a little crude in this estimate and lets just say this 1990s figure applies to both current times and the 1980s....24 billion tons of CO2 is pumped out in the air just by humans alone. It stays in the atmosphere anywhere from 50-100 years depending upon the rate of forest growth. So some CO2 from as far back as 1907 is still in the atmosphere even though CO2 emissions back then were much less intense.

Back to my crud estimate....since 1980 (27 years) we have approximately pumped out 648 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and its all still up in the atmosphere. (27 X 24 billion tons a year).


So unlike a major volcano blast which blasts it all at once. We are pumping it out constantly.


Also a side note really massive volcanos like yellowstone park.... when they erupt first they cause globally cooling because of all the particulate matter blocking out solar radiation...the global cooling only stops when the particulate in the sky leaves....

Will it happen in the next 20-30 years? If not I ain't worrying about it.

Yeah but I plan on living at least 222 years....!!

[coma]

But wait, the planet is getting warmer and the polar ice caps are melting, how is this possible?

The constant basic misunderstanding.
It means
erratic weather patterns and more destructive storms
Not Michigan with Palm trees.
No offense lou, but with all that reading about why "Al Gore" is wrong, you and many other detractors toally misunderstand the meaning of the term. How can you miss it? maybe becasue the people who wrote those "studies" didnt understand either.

Erratic weather. check.check double yup
More destructive storms. Thats another check.

Ice caps melt, water rises, ocean streams change, weather patterns become more unpredictable.
Thats pretty mush the gist of it.

[MinionZombie]

There's a thing going around, especially with our bloody gubment in the UK, which gives the impression each individual person has to do some major change to their lives to stop the end of the world...

1) It ain't the end of the world.
2) Each individual person actually only has to do a little bit, if everyone does it, that's as much as we can do to help the situation - a little bit from 6 billion people, nice.

[LouCipherr]

No offense taken, coma - I'm trying to understand all this just like everyone else, I'm just trying to remove the BS factor and the fear-mongering.

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I don't think so. That's not whatis being preached. Have you actually heard Al Gore talk about gw? It's more than just 'erratic weather patterns' he's referring to.

Actually, now like I think it was Terran that pointed out (or maybe someone else, sorry if i'm quoting the wrong person), now they're trying to call it "climate change" - which says to me even they did not understand what they were saying or were lying until people caught on - because it all started with "warming trends" then the planet going into a catastrophic state due to melting ice on the polar caps.

I'm just sayin'...

I'm no expert, all I do is read, look at facts, and come to my own conclusions. However, there are some that blindly believe anything they're told. I'm not one of them. You wanna tell me something is true? Fine, I'll believe you, but eb prepared to back it up. If you tell me the sky is flourescent pink and I see it as blue, you better have something to substantiate your story, or I call bullsh*t. So far, I see no reason not to call gw bullsh*t.

Hey, I'm not one of those people on the net that think I'm right all the time (which many suffer from) - if I'm proven wrong, I'll be the first to stand up and admit it, but until then, I don't buy this theory at all.

we all have differing opinions, this has been one of mine. I'm sure i'm wrong in a lot of peoples eyes, but that's ok, i'm human, and we're allowed to make mistakes. I don't think I have, but I guess I'll find out in about 10-20 years, eh?

I think i've said enough. Feel free to continue discussing - there's not much more I can say about the subject, but I wanted to hear what others had to say about it. :)

LC

[coma]

No offense taken, coma - I'm trying to understand all this just like everyone else, I'm just trying to remove the BS factor and the fear-mongering.

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I don't think so. That's not what is being preached. Have you actually heard Al Gore talk about gw? It's more than just 'erratic weather patterns' he's referring to.

Actually, now like I think it was Terran that pointed out (or maybe someone else, sorry if i'm quoting the wrong person), now they're trying to call it "climate change" - which says to me even they did not understand what they were saying or were lying until people caught on - because it all started with "warming trends" then the planet going into a catastrophic state due to melting ice on the polar caps.

I have not seen An inconvienient truth, and honestly have no intention to. I have gotten zero infromation from him and his camp.

I am in the "more likely than not" crowd and I got my perspective from scientists with no axe to grind. Many of the Anti GW have been exposed as Oil industry hacks and partisans. Not all, but a few I had read material they wrote that I found provocative but had to discard as being devoid of validity due to conflict of interest.

Fact is. Earth is filthy and it has to be cleaned up. Just becasue some hate Gore doesnt mean its not true. He is but one voice of many.
I am a big time skeptic, but I believe it may be true.
Cant say for sure becasue I am not a sciertist either.
Putting it all in Gores lap is, to me, f**kin retarded. Im not saying you did that but its very popular lately. Its just partisan posturing and trying to discredit a theory because a politician is associated with it. I have negative number respect for Bush (to be mild) but if he says the sky is blue I am not going to be contrarian simply to be so. And I believe that is what is actually happening.

There has always been warming and cooling trends. The difference is Industrial revolution. I think that is a substantial diffrence.

If they are wrong, no harm no foul. we end up with a cleaner more responsible planet which we should be doing anyway. If they are right we are screwed if nothing is done. Though I believe it is most likely fact.

I think saying its all crap is not being skeptical, its the same as believing everything you read just the inverse.

[7feet]

...and personally, I think they are trying to change it from "global warming" to "climate change" for a reason, don't you? Maybe because they realized this 'warming' stuff ain't all it's cracked up to be. I could agree more with someone who said "we are having climate changes" than "there is global warming and it will eventually do us all in"

That switch from "global warming" to climate change is actually pretty old. The "global warming" term was, as I understand it, always more of a simplification of the concept for the masses who often aren't not to astute in science, and need a nice simple concept to wrap their heads around.

Saying that climate change is caused by pumping large amounts of additional energy into an already chaotic system isn't such a convenient bite. But that's what it is. And you have to keep in mind that rise in average global temperature is just an average, because a change in one location can cause effects in another that aren't linear. In a sort of extreme example, have a container of water at 211 deg F, theres a certain amount going on in the water, but add one degrees worth of energy and you have a much more chaotic situation. Rather extreme, as it's also a phase change, and no one is saying the oceans are going to boil, just a broad illustration.

I recall one politician, forget who, years ago, who said something on the order of "So the temperature goes up a degree or 2, that ain't gonna do nothin'!" But if you figure the amount of energy to do that on a global average, it would make the total energy output of blowin' up the worlds supply of nuclear weapons at once look a bit like a pop-gun. At least in initial energy density, not the after-effects. Looking for exact numbers on that, but I don't think I'll have time today, kinda busy.

Are human activities the exclusive cause of this? Dunno, models of chaotic systems are only as good as our understanding, the folks writing the software, and the apparently not quite beefy enough computers we have at the moment. From what I've seen over the years, it does seem pretty clear to me, at least, that it is at least a pretty solid contribution to the process. I always find the argument that "it might not be, so it doesn't matter" to be ridiculous to the point of making me want to scream. "Well, the cancer might get better by itself, so screw looking into the treatment, I'll just wait and see. Kinda reminds me of the people who won't wear seatbelts because a small percentage of people may be more seriously injured because of them, ignoring the overwhelming percentage who are injured less.

Even a couple of feet of sea level rise would really bollox up large portions of the worlds economically and agriculturally most productive areas. Huge amounts of the worlds population live on land that's awful close to the current sea level. From my own point of view, give a few feet and from most of the places I've lived in Brooklyn, I'd be sloshing to work and never see another unflooded basement, close to the water table and the East River as I am. A couple more feet and Canal St. goes back to being a canal. Lou, you mention the fact that water contracts somewhat, and that might have a bit of an easing factor for floating ice, like a lot of the ice in the high arctic. The real problem is all the ice that's on land. Greenland and Antarctica in particular have vast swatches of miles thick ice sheets sitting on top of land, and that is what would really screw the pooch if it melts. And a lot of it does seem to be. The sea level rise is only part of the problem. One in particular is the Gulf Stream, and probably also a few other major ocean currents, but that's the one I'm most familiar with. Just as ice is less dense than liquid water, fresh water is less dense than salt water. The engine driving the gulf stream depends on the water at the end of it's run cooling and sinking lower in the ocean, to run back down off the coast of Africa where it get's re-warmed. It's a big circular transfer of energy. Enough northern icemelt into the oceans at the top end, the cold water no longer sinks as it has been doing, and the current could be slowed or disrupted. There's already some evidence that it's happening just like that already, I'll have to look for the citation. Since the gulf stream keeps much of northern Europe about 15 deg. F warmer than it would be without it, if it got too badly messed up someplace like, say, England, would likely be looking a lot more like Norway. Maybe a boom in ice skating in Nice. Stuff like that.

It's really hard to say what exactly are all the the causes are. I think it's unlikely, but if it was all natural, you'd still have to figure out how to deal with it. Because even if it takes a number of years, if someplace like India ends up with 3/4 of it's land under water, you've got a billion people who are going to go somewhere else, whether anyone likes it or not, folks are like that. Moving food supplies - a few degrees and wheat doesn't grow so good in the Midwest anymore. A smaller but still indicative bit is that sugar maples are growing and being productive farther north than they've been recorded before, and their seems to be a little trouble on the southern end of their range. They need a pretty particular pattern of cold-warm temperature variations to produce sugar properly when the sap is running, and towards the bottom end of their range that can be a little iffy. It's a small thing, but enough small things added together can amount to a whole load of suck.

There's always going to be some shrill bastids on any side of an argument, but if you listen to the people who know what they are talking about, and not the people who like to hear themselves talk, you don't really hear the phrase "end of the world". Economic disruption, changes in productive capacity, large population movements, increasingly unpredictable climate until things (maybe) stabilize again, that you hear. Things changing in a way that not much of anybody would really like. Whatever the causes, anybody sticking their fingers in their ears and going "Nyanyanya! Not happening!" are just wishing. If things are likely to change, plan for it. If you know that you're job is about to go away, you don't go out and buy a new car.

Okay, that's a little of my take. I'll go back to thinking 'bout zombies now.

[Terran]

Heres an interesting site that lists all the commonly used arguements against global "warming" and information directly countering it....
Really good for casual people...

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

[Danny]

id love to see a proper "son of the soil" type redneck give his view on global warming. really, i reckon it would be "enlightening".

[DeadJonas190]

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

The pollution we cause is a spec on the radar compared to the poisons spewed by underwater and land based volcanos. Its utter arrogance to beleive humans are the end all of the world.

I would respond, but it seems Terran has beat me to it and proved you wrong so there is no need for me to do so.

But I must respond.

It is utter arrogance to believe that humans are not harming the planet with our pollution and destruction of entire ecosystems.

One example, the introduction of the house cat to Australia. It completely f*cked up their eco system and has caused nothing but problems leading to a massive amount of feral cats in the outback. But I guess humans can't cause problems on that scale even though we have time and time again.

[MinionZombie]

Labour: Useless At Everything (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07032007/325/uk-failing-its-own-green-tests.html)

Found this interesting little article, hardly surprising really, that's all Labour do, set arbitrary targets for 5, 10, 15, 50 years into the future (often with the subtle, underlying assumption they'll still be in power at the time), and then think the problem is solved because they have *hushed gasp* ... a plan ... not a cunning plan, just a plan.

Surprisingly, if you just throw money and nothing else at an issue the money will just hit it and fall into someone's pocket without anything being done, and that's happened time and again with Labour - just look at the NHS, record splurging on it, and it's gotten worse ... the freakin' Secretary for Health actually said we're better off not going to hospital as we most likely will come out worse off (and the scary thing is, she's right). :rockbrow::mad:

Targets schmargets...it's all ass talk.

[MinionZombie]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/08032007/344/global-warming-swindle-exposed.html

Don't forget folk, it's on TV tonight, and guaranteed someone will up it to the torrent sites tomorrow, as I'm sure this doc will attract a lot of cult attention.

[Neil]

Will be watching and recording...

[Mutineer]

Good Job Lou. I don't agree with every little detail but I do feel like Global Warming is nothing short of political B.S.

:rolleyes: :confused:

[MinionZombie]

Just finished watching it, it was absolutely fascination, highly informative (without getting too nerdy ... and likewise not getting to dumb-dumb ... but put simply enough for non-climatologists to understand what the hell is going on).

Everything has two sides, and to do away with the OTHER side of the climate change debate is sheer retardation, as well as flat out censorship and twisted propaganda.

Some interesting points were made, including the 'weather memory' of the oceans, which can go back for hundreds of years - as well as the key point, being the sun and sun spots, showing a much tighter correlation to the weather on the Earth than anything else available.

Also of extremely interesting note was that the co-founder of freakin' Greenpeace was on the side of this documentary.

The key to our slice of living on this planet is not to be wasteful, and that's about it. To think our actions have doomed us all within a few decades to Armageddon style action movie level "cool" disaster is sheer human arrogance at it's best, the oft-held belief that man is the be-all and end-all of everything ... well sorry, we're not.

An exceptionally important and interesting documentary so it was. :thumbsup::)

[Tricky]

I hear ya MZ!it was very good,and hopefully it will have given some of those little green hitlers a bit of a slap down off their high horses.I especially liked it when the scientists made clear that they were not being paid off by the industrial & fuel companies to disagree with the pro green energy bunch.I also found it quite harsh that we (the western world) keep telling the africans not to dig their coal or other natural resources,of which they have a lot,because we're on a crusade to save the world,whereas the africans just want to get out of poverty and the stone age which is what touching on these resources will do for them

[Neil]

What a GREAT documentary!

It's repeated on Mon 12th on ITV3!

[MinionZombie]

ITV3? It was a Channel 4 documentary?! :confused:

It's the sort of doc, if I was a teacher, I'd be showing to school kids. Every situation has two sides to the argument, and both are valid.

The whole global warming/climate change has become a political animal - and it's interesting to find the sort of people who'd never trust a politician, falling arse over tit to kiss Al Gore's feet and the feet of those other politicians who follow all this doomsaying bollocks.

I think in a competition between us pokey little humans and that violent mistress and giver of life, THE SUN, the latter would win. :rockbrow:

It also showed how people can become idiotic sheep and just get swept up in something like this, swallow all the spin (like that so-called 2500 scientists behind the IPCC or whatever it was - memory's a bit fuzzy this morning - anyway, the fact that many of those demanded their names taken off the reports and that many others are in fact politicians or people who have absolutely no scientific background is a terrifying prospect).

Also, the link between the enviro-mental movement and anti-capitalism was rather scary ... look people, it's been proven time and again, communism and socialism doesn't work, capitalism does ... it's a tough game, but it works - deal with it.

Once again - don't waste, be sensible with our resources - but to believe that the actions of an animal, which is nothing more than a blip on earth's radar, is going to blow everybody up, drown or dry everyone to death, is utter arse-licking arrogance.

To us, the human race is amazing, to the universe ... we're nobodies.

Also of interest, the very real observation that scientists need to dress up their research with drama, rather than realism, in order to get money - so the research just becomes lies. My parents both worked in the bio-chemistry field and did a lot of various research, and they experienced that world first hand - the world of skewing your research to target the money. This is now happening on a large scale, link everything to climate change!!! :rolleyes:

I feel guilty about wasting stuff, but I certainly don't feel guilty about enjoying and putting to good use the society we have created, a society in which you can see the world, a world in which you can drive where you want to your own timescale, a world where you can access information at the click of a mouse or the touch of a button...the list goes on, to feel guilty for having made mankind so successful is just bullsh*t.

The simple answer - don't waste ... and put up with it while it lasts, when the sun stops belching out sun spots for a while then we'll feel the coolth waft over us once more. I'd certainly trust the sun to dictate the weather, a thing which is a-political and has no conscience, rather than the fallible word of politicised man.

[Dtothe3]

First off, the planet ain't melted yet, my friend, so until it does (which should happen in 10 years according to your democrat buddy Al Gore), you have no legs to stand on

So when you're drowning would that be a good time to go "Har har I told you so?"

One problem I see is that people are so far up their own asses that they don't see that global warming is in some way a threat. We're changing a natural balance, and one that could have a severe detrimental impact on our world.

It's fair enough to say it isn't cars. But I'll tell you what I think it is. People. We have so many people, that we're eating ourselves to death. By mass producing cattle, we're damaging the planet.

One cows fart produces as much methane as a land rover doing 10 000 miles. New Zealand is going to fail to meet it's CO2 deadlines based sheerly on the fact that it has so many cows. We need to downsize our population, then downsize our cattle population.

Incidentally, conservative estimates put a cow at doing the equilivent of 200 000 miles a day ;)

--------------------

Edit

So let's just grab a Newcastle Brown, a joint, and let's sit around and discuss the good ole days when politicians were still lying ****bags but the green party were no-where to be seen :)

[Neil]

And the argument rages on :)

http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9250037634/m/7180087257


Heres an interesting site that lists all the commonly used arguements against global "warming" and information directly countering it....
Really good for casual people...

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

I must admit when you read stuff like this, and then see documentaries last night, it's as confusing as f*** to decide what is correct or not...

What bemuses me is there seems to be NO clear/concise list of KNOWN facts...

Last night's documentary was interesting if only due to the people who were saying humanity is not responsible...

[Danny]

i just watch the recent footage of the icecaps breaking apart, whatever your view thats happening, though you know theres some 'tard who would say its fake:rolleyes:

[Tricky]

i just watch the recent footage of the icecaps breaking apart, whatever your view thats happening, though you know theres some 'tard who would say its fake:rolleyes:


That is happening,but the documentary stated that ice breaking away there is as common as leaves falling off trees here.Nature will look after itself,even if that means getting rid of us

[LouCipherr]

So when you're drowning would that be a good time to go "Har har I told you so?"


The point was, in 10 years, I won't be drowning because the planet won't be covered in water by then.


The whole global warming/climate change has become a political animal - and it's interesting to find the sort of people who'd never trust a politician, falling arse over tit to kiss Al Gore's feet and the feet of those other politicians who follow all this doomsaying bollocks.

...

It also showed how people can become idiotic sheep and just get swept up in something like this, swallow all the spin (like that so-called 2500 scientists behind the IPCC or whatever it was - memory's a bit fuzzy this morning - anyway, the fact that many of those demanded their names taken off the reports and that many others are in fact politicians or people who have absolutely no scientific background is a terrifying prospect).


Exactly what I've been trying to say, thank you MZ. You have a much better way with words than me.


That is happening,but the documentary stated that ice breaking away there is as common as leaves falling off trees here.Nature will look after itself,even if that means getting rid of us

Ahh, the voice of reason. :) This is something that will occur naturally, just like the ice melting off of north america long, long ago - before there were humans (so who do you blame then?).

[DjfunkmasterG]

So, how is the great swindle debate going?


Has anyone disproved gravity yet? :D

[coma]

Has anyone disproved gravity yet? :D
Al Gore believes in Gravity, and therefore anyone who believes in Gravity is a Gore Acolyte and sycophant, so
ipso facto
Gravity is a hoax
and I have some obscure documents to prove it thus!:p

[MinionZombie]

How dare you sully the good name of gravity in connection to Al Gore's DiCaprio-ball-licking smugness! :eek:

[coma]

How dare you sully the good name of gravity in connection to Al Gore's DiCaprio-ball-licking smugness! :eek:
I dare to go where eagles tread and speak of the love that dare not speak it's name and sh!t.

[Terran]

I think its important to avoid looking at Al Gore and what he says as ammunition against Global Warming and its causes...
He’s a politician....and his first number one concern is getting people fired up and behind him....So he will definitely use over powerful language and exaggerate the implications of it....because the more people that are scared the more they will support the candidate....

Another example of this same phenomenon is "terrorism". Candidates beat that tune purposely to scare people ...even going as far as saying things like "If my opponent gets elected terrorists will win"....Politicians will say that we arent being attacked now because we are bringing the fight to them....but I think we all know that this is BS....If there was at least two terrorists in the USA they could unleash all sorts of havoc...all they would have to do is mimic the DC/Fairfax Sniper serial killers....and they would NEVER get caught....they could shoot people at random regularly for months on end and never get caught since the DC sniper got caught by a stroke of luck. This would have huge economic impacts if done near or in large important cities also causing public outcry and panic.

The facts of the terrorism situation:

"Terrorism" is a vague term now being applied to all sorts of behavior that is illegal. Now drug dealing, marriage fraud, kidnapping(sometimes this is terrorism mostly not), and other assorted petty crimes can be classified as terrorism. This beefs up the stats of "Terrorist acts" that our new oppressive laws have stopped. The stats are a ploy to show how we are better off with certain politician supported policies and politician supported laws and wars.
"Traditional Terrorism" like bombings, kidnapping for ransom, assassinations, guerrilla action, etc globally can be considered a minority movement...and can for all practical purposes be considered mutually exclusive in that each various group has different objectives and go to different lengths to achieve them.
So the amount of terrorist groups that have global intentions are even more in minority. Most "traditional terrorists" have goals directly associated with their homeland and have little interest in global gains (and since they are more domestically concerned with their own stuff even when attacked by global powers they are reluctant to attack outwards because it means a thinning of resources distributed domestically weakening their strength against other groups in their center of power.
I would crudely estimate that 99% of all foreign terrorism does not threaten the USA domestically. The rest of them either threaten our regional interests in a particular area (Iraq: suddenly all combatants there are considered terrorists)…We are even starting to lump some foreign governments into the loose term “terrorist“(Iran, North Korea, etc)….

This relatively longwinded example I just had to round out to demonstrate that the “terrorism”/”terrorist” issue is a very powerful political tool, that is often overstated and over exaggerated for political gain.


So politicians latch onto and play the “terrorism” card in the same way that politicians will increasingly latch onto and play the “global warming/climate change” card (especially after natural disasters. Exception being earthquakes). Both of these issues existed long before politicians caused a fuss about them and its interesting to note that before politicians got a hold of these issues there was a much universal consensus amongst the experts on the issues.

At this point you might be thinking….”Well that’s what I thought the whole time….Global Climate Change is a political crock of ****. Its just the standard politician issue-as-tool manipulation just like “terrorism” ”…


Well the problem is there is a very significant difference that makes Global Climate Change an entirely different beast. The difference is where the rival camps agree.

First its very important to toss out all the political verbal absolutism from people like Gore or anyone else. Toss out all the outrageous claims because reality is both more interesting and painfully more simplistic.
The oceans wont boil.
If the ozone remains intact the hottest the planet could get is dependent on the amount of carbon locked in our fossil fuel reserves once all this stuff was living material.
All life on the planet will not die.

First its important to be clear on the claims so people stop making comments about the ridiculousness of all these apocalyptic claims because I for one have not heard all the ridiculous claims and secondly I don’t want ridiculous claims weakening more certain scenarios by proxy. Some of these are just cause in a effect despite the cause.
The Claims:

Humans are the leading cause of this current rapid Global Climate Swing because of the massive amounts of CO2 emitted by Human related activity. This is exacerbated by human destruction of nature’s buffer systems (Swamp/Marshland, Rainforests, Ocean Ecosystems).
A Global average Temperature will increase up to 15 degrees or more within a century .
15 degree global temperature increase would cause Glaciers and Pole Ice to either melt entirely or nearly entirely before freezing begins again in a more distant future.
Glacier melting and pole ice melting will drastically effect ocean currents, temperature, and chemistry. Altering weather patterns.
Altered weather patterns are directly linked to agriculture. Temperature by region will be entirely different than it is today. Practically all places on the globe will change in weather some will become polar opposites of what they are today. Any combination of precipitation soaked/humid/dry coupled with any combination of temperature cold/warm/hot.
Agriculture globally will be hit extremely hard causing a global famine. Some places will be hit harder than others causing huge diplomatic tensions.
Mass extinction comparable to all other mass extinctions in history caused by rapid global climate swings.



I think these are all the claims made by the majority of scientists.


If the only problem is Global Climate Change the Human race will likely survive but would suffer huge causalities and massive societal restructuring (exception being that if problems caused by Global Climate Change triggers a nuclear war). We are adaptable and capable of hunting and eating many types of things so even a mass extinction would leave us with many things to eat but would support a much much smaller population.


Its important to note now.…:
The vast majority of all scientists believe that humans are causing global climate change.
The next majority, while in the context of the scientific community is still a huge minority, believe that global climate change is happening from some unnamed natural processes(even natural processes have a "cause")...

Note: That both these groups accept what they would consider a "fact"....that rapid Global climate is occurring .... So these groups only disagree on Claim 1. The minority group may bring up all sorts of reasons why humans are not the cause but if they acknowledge that rapid global climate change is occurring, despite the cause, they too support the rest of the claims just by cause and effect.

So if camp “Human Caused” is correct mankind will have to develop technologies to reduce our damage while developing technologies or practices to repair damages because the current 100 year scenario will happen even if we stop emitting CO2. Also technologies to cope with agricultural reshuffling would have to be developed if humans cannot undo damage in a shorter 100 year timetable. We would have to do all that to avoid or reduce a global catastrophe.

If camp “Natural Caused” is correct mankind will have to develop technologies to reverse a natural rapid global climate trend. Or they will have to develop technologies that produce food on a massive scale regardless of the outside conditions. (The fact that many in this camp feel humans overestimate their ability to make an impact on global environment is discouraging towards hoping to avoid a global catastrophe).


Then there is a massively small group of scientists that believe global climate change is not occurring at all or on a much slower scale despite the overwhelming volumes of evidence to the contrary.....Usually these people have unspecialized degrees where it relates to global climate or are religiously motivated...earth is here for man’s use type thing….and generally they have ruined their reputations because their "evidence" is usually either directly refuted by all areas of interest or is considered pseudo science at best...(So these people aren’t worth mentioning generally)


Ug...I hope the current last page doesnt change soon...because then even less people will read all this...I already know most wont want to read through all this in the first place...let alone go a page backwards to read it...

[Tricky]

Sorry terran,just had to post this (taken from another source) but everyone who reads this,go back and read terrans post as well,its only fair :)

"Daffodils are on sale in some of our shops unseasonably early. Such evidence that spring seems to be arriving before winter has departed, along with excessively hot summer temperatures, has convinced many that global warming is well under way.

Unease that something funny is happening to the weather is reinforced by constant reports claiming imminent environmental doom, such as the article in Nature magazine last week claiming global warming will cause more than one million species to die out over the next fifty years.

In another article in the journal Science the government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, claims global warming is an even more serious threat to the world than terrorism. He maintains that the ten hottest years on record started in 1991, that global warming is causing the ice caps to melt and the seas to rise, and that mankind’s activities in producing carbon dioxide have been proved to be the cause.

With all due respect to Sir David’s eminence, every one of these claims is utter garbage. What science actually tells us is that we just don’t know whether global warming is happening and, if it is, why. Much of the research behind this theory is specious, anti-historical and scientifically illiterate. If the world’s climate is indeed warming up beyond normal patterns, this could be due to natural reasons rather than the actions of mankind.

It is not true that the seas are generally rising. Some are; some aren’t. The claim is based on the atypical North Atlantic, ignoring the seas around Australia where levels have remained pretty static. Indeed, around parts of New Zealand and elsewhere they are falling.

What’s more, there’s no correlation between rises in climate temperature and sea levels. During the ‘Little Ice Age’ in the Middle Ages, sea levels rose; and between 1900 and 1940, when temperatures rose, sea levels actually dropped.

The ice-caps tell a similar story. Some are melting; some are not. The Larsen ice shelf in the Antarctic is breaking up, but most of the Antarctic ice is increasing.

Then there’s the claim that the climate is now the hottest on record. But this statistical record only goes back a few centuries, if that. Yet there’s plenty of other evidence that the climate in Europe was warmer than now by at least 2 degrees in 1100, when vines grew in Northumberland and farmers settled in Greenland. Since this was followed by the Little Ice Age which lasted until about 1880, it’s hardly surprising - and surely a cause for rejoicing - that since then the climate has warmed up by about 0.6 degrees, well within normal patterns.

As for the presumed villain of the piece carbon dioxide, this makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little difference to the climate. And like sea levels, it doesn’t correlate with climate change. Historically, it has increased hundreds of years after the climate has warmed up. Between 1940 and 1975, when industrial activity - which produces carbon dioxide -rose rapidly, the climate actually cooled.

Far from being proved, the claim of man-made global warming is a global fraud. Instead of being drawn from observable facts, it is based on computer modelling which churns out wholly artificial - and eminently manipulable - visions of the world.

Computers can only process the information fed into them. This is an inadequate procedure, not least because climate change is affected by billions of variables which are beyond any computer programme. The sea level ‘rise’, for instance, omits the full influence of certain crucial natural meteorological changes. And if the disaster scenarios of global warming are fed into the computer as a premise, it is hardly surprising that it will then ‘predict’ the disappearance of species as a consequence.

In other words, if you feed rubbish into a computer, you get rubbish out.

The claim that there’s a scientific consensus behind global warming is also utterly bogus. In 1992, more than 40 atmospheric scientists said the theory was highly uncertain and warned against using theoretical climate models which they said were not supported by existing records.

In 1997, dozens of meteorologists, geologists, atmospheric scientists and other experts said global warming was based solely on unproven scientific theories and imperfect computer models.

In 1998, 18,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition which again criticised this ‘flawed’ research, said historic evidence showed that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide was environmentally helpful, and predicted that the 1997 Kyoto agreement to reduce industrial emissions would keep the developing world trapped in poverty.

One of the world’s most eminent meteorologists, Professor Richard Lindzen, has also protested that while the science behind the Kyoto protocol was suitably equivocal about global warming, the document’s highly politicised summary - the part actually being used to force reduced industrial activity onto the western world - was written instead by government representatives, who had conjured up ’scary scenarios for which there is no evidence’.

Indeed, global warming has little to do with science and everything to do with politics. Those scientists who endorse the theory command the lion’s share of government-funded research grants. Since the global warming prediction emerged in the late 1980s, climate science funding has gone through the roof.

Scientists know, however, that they won’t get funded unless their research confirms global warming. Too many enormous reputations would go down the plug otherwise; too many political agendas depend on the theory. So global warming has become big business.

This is ironic. For it is yet another variation of left-wing, anti-American, anti-west ideology which goes hand in hand with anti-globalisation and the belief that everything done by the industrialised world is wicked. The agenda to cripple this world is revealed by highly questionable assumptions made by climate modellers about likely developments in economics, technology or population movements, which affect emissions and consequent temperature predictions.

As the Economist recently pointed out, they assume growth rates that are beyond any historical experience, resulting in predictions of a bizarre economic future in which the United States stops growing and developing nations overtake the industrialised world. But that reversal of fortune is, of course, precisely the objective.

And if anyone objects, they are demonised. As Professor Lindzen has protested, science is now being used ‘as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens’.

Dr Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish statistician who became famous for his book ‘The Sceptical Environmentalist’, paid a heavy price for pointing out that richer countries were cleaner countries, and observing that the costs of implementing the Kyoto protocol for less than one year would provide clean water for every human being on Earth.

For his demolition of the environmental scam, he was vilified across the globe and accused by a Danish scientific committee of ‘dishonesty’ - a disgraceful verdict that has now been demolished by a superior committee that tore into Dr Lomborg’s inquisitors for intellectual inadequacy.

The claim of man-made global warming represents the descent of science from the pursuit of truth into politicised propaganda. The fact that it is endorsed by the top scientist in the British government shows how deep this rot has gone. "

[MinionZombie]

I dare to go where eagles tread and speak of the love that dare not speak it's name and sh!t.
F*ckin' ewww, dude ... f*ckin' ewww.

I'd say this year's Gore-boning speeches were, er, this year's Bowling For Columbine speech - sickening and so bloody smug ... sadly, the band didn't play them off early.

They might as well have just pulled out Gore's own Vice President and just started chowing down right there on the stage ... Man-Bear-Pig has never been more real. :eek:

*awaits snappy little one sentence hit & run from hellsing :rockbrow::sneaky:*

[Danny]

must...fight ...the urge...must ...resist....



....though-by-man-bear-pig-he-aint-talking-about-a-creature-but-a-homoerotic-sexual-act-from-the-deep-south- DAMMIT!!, i tried man, i tried.:lol:

[MinionZombie]

Back on topic, and just for the sake of it, I'll officially state my allegience to The Sun (no, not the boobie-filled-tabloid), that massively violent ball of fire that heats us and determines our climate. :cool:

[Danny]

*the sun in orbit realises hes claimed another soul..."good...goood"...*:lol:

[coma]

Back on topic, and just for the sake of it, I'll officially state my allegience to The Sun (no, not the boobie-filled-tabloid), that massively violent ball of fire that heats us and determines our climate. :cool:
Dude, the sun is GHAY
Powned!

[Danny]

your moms the sun!, pwnage!:p

just a thought though, how many peopel here have seen an inconvinient truth anwya?

[MinionZombie]

I haven't seen it yet, but no doubt it's as retarded as the rest of the highly politicised, doomsaying, "the human race is the biggest and most powerful thing in the whole f*cking universe, so BUY MY DVD ABOUT THE LATEST FAD", only looking at the information it finds best suited to it's already pre-determined message whilst simultaneously spoodging all over itself and rubbing it in to make itself more appealing to passing-fad-followers who think Fahrenheit 9/11 is nothing but the truth...

All that needs doing is:

1) Don't waste
2) Become more efficient and continue in that direction
3) Wait and see what the sun does next

If it wasn't for the sun, the Earth would be totally f*cked, life wouldn't survive without the sun - that much power blatantly dictates that the sun controls our climate!

Yes I'm pissed off, big whoop, wanna fide-aboud-id?

[axlish]

I think its important to avoid looking at Al Gore and what he says as ammunition against Global Warming and its causes...
He’s a politician....and his first number one concern is getting people fired up and behind him....So he will definitely use over powerful language and exaggerate the implications of it....because the more people that are scared the more they will support the candidate....

First its very important to toss out all the political verbal absolutism from people like Gore or anyone else. Toss out all the outrageous claims because reality is both more interesting and painfully more simplistic.
The oceans wont boil.
If the ozone remains intact the hottest the planet could get is dependent on the amount of carbon locked in our fossil fuel reserves once all this stuff was living material.
All life on the planet will not die.

Well put.


So if camp “Human Caused” is correct mankind will have to develop technologies to reduce our damage while developing technologies or practices to repair damages because the current 100 year scenario will happen even if we stop emitting CO2. Also technologies to cope with agricultural reshuffling would have to be developed if humans cannot undo damage in a shorter 100 year timetable. We would have to do all that to avoid or reduce a global catastrophe.

If camp “Natural Caused” is correct mankind will have to develop technologies to reverse a natural rapid global climate trend. Or they will have to develop technologies that produce food on a massive scale regardless of the outside conditions. (The fact that many in this camp feel humans overestimate their ability to make an impact on global environment is discouraging towards hoping to avoid a global catastrophe).

Exactly what I've been saying. If these ecological changes are innevitable, then the Human race had better get busy doing something to counter act the effects, and it ain't selling your Hummer. Domes come to mind.

[Neil]

The Claims:

Humans are the leading cause of this current rapid Global Climate Swing because of the massive amounts of CO2 emitted by Human related activity. This is exacerbated by human destruction of nature’s buffer systems (Swamp/Marshland, Rainforests, Ocean Ecosystems).
A Global average Temperature will increase up to 15 degrees or more within a century .
15 degree global temperature increase would cause Glaciers and Pole Ice to either melt entirely or nearly entirely before freezing begins again in a more distant future.
Glacier melting and pole ice melting will drastically effect ocean currents, temperature, and chemistry. Altering weather patterns.
Altered weather patterns are directly linked to agriculture. Temperature by region will be entirely different than it is today. Practically all places on the globe will change in weather some will become polar opposites of what they are today. Any combination of precipitation soaked/humid/dry coupled with any combination of temperature cold/warm/hot.
Agriculture globally will be hit extremely hard causing a global famine. Some places will be hit harder than others causing huge diplomatic tensions.
Mass extinction comparable to all other mass extinctions in history caused by rapid global climate swings.


Aren't these the same sort people who said we were causing another ice age 30yrs ago?

By the way, from what you know, the amout of co2 humanity is producing is compariable to how much the planet is producing a year?






This article really isn't happy the documentary! http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

So volcanoes only produce 1% of what humans produce?

This is why this debate is sooo painful... One group say for example volcanoes produce more than us... and then another group say infact they only produce 1% the amount humans do!?!! Why isn't there just one answer!

[MinionZombie]

DAMN STRAIGHT, Tricky.


This is why this debate is sooo painful... One group say for example volcanoes produce more than us... and then another group say infact they only produce 1% the amount humans do!?!! Why isn't there just one answer!

Because it's like talking to a brick wall, there's all these people out there who are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are the cause of the apocalypse, meanwhile they haven't even bothered to look at the OTHER side of the argument - and that is crucially important, you can never effectively understand and seek to resolve (if it needs resolving) an issue if you don't look at both sides.

But with the amount of vested interests in the global warming "business" (which, when all taken into account, will be leaving behind a large "carbon footprint", as they like to call it, no doubt), it's a scary thought. I just hope those representing the non-politicised and non-doomsaying side of the issue come forth en masse quicksmart.

[Neil]

Another dig at that documentary! http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

[MinionZombie]

Sheer arrogance over and over, blind following an issue without questioning it's validity. It's strange isn't it, in a world where religion is constantly dissected and looked at with scepticism, there's all these people blinding believing and not questioning this whole global warming "business".

You can "deconstruct" anything, but it doesn't make the fact that BOTH sides of the argument need airing any less prevalent, these numpties seem to completely forget that - BOTH SIDES of the argument as well as the simple answer:

1) Don't be wasteful
2) Improve efficiency

'nuff said, really.

[Tricky]

Look up the bloke who made the documentary in wikipedia,it tries to completely discredit him as a rabble rouser who just does these things to be controversial.While that may be true in respect to some of his past work,i think this documentary is a different kettle of fish and isnt about rabble rousing,more about trying to calm the mass hysteria surrounding "climate change"

[MinionZombie]

Look up the bloke who made the documentary in wikipedia,it tries to completely discredit him as a rabble rouser who just does these things to be controversial.While that may be true in respect to some of his past work,i think this documentary is a different kettle of fish and isnt about rabble rousing,more about trying to calm the mass hysteria surrounding "climate change"
Spot on, Tricky.

The chaotic panic about this whole global "warming" thing has gotten completely out of it, it's actually like in South Park when a crowd of people pissed off about something are actually all just bleetering "rabble rabble rabble", and in the 21st Century I'm ashamed to say the human race hasn't advanced past that retarded point.

If this issue is as big as the doomsayers say it is (which it f*cking isn't), then surely if they were actually intelligent and calm, reasonable people, then they'd be looking at ALL the arguments, ALL the evidence, not just running off in one direction like a headless chicken.

And the fact that people are leaping on anyone who is a naysayer on the issue, just proves beyond reasonable doubt exactly what was said in that documentary - if you're a naysayer, you're regarded as a holocaust denier ... and that's pretty retarded isn't it? That's the kind of thinking we last had when people believed others were witches and burnt them alive! :eek:

I hope all the naysayers gather together and stand up, rather than give up, giving up is never an option when it's a situation like this, so I hope they start coming out of the woodwork to cool this situation down.

[Tricky]

Have you seen david camerons new plans to hammer people in tax who take more than one flight a year,and their one flight would only allow 2000 miles?The Tories will probably get my vote in the next election,purely to get rid of labour,but cameron is another one of these little green hitlers when it comes to the climate change issue.Why punish low to middle earners who might want a holiday once a year?the rich will still take as many flights as they like because they will just pay the extra with no problems :mad:

[MinionZombie]

Indeed, Cameron's most definitely got my vote, but you don't have to like everything your party of choice says - and I certainly don't like the green tax plane thing ... but on the other hand, if doing some of that bollocks helps get the Conservatives back in control of our out-of-control country, then I guess it's a means to an end.

But exactly, all these taxes penalise those who can't afford to pay, but need to use their car of take a flight.

I don't believe in all these nobs jetting off on holidays all the time, they're just greedy wankers who spend all their money - I've never been on a plane in my life thus far, seriously, NEVER.

The rich are rich enough, they can live off the interest on their piles of cash as it is, but the middle classes just keep getting squeezed having to pay for everything.

Green taxes are stupid, it's just a form of facism, forcing people to not use a service or useful tool, despite the fact many or the majority need to use the tool (e.g. the car - how many people do you know take car journeys for fun? I know none, it's a tool, all journeys are for a purpose).

Forcing people out of something is not the answer, it just earns a quick buck and plays into the hands of the doomsaying weirdos. Clean-fuelled jets is what you need and so on and so forth and all the other points I've stated up till now in support of my approach to climate change - which is natural!!

Speaking of which, was trading words with a friend of mine about this documentary the thread is on about, and he so staunchly believes in us being the cause it's gheay, and this is the same person who believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories...:rockbrow:

Question one thing but not the other? Blatant hypocrisy methinks. :bored:

[coma]

Have you seen david camerons new plans to hammer people in tax who take more than one flight a year,and their one flight would only allow 2000 miles?The Tories will probably get my vote in the next election,purely to get rid of labour,but cameron is another one of these little green hitlers when it comes to the climate change issue.Why punish low to middle earners who might want a holiday once a year?the rich will still take as many flights as they like because they will just pay the extra with no problems :mad:
Who says America has a monopoly on stupid?
Or fascism for that matter.
I say to your gub "Get off the Englishmen's dicks, you retards!"

To brotherhood
Skoal!

My prediction. You trade Labour for Tories, you end up with a different, but equally bad, level of control and oppression.
Us reg'lar folks cant win
and that sucks

Anybody who beilieves that any politician does anything for any reason other than to accumulate funds is truly deluded and kinda stupid.

[MinionZombie]

Rememeber though, that our Conservatives aren't the same style as you guys' Republicans, not by any stretch of the imagination, especially these days.

[Neil]

Or they will have to develop technologies that produce food on a massive scale regardless of the outside conditions. Nice plate of fried Soylent Green anyone?

[Terran]

I hesitate to continue because I may start to sound more dismissive and maybe even a tinge condescending. Its just pure frustration. Its not that I particularly mind talking about global climate change or debating it. In fact for the most part I enjoy it. But that is the probably the problem.
I have always been willing to throw my two cents into a global climate change discussion. Perhaps that is what I find so frustrating….since I have read and witnessed so many of these debates and discussions I keep seeing the same arguments. Whats most annoying is that there is a great deal of confusion on whats true and whats not. The main cause of this confusion is not from conflicting scientific research, its from the sometimes intentional but mostly unintentional propagation of myths, falsehoods, dated research, and misinterpreted conclusions.

I cant recall a single argument in this thread countering human caused global warming that has not already been debunked, discredited, proven false, or otherwise dismissed for appropriate reasons. A couple people in this thread, who reject the claim that humans are the main cause of an apparent rapid global climate change, mention that the alternate theories are not being given serious attention or fair review…..

And that statement really really confuses me in one sense. And makes me significantly angry in another sense.

It confuses me because the people who say these other theories are not being given serious attention or fair review use these same theories to support their viewpoint. The arguments and studies that they use are inconsistent with contemporary research and are disputed by the overwhelming consensus of experts. Not just experts of a particular specialized field but experts in all disciplines of natural sciences. Sometimes these arguments use seriously dated research and other times is completely false or fabricated. So what confuses me is these people who say the other theories are not given serious and fair attention are themselves attributing a vastly disproportionate value in a minority theory. And if they even bothered to look they would discover that each of their arguments is disputed through many different avenues of science. So it just confuses me that a camp would request fair and serious consideration while they unexplainably assign greater value in weaker arguments that are systematically eroded or made obsolete by greater volumes of contemporary study


What makes me significantly angry is what these alternative conclusions and alternative claims are being used for. Increasingly just the existence of these alternative claims are being used to discredit the consensus claim, with no regards to whether those alternative claims have any merit or plausibility to begin with. Don’t people realize how crazy that is….Consider the following example situation. 80% of the people support a research claim that the earth is round. 10% support a research claim that it is flat. 5% support a research claim it is cuboidal. And another 5% believe the earth is actually a giant turtle shell. Would these mutually exclusive alternative claims be a strong argument against the majority? Of course not….right? No one in there right mind would argue like this would they?

“The overwhelming consensus of scientists and research indicates the earth is round”

“Nah that’s total BS a good deal of experts think otherwise. They say that the earth is simultaneously flat, cuboidal , and a giant turtle shell. The planet cant be round with such drastically alternative and numerous claims out there in existence. Its BS total BS”……

This example seems overly ridiculous but people have acted out this exact scenario several times over in this thread already. Listing a handful of alternative viewpoints they feel is a strong argument for their stance It doesn’t seem to matter if these alternative viewpoints correlate together or not it just matters if they disagree with the majority. As an argument they will bring up claims that the Earth is actually cooling…or that humans have no effect but warming is happening anyway….or that the sun is doing it….all these are mutually exclusive claims…they don’t support each other and when used together they don’t provide good evidence to sway from a scientific consensus. In the round earth example its easy to see how silly an argument that tactic makes but somehow people don’t see it as silly for these purposes

Im not sure how much room Ill have left but lets start demonstrating how the common minority arguments how so horribly weak. To save me time Im going to just cut n paste stuff. Instead of retrieving the source.



Objection:
The alarmists were predicting the onset of an Ice Age in the 70's, now it's warming! Why should we believe them?

Answer:
It is true that there were some predictions of an "emminent ice age" in the 1970's but what does this tell us about today's warnings?
A very cursory comparison of then and now reveals a huge difference. Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions solidy behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the cause and the warming will worsen unless we reduce emissions. In the 1970's, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. No daily headlines. No avalanche of scientific articles. No United Nations treaties and commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers.


Objection:
Global Warming is just a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government.


Answer:
Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.


Even some of the fossil fuel super companies themselves support it now…lol




Objection:
A few glaciers receding today is not proof of Global Warming, glaciers have grown and receded many times.


Answer:
No one claims that a few melting glaciers is proof of Global Warming. Proof is a mathematical concept. In climate science one needs to look at the balance of evidence and this is just more evidence on one side of that balance. Widespread and rapid retreat of glaciers is merely yet another observation consistent with all the other kinds of "melting" evidence.





Objection:

It was even warmer than today during the Holocene Climatic Optimum without any human influence.


Answer:

Actually, it turns out that though there may have indeed been some temperatures in the same range as today, this was regional to the northern hemisphere and confined to the summer months! What's more, the cause is understood (orbital forcing similar to what controlled the Ice Ages), just as today's cause is understood (CO2 emissions), and these causes are different.
"In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."



Objection:
It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period as today, in fact Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England.

Answer:
There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that did exhibit notable warmth but all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now and the temperature is rising faster than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years. Anecdotal evidence like that above can never tell you a global story.
NOAA presents a whole selection of proxy studies together with the data they are based on and these can be found here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
Specifically, they have this to say about the MWP:
"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."



Objection:
Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUV's on Mars, CO2 can't be causing Global Warming.

Answer:
There is very little evidence to go on when it comes to discerning a global climate change on Mars. A series of photographs of a single icey region in the southern hemisphere shows melting over a two year (~1 martian year) period.
On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers world wide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting and stratosphere cooling which leads us to believe we have GHG driven global warming.
On Mars we have one spot melting which leads us to believe...one spot is melting.




Jeeze….screw this….All of them are listed on that site….just find your favorite anti argument its probably already addressed……

I posted it before but it must not have been looked at cause some of these same arguements came up again....
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

.

[Danny]

Nice plate of fried Soylent Green anyone?

were do you think macdonalds ne w"crispy strips" come from?



"MACCY-D'S IS MADE OF PEOPLE!"

[coma]

were do you think macdonalds ne w"crispy strips" come from?



"MACCY-D'S IS MADE OF PEOPLE!"
It's McDonalds. Not MAC.
How do you get Maccy from Mc?
We call it Mickey D's.
Huh?

[Khardis]

Spot on, Tricky.

The chaotic panic about this whole global "warming" thing has gotten completely out of it, it's actually like in South Park when a crowd of people pissed off about something are actually all just bleetering "rabble rabble rabble", and in the 21st Century I'm ashamed to say the human race hasn't advanced past that retarded point.

If this issue is as big as the doomsayers say it is (which it f*cking isn't), then surely if they were actually intelligent and calm, reasonable people, then they'd be looking at ALL the arguments, ALL the evidence, not just running off in one direction like a headless chicken.

And the fact that people are leaping on anyone who is a naysayer on the issue, just proves beyond reasonable doubt exactly what was said in that documentary - if you're a naysayer, you're regarded as a holocaust denier ... and that's pretty retarded isn't it? That's the kind of thinking we last had when people believed others were witches and burnt them alive! :eek:

I hope all the naysayers gather together and stand up, rather than give up, giving up is never an option when it's a situation like this, so I hope they start coming out of the woodwork to cool this situation down.

Why would they do that? If theyre wrong it means theyre not better than the rest of us scumbag polluters anymore. Didnt you see the "smug" episode of southpark? It speaks volumes.

[Danny]

aye, i learned to stay indoors with the windows boarded after a geroge clooney acceptance speech:p

[Khardis]

Indeed, Cameron's most definitely got my vote, but you don't have to like everything your party of choice says - and I certainly don't like the green tax plane thing ... but on the other hand, if doing some of that bollocks helps get the Conservatives back in control of our out-of-control country, then I guess it's a means to an end.

But exactly, all these taxes penalise those who can't afford to pay, but need to use their car of take a flight.

I don't believe in all these nobs jetting off on holidays all the time, they're just greedy wankers who spend all their money - I've never been on a plane in my life thus far, seriously, NEVER.

The rich are rich enough, they can live off the interest on their piles of cash as it is, but the middle classes just keep getting squeezed having to pay for everything.

Green taxes are stupid, it's just a form of facism, forcing people to not use a service or useful tool, despite the fact many or the majority need to use the tool (e.g. the car - how many people do you know take car journeys for fun? I know none, it's a tool, all journeys are for a purpose).

Forcing people out of something is not the answer, it just earns a quick buck and plays into the hands of the doomsaying weirdos. Clean-fuelled jets is what you need and so on and so forth and all the other points I've stated up till now in support of my approach to climate change - which is natural!!

Speaking of which, was trading words with a friend of mine about this documentary the thread is on about, and he so staunchly believes in us being the cause it's gheay, and this is the same person who believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories...:rockbrow:

Question one thing but not the other? Blatant hypocrisy methinks. :bored:

Thats what liberals advocate. When they say "We need to change the way we live!" they mean: YOU need to change the way YOU live. Al Gores carbon footprint is massive with his private jet flying him all over the world to discuss global warming. I think thats the very definition of irony.


I hesitate to continue because I may start to sound more dismissive and maybe even a tinge condescending. Its just pure frustration. Its not that I particularly mind talking about global climate change or debating it. In fact for the most part I enjoy it. But that is the probably the problem.
I have always been willing to throw my two cents into a global climate change discussion. Perhaps that is what I find so frustrating….since I have read and witnessed so many of these debates and discussions I keep seeing the same arguments. Whats most annoying is that there is a great deal of confusion on whats true and whats not. The main cause of this confusion is not from conflicting scientific research, its from the sometimes intentional but mostly unintentional propagation of myths, falsehoods, dated research, and misinterpreted conclusions.

I cant recall a single argument in this thread countering human caused global warming that has not already been debunked, discredited, proven false, or otherwise dismissed for appropriate reasons. A couple people in this thread, who reject the claim that humans are the main cause of an apparent rapid global climate change, mention that the alternate theories are not being given serious attention or fair review…..

And that statement really really confuses me in one sense. And makes me significantly angry in another sense.

It confuses me because the people who say these other theories are not being given serious attention or fair review use these same theories to support their viewpoint. The arguments and studies that they use are inconsistent with contemporary research and are disputed by the overwhelming consensus of experts. Not just experts of a particular specialized field but experts in all disciplines of natural sciences. Sometimes these arguments use seriously dated research and other times is completely false or fabricated. So what confuses me is these people who say the other theories are not given serious and fair attention are themselves attributing a vastly disproportionate value in a minority theory. And if they even bothered to look they would discover that each of their arguments is disputed through many different avenues of science. So it just confuses me that a camp would request fair and serious consideration while they unexplainably assign greater value in weaker arguments that are systematically eroded or made obsolete by greater volumes of contemporary study


What makes me significantly angry is what these alternative conclusions and alternative claims are being used for. Increasingly just the existence of these alternative claims are being used to discredit the consensus claim, with no regards to whether those alternative claims have any merit or plausibility to begin with. Don’t people realize how crazy that is….Consider the following example situation. 80% of the people support a research claim that the earth is round. 10% support a research claim that it is flat. 5% support a research claim it is cuboidal. And another 5% believe the earth is actually a giant turtle shell. Would these mutually exclusive alternative claims be a strong argument against the majority? Of course not….right? No one in there right mind would argue like this would they?

“The overwhelming consensus of scientists and research indicates the earth is round”

“Nah that’s total BS a good deal of experts think otherwise. They say that the earth is simultaneously flat, cuboidal , and a giant turtle shell. The planet cant be round with such drastically alternative and numerous claims out there in existence. Its BS total BS”……

This example seems overly ridiculous but people have acted out this exact scenario several times over in this thread already. Listing a handful of alternative viewpoints they feel is a strong argument for their stance It doesn’t seem to matter if these alternative viewpoints correlate together or not it just matters if they disagree with the majority. As an argument they will bring up claims that the Earth is actually cooling…or that humans have no effect but warming is happening anyway….or that the sun is doing it….all these are mutually exclusive claims…they don’t support each other and when used together they don’t provide good evidence to sway from a scientific consensus. In the round earth example its easy to see how silly an argument that tactic makes but somehow people don’t see it as silly for these purposes

Im not sure how much room Ill have left but lets start demonstrating how the common minority arguments how so horribly weak. To save me time Im going to just cut n paste stuff. Instead of retrieving the source.










Even some of the fossil fuel super companies themselves support it now…lol

























Jeeze….screw this….All of them are listed on that site….just find your favorite anti argument its probably already addressed……

I posted it before but it must not have been looked at cause some of these same arguements came up again....
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

.


How do you explain away Mars global icecaps melting at the same rate as earths?

[Danny]

really?, mars'ice caps are metling?, it'd be interesting to see what affect mars ice turning to water would have on the planet.

[capncnut]

really?, mars'ice caps are metling?, it'd be interesting to see what affect mars ice turning to water would have on the planet.
It's crazy to think that a planet which is further away and definitely much more colder than Earth would have their ice caps melt at the same rate. In fact, that's kinda scary? :confused:

[Terran]

The south polar cap is vaporizing now, which means CO2 is rushing back into the atmosphere. "Remember, though," adds Smith, "there are two polar caps on Mars--north and south. While the south polar cap is vaporizing the north polar cap is growing. It's a balancing act. Overall air pressure will be greatest when there's the least amount of CO2 on the ground." The next such peak is due in early October--that is, early southern summer on Mars

So if one Ice Cap melts while the other grows that means Global Climate is remaining relatively constant....

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm



The mars arguement is another commonly used flawed arguement


There's Global Warming on Mars Too




Objection:
Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUV's on Mars, CO2 can't be causing Global Warming.

This is quite rich. One hundred years of weather station temperature data all over the globe and these guys still don't buy it. Three photos of one piece of ice on Mars and they have no doubts! As for Pluto, it hasn't even completed one orbit in the 150 years we've been reading the thermometers here on Earth! Still, avoid the temptation to laugh out loud...

Answer:
Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence but it does not necessarily have to have the same cause. The only relevant factor the Earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related it would have to be due to the sun. The sun is being watched and measured very carefully back here on earth and it is not the primary cause of the current climate change.

As for this alledged finding, there is very little evidence to go on when it comes to discerning a global climate change on Mars. The only evidence out there that I am aware of is a series of photographs of a single icey region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a two year (~1 martian year) period. Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region strains credulity. In fact, scientists studying Mars believe this is a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles.

See Global Warming on Mars? from Real Climate for more details.

As for Pluto, a cursory glance at Pluto's orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from two occultation observations 14 years apart way out there in the ice cold and lonely Kuiper Belt!

Back to Mars, here is a nice and succint way to compare the available evidence:

On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers world wide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting and stratosphere cooling which leads us to believe we have GHG driven global warming.

One Mars we have one spot melting which leads us to believe...one spot is melting.

[Danny]

well thats that theory dashed, though what would happen on mars if it got warmer?, if you had oceans would life start on there the same way it did on herE?, would algie form and produce oxygen or would life be created but take an entirley different route, thats like the best "what if?" idea i would ever wanna see happen.

[7feet]

You might also try to think about what is known about the Martian ice caps. One major bit of which is that they aren't all water ice, folks. A lot of it is frozen CO2, otherwise known as dry ice. A little temperature change and it just pops back into a gas, no liquid stage. Hell, at the tiny atmospheric pressure on Mars water ice will generally do the same thing. So pretty small temperature variations, including seasonal, can make big chunks of them go poof. Longer year, more elliptical orbit, little things like global dust storms that can blanket the planet for months at a time - there are a myriad of things that make comparisons just plain stupid. It's a vastly different planet with very different climactic influences.

Hey, if it got warmer, it would be interesting. But it's a tired old planet, and if anything it would be more likely that it had it and likely doesn't any more (though it would be a damn cool thing if there was some there). Theres some thought that life on Earth could have been seeded from Mars. It's a lot smaller, so would have cooled faster making for conditions where life could pop up, and we've found plenty of rocks here that had been blasted by bigger rocks off the surface of Mars. Some people have even done some tests putting micro-organisms under the sort of temperatures and pressures that would entail, and a few have survived. Hmmm. It would take a massive kick in the ass to warm it up, though. If those crazy planetologists are right and theres massive amounts of permafrost underneath the surface, that could be pretty cool.

[Khardis]

so because earth has 2 melting caps and mars has 1 (made of water) they dont compare? You do realize that the Northern (melting) icecap on mars is made mostly of H2O while the southern one (non-melting) is made mostly of frozen Carbon Dioxide aka Dry ice (which once evaporated becomes a gas instantly and not a liquid which can re-freeze again like H2O.


You might also try to think about what is known about the Martian ice caps. One major bit of which is that they aren't all water ice, folks. A lot of it is frozen CO2, otherwise known as dry ice. A little temperature change and it just pops back into a gas, no liquid stage. Hell, at the tiny atmospheric pressure on Mars water ice will generally do the same thing. So pretty small temperature variations, including seasonal, can make big chunks of them go poof. Longer year, more elliptical orbit, little things like global dust storms that can blanket the planet for months at a time - there are a myriad of things that make comparisons just plain stupid. It's a vastly different planet with very different climactic influences.

Hey, if it got warmer, it would be interesting. But it's a tired old planet, and if anything it would be more likely that it had it and likely doesn't any more (though it would be a damn cool thing if there was some there). Theres some thought that life on Earth could have been seeded from Mars. It's a lot smaller, so would have cooled faster making for conditions where life could pop up, and we've found plenty of rocks here that had been blasted by bigger rocks off the surface of Mars. Some people have even done some tests putting micro-organisms under the sort of temperatures and pressures that would entail, and a few have survived. Hmmm. It would take a massive kick in the ass to warm it up, though. If those crazy planetologists are right and theres massive amounts of permafrost underneath the surface, that could be pretty cool.


beat me to it :P

[MinionZombie]

It's McDonalds. Not MAC.
How do you get Maccy from Mc?
We call it Mickey D's.
Huh?
Because we're British and we're cooler than everyone else in the universe, that's why! :):p:sneaky:

Yeah, it's always been "Maccy D's" over here, I guess because we have "Old MACdonald had a farm" and such, whereas you guys have "Old MCdonald" ... right?

It's that damn split between English and Americalish isn't it? :)

[LouCipherr]

I'll just post a URL - I'm not going to comment on it.

NYTimes - A Call to Cool the Hype (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)


Al Gore treats the truth like your mom treats the good china - there's never an occasion actually special enough to use it, but it's nice to take it out and look at it once in a while. :p :D

[MinionZombie]

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”


Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Alarmism is utterly pointless, useless and actually damaging ... and as for the whole idea of "the time for debate is over" ... erm, excuse me, WHAT f*ckin' debate? Anything that comes out against Al Gore & Co's theories doesn't get anywhere near the coverage that they get, it's completely biased scaremongering.

[LouCipherr]

Anything that comes out against Al Gore & Co's theories doesn't get anywhere near the coverage that they get, it's completely biased scaremongering.

Say it isn't so.. :lol: :lol:

[MinionZombie]

I'm afraid it is sooooooo SO ... and that's super lame in this day and age, and especially in this democracy we're supposed to be living in where everyone gets a say and should be given the same press when it comes to an issue as important as this.

And that whole "just in case" theory is complete bollocks, well, we might as well "just in case" build a massive laser gun to shoot possibly evil aliens out f the sky, "just in case" they crop up and wanna probe us all - it's retarded.

"Just in case" is defeatism, and it's not being bothered about tackling the issue either, it's completely ignoring the whole other, completely valid, side of the argument, which has been spun and spun and spun by the global warming business machine that's controlled by all these politicians and businessmen with fingers in the global warming business pie. It's a f*ckin' industry unto itself, which is ironic considering the anti-establishment/capitalist/industrialist leanings of a significant enough chunk of the people following the whole movement. :rockbrow:

Am I pissed off this morning? F*ckin' A right I am...:eek:

[LouCipherr]

Am I pissed off this morning? F*ckin' A right I am...

Go MZ, go! :lol:

[MinionZombie]

Go MZ, go! :lol:
You get me in a room with Al Gore and all the politicians peddling this alarmist garbage and I'll bust some balls. :mad:

[Danny]

* al gore is talking in congres, mz and zombie man bust in in leather coats full of weapons, -que matrix lobby scene music...*:cool:

[MinionZombie]

* al gore is talking in congres, mz and zombie man bust in in leather coats full of weapons, -que matrix lobby scene music...*:cool:
Ohhh that'd be soooo hot ... er, I mean ... that'd be soooo cool :shifty:

I'd barge in with some common sense and beat them over the beanbags/funbags with it, "CALM DOWN, BITCHES!" we'd roar...

[LouCipherr]

Just out of curiosity, if global warming is such a threat to the planet - and Gore is the "leader" of this so-called "save energy and the panet" movement, why won't the guy take a "personal energy ethics pledge"?

Take a look: Gore Refuses to take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca)

Judging by the pledge, it doesn't seem like someone in his position and stance on global warming should have any ANY problem whatsoever signing this:

As a believer:

·that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

·that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

·that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

·that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”

Yet he wouldn't take the pledge. Am I the only one that finds this slightly contradictory to his stance on the issue? He should've been ready to sign in a heartbeat.

I'm just sayin'...

"Things that make you go 'hmmmm......'"

[DVW5150]

Just out of curiosity, if global warming is such a threat to the planet - and Gore is the "leader" of this so-called "save energy and the panet" movement, why won't the guy take a "personal energy ethics pledge"?

Take a look: Gore Refuses to take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca)

Judging by the pledge, it doesn't seem like someone in his position and stance on global warming should have any ANY problem whatsoever signing this:

As a believer:

·that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

·that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

·that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

·that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”

Yet he wouldn't take the pledge. Am I the only one that finds this slightly contradictory to his stance on the issue? He should've been ready to sign in a heartbeat.

I'm just sayin'...

"Things that make you go 'hmmmm......'"

Hmmm , he got am academy award for his "Inconvenient Truth" WTF? Thats not good , leaders should lead by example . I thought his film was good .Its not a matter of believing the world is melting , just that something is happening . There is proof . To ignore it is foolish .The debate stalls progress to do something in our small way as custodians of this planet. We are only residents of this globe , not the bosses .

[LouCipherr]

Agreed, something is indeed happening.

The problem with Gore is he puts the blame on humans - yet other planets in our solar system are heating up too, and without the aid of human interference. Just an odd coincidence, or did we cause those planets to heat up too with our CO2 emissions? :lol:

I think we have some pretty clear evidence that the warming trend on our planet is not human influenced - or at least human influence isn't the main cause... and that Gore is just being an alarmist.

I'm all for conserving energy, but certain people are just being dishonest about it to gain more control over you.

[bassman]

I caught "An Inconvenient Truth" on tv the other night. Interesting watch. I didn't buy into all of it.....but interesting.

The pointless line graphs got on my nerves, though.:rolleyes:

[MinionZombie]

Al Gore was on Richard & Judy here in the UK (a TV talk show) and was interviewed by this stuff, then Richard brought up this documentary and the argument against what Gore is peddling - Gore got all defensive and really frosty all of a sudden and just said, basically, 'it's been proven, that's IT!!! :mad:'

What a complete dillhole. I don't deny our climate is changing, but like I constantly say, I'd rather trust the a-political, no conscience entity that is THE F*CKING SUN, to determine our climate than a heavily politicised BUSINESS movement.

As for the "spiritual" line in that pledge, WHAT THE F*CK BEANS is that about?! The new religion for the 21st century, no diggity...

Just think about it, without the Sun, everything on our planet would die - that's a massive amount of power and control over us from a big hot ball in the sky isn't it? So how is it so hard to understand that the same ball of flaming hot fire can determine our climate, a task that is far below - on the ladder of relatively-speaking - that our holding power over whether we live or die.

Essentially, the Sun is our "God".

I am sensing a seed of discontent growing into a plant of "HEY, F*CK YOU, BUDDY!" ... I hope that those who don't swallow this Gore & Co peddled shiite start coming forth in greater frequency.

Like we've been constantly saying here, we don't deny climate change, but the CAUSE is what we differ on, and we don't believe it's humans doing all this, but the Sun and so forth.

As for us humans, the next natural step in our evolution, as it stood anyway, was always going to be efficiency. We've had the massive foot forward with the Industrial Revolution, which has given us the somewhat-crude tools to power ourselves forward - now we just need to work out the kinks, which includes efficiency.

It just makes good sense to recycle and turn to renewable energy (that is efficient and actually worthwhile, though). We don't have enough room to keep burying trash, so let's recycle it - it makes natural sense, and is a part of said strive for human efficiency like I said.

[Terran]

Objection:
The sun is the source of all the warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is most likely due to changes in solar radiation.

Well, it's not an unreasonable first guess, but why leave it there, why not check and see what the sun is doing?

Answer:
It's very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature is going up or down a reasonable place to find the reason why would be the sun. It turns out that it is more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. After all, one good cloud passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is by taking readings from space.

According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.

There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 til the 1940's. This trend in irradiance is responsible for large portion of that trend, together with around the same portion from CO2 forcing. See this chart of the observed trend, the modeled trend and the variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.

Real Climate has also done a couple of more detailed discussions both about what the conclusions about solar forcing are, as well as exactly how they were arrived at. Read them here and here.

Other Guides, by Category

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.html

[LouCipherr]

So what you're trying to say is that the sun cannot be the cause of the planet heating up? Am I reading that correctly?

If that's the case, please explain why other plants in our solar system are heating up too, just like the earth. No faster nor any slower than the earth is, either.

Must be our CO2 floating through the solar system and landing on other planets, right? :D


Is the surface record wrong in respect of both the amount of warming reported during the 1920s and in respect of the disputed warming trend it reports since 1979? In the latter case, the surface record is contradicted by both the satellite MSU record and the radio sonde record [2].

This is where individual station records can prove useful. Such records represent real temperatures recorded at real places one can find on a map [23]. As such they are not the product of esoteric statistical processing or computer manipulation, and each can be assessed individually.

Some critics will dismiss individual station records as merely `anomalous' (in which case most of the non-urban stations would have to be dismissed on those grounds), but when one station acquires an importance far beyond its own little record, no effort is spared to discredit it. This was the fate of Cloncurry, Queensland, Australia, which holds the honour of having recorded the hottest temperature ever measured in Australia, a continent known for its hot temperatures. The record was 53.1°C set, not in the `warm' 1990s, but in 1889. It was a clear target for revisionism, for how can a skeptical public be convinced of `global warming' when Cloncurry holds such a century-old record? The attack was made by Blair Trewin of the School or Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne [27], with ample assistance from the whole meteorological establishment. And all this effort and expense was deployed to discredit one temperature reading on one hot day at one outback station 111 years ago.

Stations do matter.

SOURCE (http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm)

[Terran]

Ive already mentioned the other planet arguement



Objection:
Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUV's on Mars, CO2 can't be causing Global Warming.

This is quite rich. One hundred years of weather station temperature data all over the globe and these guys still don't buy it. Three photos of one piece of ice on Mars and they have no doubts! As for Pluto, it hasn't even completed one orbit in the 150 years we've been reading the thermometers here on Earth! Still, avoid the temptation to laugh out loud...

Answer:
Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence but it does not necessarily have to have the same cause. The only relevant factor the Earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related it would have to be due to the sun. The sun is being watched and measured very carefully back here on earth and it is not the primary cause of the current climate change.

As for this alledged finding, there is very little evidence to go on when it comes to discerning a global climate change on Mars. The only evidence out there that I am aware of is a series of photographs of a single icey region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a two year (~1 martian year) period. Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region strains credulity. In fact, scientists studying Mars believe this is a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles.

See Global Warming on Mars? from Real Climate for more details.

As for Pluto, a cursory glance at Pluto's orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from two occultation observations 14 years apart way out there in the ice cold and lonely Kuiper Belt!

Back to Mars, here is a nice and succint way to compare the available evidence:

On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers world wide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting and stratosphere cooling which leads us to believe we have GHG driven global warming.

One Mars we have one spot melting which leads us to believe...one spot is melting.


Regional climate change is not the same thing as global climate change....

[LouCipherr]

Regional climate change is not the same thing as global climate change....

really now? Regional temperatures, if there was indeed global warming, would reflect this warming trend, would it not? It stands to reason that if the planet is warming, these regional observations would reflect that. They do not. So how can anyone possibly say the planet is warming if regional temperatures all over the planet do not show this trend? We're talking thousands and thousands of data points all over the earth here.

...and to say the other planets warming right along with earth is just "coincidence" is rather convienent, wouldn't you? As your quote stated, it doesn't "necessicarily mean" they were caused by the same thing but I find it hard that 3 different planets (or more) in our own solar system warming right along with earth is just a 'coincidence.' That's just way too easy of an answer for the people pushing this GW theory.

Should I mention the pictures of the sun that were just released recently that shows what scientists are calling "the impossible" that has been found there? and that what they have found in these pictures now "re-writes what we know about the sun and it's effects on the solar system"?

We could argue this to the ends of the soon-to-be-underwater earth :D but until someone can show hard data that there is indeed global warming (and not 'so-called' facts that contradictory to historical temperature data from across the world), then I just can't buy into it.

It won't matter, we'll be underwater in what, 10 years? Isn't that Al's prediction? :lol:

[Terran]

really now? Regional temperatures, if there was indeed global warming, would reflect this warming trend, would it not?

The short answer is no.

Longer answer: If you look at another planet like mars and see a single region warming that is totally disreguarding what is happening elsewhere on the planet. Example being, if one region on the planet mars is warming and another region of the planet is cooling then global climate for practical purposes is constant, neither warming nor cooling despite regional effects.

If martians had three satellite pictures of northamerica as winter was transitioning into spring and then into summer would they conclude that the entire planet was warming based on that one region....Of course not....


It stands to reason that if the planet is warming, these regional observations would reflect that. They do not. So how can anyone possibly say the planet is warming if regional temperatures all over the planet do not show this trend? We're talking thousands and thousands of data points all over the earth here.

Portions of what I said above address this but additionally regional data by themselves are useless because as this global climate change develops on earth some regions on earth will get colder on average than they are now but the overall planet's climate will be warmer. Saying that the whole planet is going to get warmer is not saying that every region on the planet is going to get warmer.....



...and to say the other planets warming right along with earth is just "coincidence" is rather convienent, wouldn't you? As your quote stated, it doesn't "necessicarily mean" they were caused by the same thing but I find it hard that 3 different planets (or more) in our own solar system warming right along with earth is just a 'coincidence.' That's just way too easy of an answer for the people pushing this GW theory.
As stated in previous posts and in this one there is no evidence of other planets warming. We have evidence of individual regions on planets warming, but a singular region by itself tells us nothing about the planets global climate. Pluto takes 247.8 years to revolve around the Sun so we havent even witnessed the full "seasonal" effect yet.



Should I mention the pictures of the sun that were just released recently that shows what scientists are calling "the impossible" that has been found there? and that what they have found in these pictures now "re-writes what we know about the sun and it's effects on the solar system"?
You can mention it but I wouldnt understand how it supports any conclusion since I have already addressed the sun and how "According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend. "




We could argue this to the ends of the soon-to-be-underwater earth :D but until someone can show hard data that there is indeed global warming (and not 'so-called' facts that contradictory to historical temperature data from across the world), then I just can't buy into it.

I dont know where you coming from talking about an underwater earth?...Ive already mentioned earlier in this thread that I dont know of any scientists agreeing with the human caused global climate change who have claimed that the earth is going to be underwater....Are you trying to make a ridiculous claim to defuse other more sensible conclusions?

In reguards to the claim that this conclusion is contradictory to historical temperature data from across the world. Where did you get that statement from!? The whole reason the overwhelming consensus of invididual scientists, and scientific institutions have come to this conclusion is BECAUSE it compliments historical temperature data from across the world. Not only that it also compliments other independent contemporary studies from different displines like:

NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
CRU direct surface temperature analysis
Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost is melting



What more evidence do you need to "buy" it.

What your doing is exactly what I mentioned poeple do in a previous post in this thread....

Ill sum up that post in an example:
80% of scientists conclude that the earth is round 10% Conclude that it is flat, 5% conclude that it is cuboidal, 3% conclude that it is a giant pyramid, and 2% conclude that it is infact a giant turtle shell.

I would agree that the 80% of scientists are probally correct and all empirical research supports their claim.

But if your global climate change stance is an indication of how you would react then you would respond like this.

"I cannot buy the conclusion that the earth is round. It contradicts the finding that it is flat. It contradicts the finding that it is cuboidal, it contradicts the finding that it is a giant pyramid and it contradicts the finding that it is a giant turtle shell"

So while you havent claimed to support any of the alternative conclusions their mere existance is enough for you not to reasonably consider the consensus.

You and others will say that this is not what you are doing but when you take dozens of different contradictory claims to weaken a single more supported claim that is exactly what you are doing.

In one response you will take "evidence" that the earth's climate change is being caused by the sun. Then this will get followed up with "evidence" that earth's climate change is happening from natural planetary(not sun) processes. Then this will get followed up with "evidence" that global climate change is not occuring at all.

So one would use three different alternative claims to weaken the one stronger one. Each of these claims individually suffer from far more historical and empirical contradictions than the stronger claim yet somehow this tactic convinces people.



That whole recent report that came out concluding that there is a 90% probality that global climate change is caused from humans contained volumes of "hard data" supporting it. And before that there were scores and scores of "hard data" supporting it.


I guess I should be asking you and others what type of "hard data" are you looking for that would make you consider human caused global climate change. This should be enlightening for several possibilities:

It will either demonstrate a misunderstanding of what actual global climate change means, or....
It will allow you and others to clarify the key issues that makes you questionable of the consensus conclusion. (and this would point out how many different alternative theories one is holding onto to weaken one.)
It will help me understand why people dont believe it. Because so far the only reason I can come up with that people dont support this conclusion is that they dont particularly care what happens in about lifetime so that they want things to remain how they are, taxes, transportation costs, etc...Or/Additionally they dont particularly believe that humans are capable of having a large effect on the planent so any evidence no matter how credible that contradicts the consensus conclusion is viewed disporportionately stronger.

[Chic Freak]

May I be the first to say...

PWN3D!

Go Terran! :D

[Neil]

80% of scientists conclude that the earth is round 10% Conclude that it is flat, 5% conclude that it is cuboidal, 3% conclude that it is a giant pyramid, and 2% conclude that it is infact a giant turtle shell.

I would agree that the 80% of scientists are probally correct and all empirical research supports their claim.

Not wishing to sound facetious, but once upon a time 1% of scientists said we evolved from apes and 99% said we didn't...

Opinions change, especially when to a certain degree these opinion are sort of 'pyramids of knowledge', ie: one opinion is based on someone elses which is based on someone else etc... etc...


Now, please don't mis-understand my point here - I'm on the fence regarding global warming and regularly hop from one side of it to the other as the areas seems generally muddy and boggy with no clear place to stand...

[Terran]

Not wishing to sound facetious, but once upon a time 1% of scientists said we evolved from apes and 99% said we didn't...

Opinions change, especially when to a certain degree these opinion are sort of 'pyramids of knowledge', ie: one opinion is based on someone elses which is based on someone else etc... etc...


Now, please don't mis-understand my point here - I'm on the fence regarding global warming and regularly hop from one side of it to the other as the areas seems generally muddy and boggy with no clear place to stand...



Christ!!! Neil!!!..... why do you have to bring reasonable disbelief into the situation....:D


I was addressing the majority of what I said on what I perceived as unreasonable disbelief....



As this issue relates to your non-intentional “facetious” point….
Isn’t the early human evolution acceptance comparison a bit unfair of a relationship to draw from global warming…
When human evolution was developing analytical techniques were just developing…Hell genetics did not exist before evolution became a theory….hell….genetics wouldn’t exist as it is today if evolution wasn’t widely supported….

Hell back then aside from geologists people still thought the earth was only a couple of thousand of years old…


The difference is we have way more firm “pyramid stones” to support and structure developing theories now than we ever did in the past. (additionally one could argue that human caused climate change is meeting similiar resistance that evolution encountered...and it is only growing in strength because of the accumulation of undeniable evidence...like evolution)

But if you want to look back historically for a comparison I think it would be a fair assumption that most peoples objections to the human evolution theory was widely unscientific…


Which is similar to the objection seen today…* notices that this is a point of argument but I didn’t want to make a post huge supporting this statement…


There is nothing wrong with reasonable objection. That is how scientific theories are sculpted…

Human caused global climate change so far covers and collaborates more of the evidence than any of the other hypothesis’s combined….as more information comes in the conclusion changes slightly…If anything significantly develops that disputes the basis for this idea than it will erode and become nonexistent….
Is this is not big news in itself…as more and more independent studies come in they continue to support the consensus theory?

[MinionZombie]

I'm with you pretty much, Neil. The whole 'opinion based on another's opinion' thing is a good point, I think that's happened a whole hell of a lot with the whole GW brigade. Yes, it's sensible that you have some of it, but the Al Gore side appears to be swamped in such a thing, and thus - the alarmist wank.

As for the shape of the earth, that's a bit daft to compare to however many scientists apparently or perhaps more accurately suggested to be in favour of Gore & Co. We've seen the earth from outer spaced, and there's endless proof that it's a big sphere. Any numpty who suggests otherwise, when there's blatant unavoidable proof - i.e. video and photographic evidence on the simple issue of our planet's shape - is just looking for money for controversial garbage 'research'.

The angle that scientists are hanging as much of their research as possible around global warming is also interesting, it's a well known fact that in the scientific community, the fudging of results to gain money is common practice - both my parents have seen this in the bio-chemistry field, in which they used to work - so you can quite easily suggest there's something to gain from going along with the 'GW is our fault' thing, namely - money.

Seemingly there's little to gain from the 'it's natural climate change' side of things. Yes, there will be some who have been 'bought' by the big bad evil oil companies, but that is something you can easily check out, you can't hide that kinda sh*t, so the people who come forth and say without a quiver that they are not on the oil payroll, are gaining no personal profit from the debate - they're simply wanting to do the right thing.

And to me, that suggests greater validity, reliability and trustworthiness. Yes, there'll be trustworthy people on the Gore side who just wanna be good, but the movement itself is intensely politicised and you cannot deny that it isn't a huge business, I mean HUGE.

We need calm and rationality and for ALL opinions and evidence to be properly judged and researched, for it is to the detriment of the entire planet and mankind, to go running off down one single path due to a guilty conscience.

Once again, I don't deny there are changes happening to our climate, but it is the number one cause we're all rabble-rabbling about. Mankind most certainly should seek to improve efficiency, recycle and use renewable energy, it's the natural progression of mankind's evolution - but bashing 'the new bible' ("An Inconvenient Truth" on DVD ... made out of plastic, paper and other such oil-derived substances :p) like a blinkered sheep is pointless.

Besides, if Gore isn't willing to cut his epic electricity bill and live by his own rules, that just puts a big stamp of "do as I say, not as I do" usual political wank all over the whole deal, and exposes the Gore & Co side to some of it's own inconvenient truths. :rockbrow::sneaky:

[Neil]

Christ!!! Neil!!!..... why do you have to bring reasonable disbelief into the situation....:D


I was addressing the majority of what I said on what I perceived as unreasonable disbelief....



As this issue relates to your non-intentional “facetious” point….
Isn’t the early human evolution acceptance comparison a bit unfair of a relationship to draw from global warming…
When human evolution was developing analytical techniques were just developing…Hell genetics did not exist before evolution became a theory….hell….genetics wouldn’t exist as it is today if evolution wasn’t widely supported….

Hell back then aside from geologists people still thought the earth was only a couple of thousand of years old…


The difference is we have way more firm “pyramid stones” to support and structure developing theories now than we ever did in the past. (additionally one could argue that human caused climate change is meeting similiar resistance that evolution encountered...and it is only growing in strength because of the accumulation of undeniable evidence...like evolution)

But if you want to look back historically for a comparison I think it would be a fair assumption that most peoples objections to the human evolution theory was widely unscientific…


Which is similar to the objection seen today…* notices that this is a point of argument but I didn’t want to make a post huge supporting this statement…


There is nothing wrong with reasonable objection. That is how scientific theories are sculpted…

Human caused global climate change so far covers and collaborates more of the evidence than any of the other hypothesis’s combined….as more information comes in the conclusion changes slightly…If anything significantly develops that disputes the basis for this idea than it will erode and become nonexistent….
Is this is not big news in itself…as more and more independent studies come in they continue to support the consensus theory?

Yes, of course the example was rediculous, but I was trying to make a point... Just because the majority agree it doesn't automatically make it right, ESPECIALLY when a large proportion disagree....

If 80% of scientists suggest we are affecting the climate, why do 20% disagree? It's obviously not so obvious that it convinces them all...

Again, I'm not against the suggestion we're to blame, but the arguments seem so many, on both sides, that's it hard to come to a conclusion.

[LouCipherr]

If 80% of scientists suggest we are affecting the climate, why do 20% disagree? It's obviously not so obvious that it convinces them all...

Exaclty, Neil - there IS NO CONSENSUS ON HUMAN INFLUENCED GLOBAL WARMING.

I think some may have missed the may posts that I stated I believe SOMETHING is going on with the planet, but I don't believe that humans are the main cause of this - at least not yet I don't because I don't have enough data to come to that conclusion.



Terran - when I stated that regional temperatures should reflect an overall warming, you bring up mars. I'm not talking about Mars, i'm talking about EARTH.

You mean to tell me, you honestly believe that the planet Earth can warm up but the thousands regional temperatures from data points from all over the planet will not show this warming trend? How can a planet that's supposedly warming up so quick possibly not reflect that around the planet? So, the ice caps will melt because the planet is warming, but at the same time, all of the datapoints around the world will say "oh, our temps are the same as they were 20 years ago"

Doesn't make sense.



Besides, if Gore isn't willing to cut his epic electricity bill and live by his own rules, that just puts a big stamp of "do as I say, not as I do" usual political wank all over the whole deal, and exposes the Gore & Co side to some of it's own inconvenient truths. :rockbrow::sneaky:

This was my main point of bringing this thread back to life. If Gore himself, the so-called "champion" of the global warming brigade, the one who is saying "We're all gonna die if YOU don't do something about it" is the one who REFUSES to cut back his own energy use.

Why is that? The leader and biggest proponent of global warming refuses to take a pledge to cut back his own energy use to the "average" american household usage.

Seems to me, that right there is a big indicator that even the 'leader' of this movement doesn't believe in what he's saying. Either that or he's just a smug asshole. If he did believe in what he is preaching, you would think he would gladly cut back his energy use, don't you?

Although, i'm sure the proponents of GW will come up with yet another excuse as to why he shouldn't be held to that standard, and that him refusing the pledge (that gore would want OTHERS to follow) was perfectly acceptable. How convienent.

I don't want to hear "oh, but he's involved in this progam, and that program, and they're all about conserving energy and saving the planet" - from what Al has taught us from his movie, this saving the planet stuff starts at home, with the individual - something he is unwilling, apparently, to comply with.

Again, doesn't make sense. Too many gaps. If you're gonna 'talk the talk' then 'walk the walk'. Simple as that. These people (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/garden/22impact.html?ex=1332216000&en=e77725051fe1a853&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) seem to have no problem, why does Al?



Terran - I can honestly say you are much more educated on your stance of GW than most. Kudos. Some things your have mentioned has even made me tilt my head a bit and think "hmmmmm...." but, there is still unanswered questions that neither of us can probably answer. I only remain a skeptic because I just don't see enough proof for myself to believe it is true. It's obvious you do, and kudos to you for digging in sticking to your guns. ;)

I'll leave this discussion for others now. I've stated my opinion, good or bad, for better for worse, right or wrong - it is what it is.

[Terran]

Exaclty, Neil - there IS NO CONSENSUS ON HUMAN INFLUENCED GLOBAL WARMING.




What in your opinion does a consensus look like?



In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is likely to have been due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning.

This statement has been explicitly endorsed by:


Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences



In addition, the following institutions specializing in Climate, Atmosphere, Ocean and/or Earth sciences have published the same conclusions:


NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)


If this is not consensus, then what in the world would consensus look like?




You mean to tell me, you honestly believe that the planet Earth can warm up but the thousands regional temperatures from data points from all over the planet will not show this warming trend? How can a planet that's supposedly warming up so quick possibly not reflect that around the planet? So, the ice caps will melt because the planet is warming, but at the same time, all of the datapoints around the world will say "oh, our temps are the same as they were 20 years ago"

Doesn't make sense.


My point was not that regional temperatures will not show warming trends it was that all regions together do not have to show a warming trend. As long as the average temperature of the planet raises then it still supports global warming.
So if Region A cools 5 degrees on average and Region B heats up 15 degrees on average then between the two of them you have a 10 degree increase.

So not all the data points around the world have to show warming as long as all of them together still show warming.....



You may ask yourself 2005 was a record year, one really warm year or two is not global warming?


every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992
the ten hottest years on record occured in the last 15
every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976
the 20 hottest years on record occured in the last 25
every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956
every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917

The five year mean global temperature in 1910 was .8oC lower than the five year mean in 2002. This and all the above come from the analysis by NASA GISS here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

This trend doesnt particularly say much by itself but in conjunction with other information its an interesting thing to notice.


So so far all the data points around the world are supporting a global warming trend....

[Mutineer]

Was this thread started for sake of controversy ? I cannot fathom someone disagreeing with the Global Warming phenomenon. The facts are there, the research is there, the statistics are there,the support is there.

Is it entirely unrealistic to takes preventative steps to stop this phenomenon ? Or will irrational ignorance (and stubborness) prevail ? Do you think a bunch of guys are sitting around making this up ?

-

If anything; get us off Oil Dependancy. A by-product may be saving the planet.

[Neil]

What in your opinion does a consensus look like?

If this is not consensus, then what in the world would consensus look like?

Out of interest, got a list of who doesn't agree?

[Tricky]

Remember it wasnt actually that long ago (on the grand scheme of things) that the experts thought the earth was flat & you could sail off the end of it.
Heres a quote from a book i recently read-

"they didnt understand what they were doing"
Im afraid that will be on the tombstone of the human race

-taken from michael crichtons novel "prey"

And that is exactly right,we dont understand what we're doing,we just think we do!regardless of which side of the fence you are on,or indeed hopping between,nobody truly knows without a shadow of a doubt why the climate is changing.

[erisi236]

Remember it wasn't actually that long ago (on the grand scheme of things) that the experts thought the earth was flat & you could sail off the end of it.

Actually it was quite a long time ago, especially if you're talking about the "experts". Folks in the 1st Century were already pretty clued in to the fact that Earth was in fact round. :D

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

[coma]

Actually it was quite a long time ago, especially if you're talking about the "experts". Folks in the 1st Century were already pretty clued in to the fact that Earth was in fact round. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Yeah?
What about spontaneous generation"
People STILL believe in that.

When people focus on Al Gore's recent film like it's some kind of reason to slag the whole thing it leads me to believe the whole reason to say it a hoax is partisan. He's just one guy.
How much proof is enough?
What is the downside to cleaning up the planet and energy independence?
I dont see any long term downside.

A swindle is a conscious effort to forward an untruth as truth. That means that every scientist who believes this is a case is purposefully lying.
There is a lot of motivation for individuals to say it's not happening (Like oil$< for example) bit what is the motivation to say it exists? I dont see anything substantial

All that "the sun is causing climate change" is absolutely ridiculous to me. Thre could (though I dont believe there are) other reason for it, but the sun being a reason is preposterous.

[erisi236]

Yeah?
What about "spontaneous generation"
People STILL believe in that.


Heh, and some people believe the 6 Lunar landings were a hoax and 9-11 was an "inside job". People are idiots. :D

P.S. every one should switch to CFL Light Bulbs, today, they save so much energy compaired to the regular bulbs and they last for 8 years. You to can be friendly to the Environment. :)

[Tricky]

Actually it was quite a long time ago, especially if you're talking about the "experts". Folks in the 1st Century were already pretty clued in to the fact that Earth was in fact round. :D

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


Aye but what i meant was it was only in the last few hundred years that they discovered this,when mans actually been here approximately 250,000 years ;)

And even more recent,most experts believed that if people travelled on the newly invented trains,they would suffocate if they went over 20 mph :lol:

We were also all brought up to believe pluto was a planet as the experts told us,but now thats changed in the last few months and its not a planet after all.Im not saying scientists dont know anything,because they know a lot!but their conclusions are often a bit off the mark


Heh, and some people believe the 6 Lunar landings were a hoax and 9-11 was an "inside job". People are idiots. :D

P.S. every one should switch to CFL Light Bulbs, today, they save so much energy compaired to the regular bulbs and they last for 8 years. You to can be friendly to the Environment. :)

Their actually making it illegal to have anything but those bulbs over here,i wouldnt mind but they give out a really awful wishy washy light :(

[MinionZombie]

Making a bulb illegal - pathetic facism.

It should be a choice, not force. The problem with those lights is they take a while to warm up, and they're not quite as strong. Now, while I don't have trouble with them, some people do have trouble with them - they can feel sick and get headaches from them. Judy Finegan recently wrote about how she felt like a pile of sh*t after they installed those bulbs, then they got rid of them and she felt better - most likely something to do with the 'refresh rate' of the light itself, kind of like with a computer monitor. If you have it set at the wrong refresh rate, while you may not notice anything, you don't feel too hot sat there staring at the screen. Change the rate and you'll feel fine.

So that's what I reckon the problem is that some people are having with those lights, my Mum is also suspicious of those lights, finding problems with headaches when around them too long.

Change should be a matter of choice, not wanker facism forcing you to, where's the democracy in that?

Also, what if people stock up on the old ones and just use those? How are you going to tell if they're using the new ones or not? Surely people will find a way to get the old ones if they want, how are they gonna know? Probably another household snoop sent from the gubment, like they're trying to do at the moment when it comes to consensus' or tax - like being taxed more if you've put a conservatory on your house, or you live in a good area - F*CKING SICKENING...penalised for achieving, so I guess we should all give up and live in squalor then, eh?

[Khardis]

P.S. every one should switch to CFL Light Bulbs, today, they save so much energy compaired to the regular bulbs and they last for 8 years. You to can be friendly to the Environment. :)

No thanks, I dont buy into the hoax of "friendly to the environment".

[erisi236]

Strange, I never had a problem with my CFL bulbs, theres several different shapes, sizes, "warmths" and wattages, maybe you got some ones that don't work well for your particular space. :)

They did need to "warm up" a bit before turning on awhile ago, but the ones I got a few months ago turn right on like regular ones, I think they fixed that problem. :cool:

I don't know what to feel about making regular bulbs illegal, appearentaly they want to do it in California, seems a bit too extreme. Of course back in the early 90's they made it illegal to make toilets that used more then a certain amount of watter and that worked out for the better, even if at the time low flow toilets sucked. So I dunno.

And Pluto is still a Planet dammit I don't care what they say. :lol:

[MinionZombie]

Hooray for Pluto! I still like to consider it a planet. :)

Low flow toilets ... no much good, are they, if you blast a massive loaf in there though? That's what I heard.

Or you could just put a brick in the cistern of a normal toilet and cut down the water ... or - two settings, one for pee, one for poo...maybe even a third for "you're gonna need niagra to shift that jobby, son!" :p

[capncnut]

And Pluto is still a Planet dammit I don't care what they say. :lol:
Then that means the solar system has gained a few more planets 'cos if you're gonna still class Pluto as one, then you have to include Ceres and Sedna as planets.

Pluto just sounds nice. But a planet it ain't. :(

[coma]

Then that means the solar system has gained a few more planets 'cos if you're gonna still class Pluto as one, then you have to include Ceres and Sedna as planets.

Pluto just sounds nice. But a planet it ain't. :(
Its not about what is true
It about what you want to believe:)