Climate Change

[mps]

Hmmm, what pisses me off about this graph?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42256000/gif/_42256776_greenhouse_gra416.gif

Nothing will ever change until the US start making an effort. At the moment though they're too concerned about possibly hurting their economy, rather than planning for a (near) future global catastrophe.

[richter915]

where the hell is China on that list? If you look at % increase I'm willing to bet they're ahead of the US...but in terms of pure tons emitted the US will always top other nations and Americans will probably think it's cause we're the best country so we can do as we wish.

also, Americans will disregard ur source because tonnes is not spelled in the American English way therefore it's foreign, therefore it's communist, therefore your graph supports terrorism.

[xwisebuddhax]

I believe it, we are essentially a redneck-conservative-right nation. Well, at least thats who runs it. Doubt anything will change soon...

[richter915]

I believe it, we are essentially a redneck-conservative-right nation. Well, at least thats who runs it. Doubt anything will change soon...
it doesn't even matter that we're full of idiots...it's that it's greedy people who run the nation and choose how our economy will work. Considering how global capitalism and exploitation is what keeps america running (and by running I mean creating severe socioeconomic gaps and making the rich richer) I doubt these statistics will matter to people.

[ASUFocker]

Hmmm, what pisses me off about this graph?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42256000/gif/_42256776_greenhouse_gra416.gif

Nothing will ever change until the US start making an effort. At the moment though they're too concerned about possibly hurting their economy, rather than planning for a (near) future global catastrophe.

what pisses me off about your graph is that it is wrong. The gap in btw the 14 years in America is a lot larger than that and China is no where to be seen.

[mps]

what pisses me off about your graph is that it is wrong. The gap in btw the 14 years in America is a lot larger than that and China is no where to be seen.

I didn't make the graph, and I think the people who did are probably more correct that you.

[oldwirehands]

also, Americans will disregard ur source because tonnes is not spelled in the American English way therefore it's foreign, therefore it's communist, therefore your graph supports terrorism.

hahahahaha Those silly terrorists. First planes, now bar graphs. What will they come up with next? Pie charts?

[burntheaction]

to be fair, the usa is the largest country on there...
USA isn't the only country with an increase, and if you worked it out, their increase is likely to be around the same percentage increase as canada, italy and japan.

[Justin_stacy]

to be fair, the usa is the largest country on there...
USA isn't the only country with an increase, and if you worked it out, their increase is likely to be around the same percentage increase as canada, italy and japan.

no actually its much less. Canada had a 25% increase while the US had only a 15% increase during the same period.
http://www.kansascity.com/images/kansascity/kansascitystar/news/gb_climate_emissions103106_10-31-2006_ASORMJ7.jpg

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

man dont you guys hate america
seriously

[we are cured]

man dont you guys hate america
seriously

yes i hate my country!!! fuck bush!!! fuck the republicans!!

obviously we don't 'hate America,' we just like to push for a positive change. if you just sit on your ass and think, "i'm free and the grass is green, this place is great, anybody who hates our government is a terrorist," you're oblivious to the fact that this is a changing world and that America (more specifically the government of America), as the leader of trade and global economy, should take some fucking responsibility for what it is doing to the environment.

that's what's great about liberals...we are smart enough to know that things do change, and that we are not always right. but we start the fights and arguments that lead to female voting rights, the abolition of slavery, and greater civil rights.

edit: if someone says anything about classic liberals, i will freak. i mean liberals in today's sense of the word.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

i agree

so those liberals that your talking about, the ones that are so noble that they want to make a positive difference. the ones that are in a position to do so. should start doing it. all i hear from them is that Bush is doing it wrong, but never how we should be doing things. its easy to "sit on your ass" and say that were screwing things up. but problems need solutions. so lets hear some. if you have some, then what i just said doesn't apply to you and thats great.

[we are cured]

i agree

so those liberals that your talking about, the ones that are so noble that they want to make a positive difference. the ones that are in a position to do so. should start doing it. all i hear from them is that Bush is doing it wrong, but never how we should be doing things. its easy to "sit on your ass" and say that were screwing things up. but problems need solutions. so lets hear some. if you have some, then what i just said doesn't apply to you and thats great.

ah the classic retort...'all you do is point fingers, where are the solutions.' this post isn't in reference to climate change but..

first: slowly decrease troop commitment in Iraq (I have a buddy over there and regardless of what the administration will say, we are not making any difference - only losing our grip as we try to train forces that are scared to fight more powerful militias)

second: balance the budget before you worry about banning online gambling. which leads to..

third: don't put items in the budget that you can't pay for (like somebody pointed out for me in another thread: the border fence)

fourth: elect somebody based on merit. when bush fucks up the domestic economy (1.2 trillion projected 2010 surplus to -800 billion projected deficit) as bad as he did from 2000-2004, he shouldn't be allowed back in office. oh wait - his opponent 'flip flopped.'

there are so many more...and in reference to the bold statement...it is SO much easier to sit on your ass and be oblivious to the world around you.

[love_american_style]

this season is fucking deppresing

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

ah the classic retort...'all you do is point fingers, where are the solutions.' this post isn't in reference to climate change but..

first: slowly decrease troop commitment in Iraq (I have a buddy over there and regardless of what the administration will say, we are not making any difference - only losing our grip as we try to train forces that are scared to fight more powerful militias)

second: balance the budget before you worry about banning online gambling. which leads to..

third: don't put items in the budget that you can't pay for (like somebody pointed out for me in another thread: the border fence)

fourth: elect somebody based on merit. when bush fucks up the domestic economy (1.2 trillion projected 2010 surplus to -800 billion projected deficit) as bad as he did from 2000-2004, he shouldn't be allowed back in office. oh wait - his opponent 'flip flopped.'

there are so many more...and in reference to the bold statement...it is SO much easier to sit on your ass and be oblivious to the world around you.


its a classic retort because it is often true
as i said, if you have solutions to propose then i guess it doesn't apply to you

however, in Bushs defense, he has hadnt exactly had an uneventful presidency. Katrina, 9-11, these aren't problems that every president has to deal with.

[we are cured]

its a classic retort because it is often true
as i said, if you have solutions to propose then i guess it doesn't apply to you

however, in Bushs defense, he has hadnt exactly had an uneventful presidency. Katrina, 9-11, these aren't problems that every president has to deal with.

Of course not...Clinton had an easy ride compared to him. But if you go back in history, you can see that every president dealt with extraordinary issues.

When it comes to foreign policy, I disagree on most of his positions. However, I agree that a lot of his hands were forced (other than Iraq).

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

agreed

[cal1082]

I've found it funny how last year with all the hurricanes it was "GLOBAL WARNING!!!!"

[cal1082]

I've found it funny how last year with all the hurricanes it was "GLOBAL WARNING!!!!" This year we've had very few and no major ones hit the US. I suppose global warning only works on odd years and he takes even years off

[MotionIsntMeaning]

I've found it funny how last year with all the hurricanes it was "GLOBAL WARNING!!!!" This year we've had very few and no major ones hit the US. I suppose global warning only works on odd years and he takes even years off

I really hope you are joking. You do know there other factors involved in global warming besides how many hurricanes hit the United States, right? 2005 was the hottest year on record and the first half of 2006 was the warmest in US history. Global warming is not some crazy left-wing theory, there are actualy facts that back it up.

[Justin_stacy]

I really hope you are joking. You do know there other factors involved in global warming besides how many hurricanes hit the United States, right? 2005 was the hottest year on record and the first half of 2006 was the warmest in US history. Global warming is not some crazy left-wing theory, there are actualy facts that back it up.

but statistical records go back how far?

[cal1082]

I really hope you are joking. You do know there other factors involved in global warming besides how many hurricanes hit the United States, right? 2005 was the hottest year on record and the first half of 2006 was the warmest in US history. Global warming is not some crazy left-wing theory, there are actualy facts that back it up.

Fair enough, not aruging that there are other factors. I'm not denying global warming. On the other hand, no I'm not joking. The global warming activists wished to use last years hurricane numbers and damages as a tool to prove that global warming was a real, serious, and dangerous threat today. Yet with the lack of occurences this year one should wonder if their use of hurricanes from last year is an overblown tool of fear

[MotionIsntMeaning]

but statistical records go back how far?

I believe official records have been kept since about the 1860's and they use ice and soil samples to estimate the temperatures prior to that. You can also look at the rapid rate the polar ice caps are melting at, and the rise in sea temperatures.

[MotionIsntMeaning]

Fair enough, not aruging that there are other factors. I'm not denying global warming. On the other hand, no I'm not joking. The global warming activists wished to use last years hurricane numbers and damages as a tool to prove that global warming was a real, serious, and dangerous threat today. Yet with the lack of occurences this year one should wonder if their use of hurricanes from last year is an overblown tool of fear

I completely agree with that part. But I think the potential impact that global warming could have on the earth warrants the strong concern about it. If it is going to continue at its current rates then its important to try and stop it before it gets to far.

[Justin_stacy]

I believe official records have been kept since about the 1860's and they use ice and soil samples to estimate the temperatures prior to that. You can also look at the rapid rate the polar ice caps are melting at, and the rise in sea temperatures.

starting at about the 1890's is when they became exact, and since we've been coming out of a little ice age for about 200 years now (prior to acurate measurments), one has every right to question how much of the planets tempeture rise is man made and how much of it is natural rebounding.

Just like with the comical hurricane assertions, you can't disregard what part nature plays in all this.

[we are cured]

starting at about the 1890's is when they became exact, and since we've been coming out of a little ice age for about 200 years now (prior to acurate measurments), one has every right to question how much of the planets tempeture rise is man made and how much of it is natural rebounding.

Just like with the comical hurricane assertions, you can't disregard what part nature plays in all this.

I took a class on this...our increase in temperature over the last 100 years is actually something like 5% higher than what is normal, which is (perhaps) the largest estimated increase in history.

I agree that we don't have any idea what part nature is playing...but one has to assume that an ecosystem will react to man made effects in some way or another.

[Justin_stacy]

I took a class on this...our increase in temperature over the last 100 years is actually something like 5% higher than what is normal, which is (perhaps) the largest estimated increase in history.

I agree that we don't have any idea what part nature is playing...but one has to assume that an ecosystem will react to man made effects in some way or another.

Prior to the last ice age (c1400's) the island of Great Britain had a vegetation similar to the Mediterranean region.....does it now? Has the temperature really rebounded to its pre-ice age levels, who knows?

But with out a doubt we know that theories don’t override known history, and when they are present as doing so (such as with the hurricane equation) it allows people to rightfully ignore and discredit the whole theory.

When something can not be proven as fact it becomes one of many different theories, from there it has to be sold to the masses to become the most justifiable theory in the public’s mind. And the problem with the theory of man-made-global-warming is that its not being sold in a way in which the public can accept it as the most likely answer. It is being sold with credit-less propaganda film, crazy exaggerations, known contradictions, and connected to dangerous socialistic and sovereignty attacking taxes. None of these approaches are going to win the minds of the public, in fact they do just the opposite. You can’t just force someone to believe what you tell them, you have to give them a reason to believe what you are saying, and polls show that that hasn't been done.

[we are cured]

When something can not be proven as fact it becomes one of many different theories, from there it has to be sold to the masses to become the most justifiable theory in the public’s mind. And the problem with the theory of man-made-global-warming is that its not being sold in a way in which the public can accept it as the most likely answer. It is being sold with credit-less propaganda film, crazy exaggerations, known contradictions, and connected to dangerous socialistic and sovereignty attacking taxes. None of these approaches are going to win the minds of the public, in fact they do just the opposite. You can’t just force someone to believe what you tell them, you have to give them a reason to believe what you are saying, and polls show that that hasn't been done.

Well I agree, but one of the main problems is that even if you present proven science, it takes awhile for the public to accept it as such. Am I saying that there is enough evidence to say the world is getting warmer because of us? No. But even if there was, polls wouldn't reflect the true role of global warming issues in our lives.

'Evidence' of past temperatures and climate situations are estimates, and cannot be used in true scientific manner.

[burntheaction]

no actually its much less. Canada had a 25% increase while the US had only a 15% increase during the same period.
http://www.kansascity.com/images/kansascity/kansascitystar/news/gb_climate_emissions103106_10-31-2006_ASORMJ7.jpg
further proving my point i guess!

[MotionIsntMeaning]

starting at about the 1890's is when they became exact, and since we've been coming out of a little ice age for about 200 years now (prior to acurate measurments), one has every right to question how much of the planets tempeture rise is man made and how much of it is natural rebounding.

Just like with the comical hurricane assertions, you can't disregard what part nature plays in all this.

I don't think people are denying the natural fluctuations in the earth's temperature. The concern is the rate at which the earth is warming and how much of an effect humans are having on it (something that was never an issue is past climate cycles). It's obvious that humans are destroying the environment (pollution, land degradation, extinction of species, etc.) and if we wait too long to examine the consequences then there may be nothing we can do to change it.

[Dean Wormer]

our increase in temperature over the last 100 years is actually something like 5% higher than what is normal, which is (perhaps) the largest estimated increase in history.

Good...the Midwest will soon have the best weather in the nation.

[we are cured]

Good...the Midwest will soon have the best weather in the nation.

Haha I've been saying, let's warm up Jersey and turn it into the tropics.

[Justin_stacy]

Well I agree, but one of the main problems is that even if you present proven science, it takes awhile for the public to accept it as such. Am I saying that there is enough evidence to say the world is getting warmer because of us? No. But even if there was, polls wouldn't reflect the true role of global warming issues in our lives.

'Evidence' of past temperatures and climate situations are estimates, and cannot be used in true scientific manner.

I agree that any controversial theory has to be given time to become mainstream and accepted, particularly in such an independent minded country like the US. But people aren't stupid either, if a valid case, with valid evidence to support it, is made for a theory they would look at open mindedly. But the problem that most who want to espouse this theory is they think its the public's responsibility to just buy into it, when in all actuality its the espousers responsibility to sell it to the public in a reasonable manner.


Exact temperature are one thing, we don’t even have those from most of the 1800’s, but we do have written documentation about how people lived and what they ate, which gives a very reliable representation of what the climate was like back then. That can be used to compare to current situations.

[justinevans]

where the hell is China on that list? If you look at % increase I'm willing to bet they're ahead of the US...but in terms of pure tons emitted the US will always top other nations and Americans will probably think it's cause we're the best country so we can do as we wish.

also, Americans will disregard ur source because tonnes is not spelled in the American English way therefore it's foreign, therefore it's communist, therefore your graph supports terrorism.

hahah

[justinevans]

yes i hate my country!!! fuck bush!!! fuck the republicans!!

obviously we don't 'hate America,' we just like to push for a positive change. if you just sit on your ass and think, "i'm free and the grass is green, this place is great, anybody who hates our government is a terrorist," you're oblivious to the fact that this is a changing world and that America (more specifically the government of America), as the leader of trade and global economy, should take some fucking responsibility for what it is doing to the environment.

that's what's great about liberals...we are smart enough to know that things do change, and that we are not always right. but we start the fights and arguments that lead to female voting rights, the abolition of slavery, and greater civil rights.

edit: if someone says anything about classic liberals, i will freak. i mean liberals in today's sense of the word.

yeah but most of the time people are just doing that...pushing for a change by not in an effective manner.

Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the Republican party. Things changed. The parties ideas have changed numerous times.

However, I agree things need to be done, but the people pushing have to try to be more effective than just holding a rally in a park.

[justinevans]

ah the classic retort...'all you do is point fingers, where are the solutions.' this post isn't in reference to climate change but..

first: slowly decrease troop commitment in Iraq (I have a buddy over there and regardless of what the administration will say, we are not making any difference - only losing our grip as we try to train forces that are scared to fight more powerful militias)

second: balance the budget before you worry about banning online gambling. which leads to..

third: don't put items in the budget that you can't pay for (like somebody pointed out for me in another thread: the border fence)

fourth: elect somebody based on merit. when bush fucks up the domestic economy (1.2 trillion projected 2010 surplus to -800 billion projected deficit) as bad as he did from 2000-2004, he shouldn't be allowed back in office. oh wait - his opponent 'flip flopped.'

there are so many more...and in reference to the bold statement...it is SO much easier to sit on your ass and be oblivious to the world around you.

You really don't know if a difference can be made. Our country is full of yellow media and it is constantly spun to provide what the majority wants to hear. If more people approved of the war, you'd hear about the good things we may be doing there.

With regards to the economy, I know he spent more than he should have, however the economy IS a cycle. Clinton benefited extremely from the tech stock boom. Our economy's problems benefited greatly to the tech stock's crash. People invested alot more during Clinton's terms because everything seemed to be a sure thing, but everything had an extremely high P/E ratio and their were very low barriers to enter the market. The high profits the companies saw at first dwindled as soon as competition came around.

With regards to the troops, we can't just pull out. Look at places where we went to war in the past. We still have bases there and a large number of troops. Do you remember the world cup game in Germany where the US troops filled a large portion of the stadium.

The problem with politics is that everything we see as an effect we blame that politician in office now. We don't ultimately look at every cause. Causes that could have existed 20 years prior to now. People will blame Bush for Global Warming, but no president has really touched the issue for how long it has been a problem. Also what is the "tonnes per capita" I think that would be a truer number.

[justinevans]

I mean look at the spin meteorologists try to spin this year with how Global Warming was the cause for the hurricanes last year and that it would continue.

I'm sorry, I missed out on all the hurricanes.

Also, you have people that want to help our poor, help the world poor, and save the world? All very costly things. I don't care who is president. If you're going to do all of that, you will never run a surplus.

Clinton ran a surplus because the economy was in a rise and he was a lame duck.

[loveisdead]

Wonderful. I've never bumped a thread so old.

Despite the ridiculous amount of snow I (and the rest of the northeast) has seen, this may become the warmest (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/freakout-nomics) winter on record.

[caveBEAR]

Is debate on this seriously still an issue? I'm not talking about who did it, or what to do about it, just is it really still debated on whether the climate is changing?

[loveisdead]

Is debate on this seriously still an issue? I'm not talking about who did it, or what to do about it, just is it really still debated on whether the climate is changing?

You haven't seen one snarky facebook status about the "foot of irony on Obama's front lawn?" I certainly think people deny it.

[caveBEAR]

You haven't seen one snarky facebook status about the "foot of irony on Obama's front lawn?" I certainly think people deny it.

That's absurd. I don't know how anyone with average or above average intelligence can deny now that the climate is changing, and that the burning of fossil fuels has at least something to do with it.

[loveisdead]

That's absurd. I don't know how anyone with average or above average intelligence can deny now that the climate is changing, and that the burning of fossil fuels has at least something to do with it.

I'm willing to bet you'll see a few of those people show up here in the not to distant future.

[bard]

i don't think the majority of people believe that it doesn't exist at all, it's just that most of those people don't think it's a big deal. that's the issue really.

[caveBEAR]

i don't think the majority of people believe that it doesn't exist at all, it's just that most of those people don't think it's a big deal. that's the issue really.

Especially since the end results don't even sound threatening. A two degree temperature rise doesn't sound all that extreme to people who don't understand the ramifications of that rise.

[bard]

Especially since the end results don't even sound threatening. A two degree temperature rise doesn't sound all that extreme to people who don't understand the ramifications of that rise.
yeah, and the fact that they won't be alive to deal with the ramifications anyways. kind of 'out of sight, out of mind' issue.

[caveBEAR]

yeah, and the fact that they won't be alive to deal with the ramifications anyways. kind of 'out of sight, out of mind' issue.

It's gonna be hard work to go green too, and that's haaaaaaaarrrrdd.


We don't like hard.

[WakingTheMisery]

Climates have been changing since the dawn of time. Saying fossil fuels directly correlate has yet to be proven. Hell, it is probably impossible to prove given the unpredictability of our planet.

[J.C.]

Wonderful. I've never bumped a thread so old.

Despite the ridiculous amount of snow I (and the rest of the northeast) has seen, this may become the warmest (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/freakout-nomics) winter on record.

No offense, but I'm going to trust Glenn Beck's science.

TrwbR2AV2cc

[caveBEAR]

Climates have been changing since the dawn of time. Saying fossil fuels directly correlate has yet to be proven. Hell, it is probably impossible to prove given the unpredictability of our planet.

Earth's temperature raises when Carbon levels in the atmosphere rise. We are pumping out more Carbon when we burn these fuels. It may not be the only reason the climate is changing, but it's definitely not helping, and the good money's on it doing some pretty serious damage.

[loveisdead]

Oh my God Glenn Beck is such a smug fuck.

[WakingTheMisery]

I just don't see how one of the most abundant elements in the universe can be so detrimental. Also, we are still technically in an ice age. The fact that temperatures are rising is, like you said, is in part due to nature's course.

[caveBEAR]

I just don't see how one of the most abundant elements in the universe can be so detrimental. Also, we are still technically in an ice age. The fact that temperatures are rising is, like you said, is in part due to nature's course.

Cyanide occurs pretty frequently in our universe.

[J.C.]

Detriment is subjective.

[WakingTheMisery]

Cyanide occurs pretty frequently in our universe.

Cyanide kills living things, not the planet.

[caveBEAR]

Look, the point is, I can shove my dick on the electrical outlet, but people who know what they're talking about will probably tell me not to do it. Maybe find some other place to put my dick, do something else with it. I can ignore the people who know what they're talking about and push my dick onto the electrical outlet, and nothing may happen...

Then again, something really bad could happen, and I was warned...so it seems kind of stupid to keep on going that course, if you catch my drift.

[caveBEAR]

Cyanide kills living things, not the planet.

Mogo doesn't understand the difference.

[WakingTheMisery]

Look, the point is, I can shove my dick on the electrical outlet, but people who know what they're talking about will probably tell me not to do it. Maybe find some other place to put my dick, do something else with it. I can ignore the people who know what they're talking about and push my dick onto the electrical outlet, and nothing may happen...

Then again, something really bad could happen, and I was warned...so it seems kind of stupid to keep on going that course, if you catch my drift.

Oh no, I understand that. Point taken. I also don't see it being very realistic to tell a nation of obese, self centered people to stop burning fossil fuels, CFC's, etc. and expect it to just happen. The mighty dollar will always be the determining factor in how our nation runs. Converting every gas station in the nation to an ethanol station would cost something like $60 billion. Sure it would be good for the environment, but Exxon doesn't give a shit.

I don't agree with the use of ethanol at all, but use it simply as an example.

[caveBEAR]

Oh no, I understand that. Point taken. I also don't see it being very realistic to tell a nation of obese, self centered people to stop burning fossil fuels, CFC's, etc. and expect it to just happen. The mighty dollar will always be the determining factor in how our nation runs. Converting every gas station in the nation to an ethanol station would cost something like $60 billion. Sure it would be good for the environment, but Exxon doesn't give a shit.

I don't agree with the use of ethanol at all, but use it simply as an example.

I'm of the opinion now that any whiny, fat Americans who don't want to tow the line with this need to be told to 'shut the fuck up'.

[WakingTheMisery]

For sure. Too many shitty people out there just don't give a shit and it is a bit lame. While I don't buy into the whole "going green" thing, I try to do little things I can.

[caveBEAR]

For sure. Too many shitty people out there just don't give a shit and it is a bit lame. While I don't buy into the whole "going green" thing, I try to do little things I can.

Well, worst case scenario, the whole 'green thing' is just a ploy by these upstart green companies and new 'green branches' of established companies. Alright, whatever. They still want to hire Americans to create these industries, and right now, I don't see how that's a bad thing. As well, best case scenario, all this climate change stuff is real, we are doing it, and our going green tips the scales back in our favor, quite literally saving the world.

Needless to say, I don't know why we aren't investing in this.






::cough::lobbyists::cough::

[<*)))><]

Earth's temperature raises when Carbon levels in the atmosphere rise. We are pumping out more Carbon when we burn these fuels. It may not be the only reason the climate is changing, but it's definitely not helping, and the good money's on it doing some pretty serious damage.
Isn't carbon what plants need to survive and we rely on them to breath?

[caveBEAR]

Isn't carbon what plants need to survive and we rely on them to breath?

Yeah, but we rely on food to live, and we Americans have proven more =/= better.

[Machu505]

Been dealing with climate change skeptics (read as: fucking morons) lately? Well you ought to point out that this winter is set to be the warmest ever (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/freakout-nomics/).

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epkrugman/avtemp.png

[loveisdead]

Been dealing with climate change skeptics (read as: fucking morons) lately? Well you ought to point out that this winter is set to be the warmest ever (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/freakout-nomics/).

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epkrugman/avtemp.png

News to me (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=62993821#post62993 821)

[Machu505]

News to me (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=62993821#post62993 821)
Lol sorry. Mine has a graph in the post, and is therefore prettier.

[loveisdead]

Lol sorry. Mine has a graph in the post, and is therefore prettier.

I was gonna put it in and then got lazy. You win. Sorta.

[<*)))><]

Yeah, but we rely on food to live, and we Americans have proven more =/= better.

i do not understand how that relates?

[caveBEAR]

i do not understand how that relates?

Plants only absorb as much carbon as they need to, it has nothing to do with regulation of carbon levels, so adding more carbon just introduces more carbon, it has nothing to do with plants. They only absorb as much CO2 as they need.

[<*)))><]

Plants only absorb as much carbon as they need to, it has nothing to do with regulation of carbon levels, so adding more carbon just introduces more carbon, it has nothing to do with plants. They only absorb as much CO2 as they need.
Actually when you give plants more carbon they grow more or at least that is what the bio lab taught me.

[caveBEAR]

Actually when you give plants more carbon they grow more or at least that is what the bio lab taught me.

Not at the levels we're introducing it.

[<*)))><]

Not at the levels we're introducing it.
Also I remember hearing that British research center that first introduced global warming now said they have no evidence. Can't really remember the detail but I heard it on the Monica Crowley show.

[Machu505]

Not to be that guy, but we're talking about carbon dioxide and not simply carbon.

[ImTheSheriff]

The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society

http://www.aipg.org/StaticContent/anonymous/state_and_federal/Climate%20Change%20Letters.pdf

i'm not saying that we can't try and help, but we think we have more influence than we do.

[caveBEAR]

The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society

http://www.aipg.org/StaticContent/anonymous/state_and_federal/Climate%20Change%20Letters.pdf

i'm not saying that we can't try and help, but we think we have more influence than we do.

When people find out they have cancer, whether they controlled it or caused it, the reaction isn't 'fuck it, I'll lay down and die, shit wasn't my fault anyway'. Doesn't matter how much influence we have, who caused it, etc., etc., etc., all we know is that it's happening and we're not helping.

[paper halo]

Climate change still happening, regardless of e-mails. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31climate.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes. com%2Fpages%2Fscience%2Fearth%2Find ex.jsonp)

[caveBEAR]

Climate change still happening, regardless of e-mails. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31climate.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes. com%2Fpages%2Fscience%2Fearth%2Find ex.jsonp)

The panel said that Professor Jones and his colleagues could have saved themselves a great deal of trouble by aggressively publishing all their data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics.

:hitself:

[paper halo]

:hitself:

Indeed, they messed up on that one. What pissed me off about this was that the reaction to those emails was much the same as when a stupid person sees snow: "GLOBAL WARMING CAN'T BE REAL BECAUSE IM FUCKING COLD!"

[caveBEAR]

Indeed, they messed up on that one. What pissed me off about this was that the reaction to those emails was much the same as when a stupid person sees snow: "GLOBAL WARMING CAN'T BE REAL BECAUSE IM FUCKING COLD!"

The most irritating part for me is when someone brings up those e-mails, I'll counter with 'you know a panel proved that the information wasn't skewed, and that despite what they may have said in their e-mails, the data still stands', their response will be (give or take) 'YEAH, USUAL LIBERAL BULLSHIT, WHERE'D YOU GET THAT FROM?! THE DAILY SHOW?! HA HA HA! Listen, Beck told me all about this...'

[paper halo]

The most irritating part for me is when someone brings up those e-mails, I'll counter with 'you know a panel proved that the information wasn't skewed, and that despite what they may have said in their e-mails, the data still stands', their response will be (give or take) 'YEAH, USUAL LIBERAL BULLSHIT, WHERE'D YOU GET THAT FROM?! THE DAILY SHOW?! HA HA HA! Listen, Beck told me all about this...'

I'm so glad we don't have a Glenn Beck equivalent over here.

[caveBEAR]

I'm so glad we don't have a Glenn Beck equivalent over here.

I just can't stand how Americans (in general) think, 'if someone said it on TV, it's got to be true', while simultaneously holding a complete disregard for scientific proof and evidence. It's mind boggling to me that someone in the same breath can tell you that we can't trust scientific findings, but Glenn Beck should be taken, word for word, as a new prophet or some bullshit.

It's infuriating.

[paper halo]

I just can't stand how Americans (in general) think, 'if someone said it on TV, it's got to be true', while simultaneously holding a complete disregard for scientific proof and evidence. It's mind boggling to me that someone in the same breath can tell you that we can't trust scientific findings, but Glenn Beck should be taken, word for word, as a new prophet or some bullshit.

It's infuriating.

Well, in that respect, we have shit like the Daily Mail. To illustrate this point:

5eBT6OSr1TI

[caveBEAR]

Well, in that respect, we have shit like the Daily Mail. To illustrate this point:

5eBT6OSr1TI

Hate to be that guy, but video shuts down my computer (it's old). Could you sum it up for me? :shrug:

Sorry.

EDIT: Nevermind, got smart and used the iPhone to play it. Funny video.

This gas station/convenience store right near my house that I frequent carries the Daily Mail, and I always think about how it evens out how awesome BBC is.

[paper halo]

Hate to be that guy, but video shuts down my computer (it's old). Could you sum it up for me? :shrug:

Sorry.

It's just a song about the consistently depressing/sensationalist/ridiculous headlines seen in the Daily Mail.

EDIT: Just seen your edit! Yeah, they like to constantly claim the BBC has a left wing bias, somehow missing the irony in the process.

[caveBEAR]

It's just a song about the consistently depressing/sensationalist/ridiculous headlines seen in the Daily Mail.

Yeah, finally viewed it on my iPhone. When I read the front pages of our tabloids over here, I can't imagine that people are stupid/uneducated/ignorant/naive/gullible enough to believe this shit. A basic education is enough to write off most of these stories without needing to even do any extra research.

[<*)))><]

Is climate change of 2010 getting warmer or colder?

[paper halo]

Yeah, finally viewed it on my iPhone. When I read the front pages of our tabloids over here, I can't imagine that people are stupid/uneducated/ignorant/naive/gullible enough to believe this shit. A basic education is enough to write off most of these stories without needing to even do any extra research.

Well I just found a website specifically intended to debunk the crap printed in the Mail. I might start directing idiots towards it, instead of pounding my head against the brick wall of stupidity that constitutes the average Mail reader.

[caveBEAR]

Is climate change of 2010 getting warmer or colder?

Both. It's not that simple.

[<*)))><]

Both. It's not that simple.
So Florida will be cold and canada will be hot? If this happens the skiing industry will be fucked.

[loveisdead]

Is climate change of 2010 getting warmer or colder?

warmer (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/freakout-nomics/)

[<*)))><]

warmer (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/freakout-nomics/)
That doesn't say anything but short term we can't tell...

[caveBEAR]

So Florida will be cold and canada will be hot? If this happens the skiing industry will be fucked.

Again, not that simple. Florida, for instance, has been getting hotter in the summer and colder in the winter. As well, it rains more in the winter (didn't used to do that) making it colder and colder, and it rains less in the summer (used to rain all the time in the summer) making it hotter and hotter, and much more prone to fire.

The very un-scientific scientific reasoning for all of this is, as we introduce more carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, they eat away at our ozone layer, which keeps out heat, sunlight, and radiation. As more and more heat gets in, more and more of the ice caps melt. As more sunlight gets in and reflects off the ice caps (which are, THANK GOD, melting) it gets hotter, melting more ice caps, thus raising sea levels AND lowering water temperatures all over the world. As water temperatures change, weather patterns change. As well, as more radiation gets in, there's more chance for skin cancer and other nasties derived from UV levels and the like.

Climate change is a natural part of Earth's existence, but that doesn't mean we aren't causing THIS climate change. We are, if not causing it, exacerbating it.

[loveisdead]

That doesn't say anything but short term we can't tell...

3 months into 2010 would be short term, no?

[<*)))><]

Again, not that simple. Florida, for instance, has been getting hotter in the summer and colder in the winter. As well, it rains more in the winter (didn't used to do that) making it colder and colder, and it rains less in the summer (used to rain all the time in the summer) making it hotter and hotter, and much more prone to fire.

The very un-scientific scientific reasoning for all of this is, as we introduce more carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, they eat away at our ozone layer, which keeps out heat, sunlight, and radiation. As more and more heat gets in, more and more of the ice caps melt. As more sunlight gets in and reflects off the ice caps (which are, THANK GOD, melting) it gets hotter, melting more ice caps, thus raising sea levels AND lowering water temperatures all over the world. As water temperatures change, weather patterns change. As well, as more radiation gets in, there's more chance for skin cancer and other nasties derived from UV levels and the like.

Climate change is a natural part of Earth's existence, but that doesn't mean we aren't causing THIS climate change. We are, if not causing it, exacerbating it.
I think we should just plant more tree they will take care of the carbon dioxide, because they need it to survive so it will be a good thing pumping all that stuff out.

[<*)))><]

3 months into 2010 would be short term, no?
Well one more day till April so I will say 4 months, anyway the information can also come from 2009, isn't that a crazy idea.

[loveisdead]

Well one more day till April so I will say 4 months, anyway the information can also come from 2009, isn't that a crazy idea.

April would be the start of the 4th month. 3 months will have passed in 2010 on April 1st.

[caveBEAR]

I think we should just plant more tree they will take care of the carbon dioxide, because they need it to survive so it will be a good thing pumping all that stuff out.

Again. Not that simple. We couldn't plant enough trees to remove the emissions. There are more trees on the planet now than there has been in a very long time, and it's not slowing it down one bit. It's an entirely unrealistic idea.

[<*)))><]

Again. Not that simple. We couldn't plant enough trees to remove the emissions. There are more trees on the planet now than there has been in a very long time, and it's not slowing it down one bit. It's an entirely unrealistic idea.
So in order to do anything to really stop this (if it is man made) we will have to significantly change our lives. Till this thing is 100% proven I will not go far out of my way to do anything.

[caveBEAR]

So in order to do anything to really stop this (if it is man made) we will have to significantly change our lives. Till this thing is 100% proven I will not go far out of my way to do anything.

It is 100% proven. I don't see what the problem is here. We are negatively effecting our climate through our pollution, and it is changing our climate. Whether this is unrelated to, in conjunction with, or because of natural climate change doesn't matter; what we are doing is negatively effecting our environment and will lead to undesirable living conditions.

Day to day changes from you and I aren't necessary and won't do shit to change anyway. What will change things are policy changes, changes in renewable energy, removing bullshit like 'cap and trade' from existence, working on cars with lower emissions, ignoring misinformation from energy companies/corporations and talking heads spouting from their own assholes.

The most effective thing you can do is (credible) research on the subject, and elect leaders who actually have the stones to do something about the situation at hand.

[<*)))><]

It is 100% proven. I don't see what the problem is here. We are negatively effecting our climate through our pollution, and it is changing our climate. Whether this is unrelated to, in conjunction with, or because of natural climate change doesn't matter; what we are doing is negatively effecting our environment and will lead to undesirable living conditions.

Day to day changes from you and I aren't necessary and won't do shit to change anyway. What will change things are policy changes, changes in renewable energy, removing bullshit like 'cap and trade' from existence, working on cars with lower emissions, ignoring misinformation from energy companies/corporations and talking heads spouting from their own assholes.

The most effective thing you can do is (credible) research on the subject, and elect leaders who actually have the stones to do something about the situation at hand.
I would not want to give me up my gas gluzzing v8, it is to much fun.

[paper halo]

So in order to do anything to really stop this (if it is man made) we will have to significantly change our lives. Till this thing is 100% proven I will not go far out of my way to do anything.

Good attitude. The thing is, there are plenty of other observable problems caused by the level of pollution caused by humans, even if you don't believe we're affecting climate change.

[caveBEAR]

I would not want to give me up my gas gluzzing v8, it is to much fun.

Right, I know these 'anonymity over the internet' and 'humor' things are new to you, but I hope you took a moment or two to actually absorb what I said, and maybe not be so passive on the subject. There isn't much that you can do in your day to day behavior to fix the problem, but the passiveness on the subject and complete lack of knowledge just helps people that are actively ignoring/helping exacerbate the problem.

[<*)))><]

Right, I know these 'anonymity over the internet' and 'humor' things are new to you, but I hope you took a moment or two to actually absorb what I said, and maybe not be so passive on the subject. There isn't much that you can do in your day to day behavior to fix the problem, but the passiveness on the subject and complete lack of knowledge just helps people that are actively ignoring/helping exacerbate the problem.
I feel people should small stuff like recycle but not to the exent that they can't buy the things they want to buy.

[caveBEAR]

I feel people should small stuff like recycle but not to the exent that they can't buy the things they want to buy.

Most recycling wastes more time, energy and resources than just disposing of the original and making a new one. What things do you think people won't be able to buy? Fucking Hummers?

[<*)))><]

Most recycling wastes more time, energy and resources than just disposing of the original and making a new one. What things do you think people won't be able to buy? Fucking Hummers?
http://www.nctd.com/10/10-f150-hero.jpg
Trucks are still the #1 and #2 best selling vechicles in the country and a total of 3 of them are in the top 10. Not to mention that all of them are full size so people still want big trucks.

[caveBEAR]

http://www.nctd.com/10/10-f150-hero.jpg
Trucks are still the #1 and #2 best selling vechicles in the country and a total of 3 of them are in the top 10. Not to mention that all of them are full size so people still want big trucks.

That's fine. You need a truck? Works for me. As well, (as I pointed out before when I said we couldn't do much) there's no real reason a hybrid truck or truck with acceptable emissions can't be on the road.

But I said need. I'm sick of these soccer moms and marketing fucks with Hummers and F10s or whatever the fuck it is they drive. There's no need, and therefore, they shouldn't get a truck.

[<*)))><]

That's fine. You need a truck? Works for me. As well, (as I pointed out before when I said we couldn't do much) there's no real reason a hybrid truck or truck with acceptable emissions can't be on the road.

But I said need. I'm sick of these soccer moms and marketing fucks with Hummers and F10s or whatever the fuck it is they drive. There's no need, and therefore, they shouldn't get a truck.
They want it and they make hybrid trucks but they don't really sell. For one the cost to buy a hybrid truck is a lot as in 18,000 more for a Hybrid Chevy Silverado over the none hybrid verison. For that price you can buy two of them instead getting one that will save a little bit more fuel.

[caveBEAR]

They want it and they make hybrid trucks but they don't really sell. For one the cost to buy a hybrid truck is a lot as in 18,000 more for a Hybrid Chevy Silverado over the none hybrid verison. For that price you can buy two of them instead getting one that will save a little bit more fuel.

I want to buy you. I want to buy a thermonuclear warhead. I want to go buy some sex.

There are some things that, even if we want them, we have been told we cannot have for the betterment of society. This should be no different.

[<*)))><]

I want to buy you. I want to buy a thermonuclear warhead. I want to go buy some sex.

There are some things that, even if we want them, we have been told we cannot have for the betterment of society. This should be no different.
Those are things that directly cause pain to people. Also all the things you mentioned can hurt markets because if people are bought few people will have means to buy products. If a thermonclear warhead is bought it can complete destory an area and all the purchasing power it has. Prositution normally leads to illegal activity which do hurts business. A truck is a little bit different but I guess you run someone over and cause them pain that way but a pruis can also crush someone.

[paper halo]

Those are things that directly cause pain to people. Also all the things you mentioned can hurt markets because if people are bought few people will have means to buy products. If a thermonclear warhead is bought it can complete destory an area and all the purchasing power it has. Prositution normally leads to illegal activity which do hurts business. A truck is a little bit different but I guess you run someone over and cause them pain that way but a pruis can also crush someone.

Trucks and off-road vehicles cause more damage to people and other cars in accidents. The extra emitions they produce also go further in helping the steady increase in respiratory diseases and conditions. I don't get why trying to stop raping our environment is such a bad thing.

[caveBEAR]

Those are things that directly cause pain to people. Also all the things you mentioned can hurt markets because if people are bought few people will have means to buy products. If a thermonclear warhead is bought it can complete destory an area and all the purchasing power it has. Prositution normally leads to illegal activity which do hurts business. A truck is a little bit different but I guess you run someone over and cause them pain that way but a pruis can also crush someone.

Prostitution only leads to other illegal activity when prostitution itself is illegal, see; Nevada brothels.

My points weren't meant to be taken 100% literally, the point simply is; gas guzzling, high emission vehicles are damaging the planet, and people shouldn't be able to buy them just because they want them, the truck/SUV should be a necessity to their job/livelihood, and should have reduced emissions. It's 2010 for fuck's sake.

[<*)))><]

Trucks and off-road vehicles cause more damage to people and other cars in accidents. The extra emitions they produce also go further in helping the steady increase in respiratory diseases and conditions. I don't get why trying to stop raping our environment is such a bad thing.

When a person drives a small car they arent as safe when they get into an accident compared to trucks. If people want to be safe in an accident they should get a truck.

[paper halo]

When a person drives a small car they arent as safe when they get into an accident compared to trucks. If people want to be safe in an accident they should get a truck.

Well in that case, I'm going to buy a tank, fuck other people.

[tgregoryknox]

the earth changes climate on its own and has done so for millions of years. this isn't to say that we shouldn't care for our environment, but to think we can alter the climate is naive.

in the early 1900's they were saying the earth was going to flood due to global warming, seals would become extinct, etc... in the 1970's they were saying we were on the verge of a new ice age.

[DrStrong]

the earth changes climate on its own and has done so for millions of years. this isn't to say that we shouldn't care for our environment, but to think we can alter the climate is naive.

in the early 1900's they were saying the earth was going to flood due to global warming, seals would become extinct, etc... in the 1970's they were saying we were on the verge of a new ice age.
Agree 100%

George Carlin says it best;

Environmentalists do not care about the planet, they're interested in a clean place to live, they're own habitat. They're worried that sometime in the future, they will be personally affected.

The planet is fine, the people are fucked. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great! Been here about 4 1/2 billion years, we've been here for what? 100k, maybe 200k, and we've been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200 years, 200 years compared to 4 1/2 billion. We have the conceit, that somehow we're a threat?

Then planet has been through a lot worse than us, earthquakes, volcanos, sun spots, magnetic reversal of the polls, erosion, ice ages, etc...and we think some plastic bags, some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isnt going anywhere, we are.
If its true that plastic is not degradable, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new para dime. The earth doesnt share our prejudice against plastic, plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably thinks of plastic as one of its children.

[Machu505]

Carlin quotes eh? I like this more:

"We destroy the beauty of the countryside because the unappropriated splendors of nature have no economic value. We are capable of shutting off the sun and the stars because they do not pay a dividend." - John Maynard Keynes, 1933

[caveBEAR]

but to think we can alter the climate is naive.

Yeah, funny thing, we can, we are, and assuming otherwise is not naïve, but uninformed.

[Praetor]

Carlin quotes eh? I like this more:

"We destroy the beauty of the countryside because the unappropriated splendors of nature have no economic value. We are capable of shutting off the sun and the stars because they do not pay a dividend." - John Maynard Keynes, 1933
Your quote is null and void because Keynes was a commie fuck who hated America.

[Machu505]

Yeah, funny thing, we can, we are, and assuming otherwise is not naïve, but uninformed.
Pumping billions of tons of new greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is bound to have no effect, right?

Your quote is null and void because Keynes was a commie fuck who hated America.
Must've slipped my mind! Never trust a man who goes by three names.

[caveBEAR]

Pumping billions of tons of new greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is bound to have no effect, right?

It's fucking asinine, the idea that just because something occurs naturally you cannot cause it to occur. That'd be like someone sticking an ice cube in a microwave for 30 seconds, then claiming that they had nothing to do with the (now) puddle of water because, 'ice melts naturally, duh'.

[tgregoryknox]

It's fucking asinine, the idea that just because something occurs naturally you cannot cause it to occur. That'd be like someone sticking an ice cube in a microwave for 30 seconds, then claiming that they had nothing to do with the (now) puddle of water because, 'ice melts naturally, duh'.

your analogy doesn't work with human involvement with climate change, however. your analogy is assuming that humans have a profound influence on how the earth's climate is altered, and that's simply not the case.

a better analogy would be someone dropping an ice cube into a swimming pool and saying they could feel the temperature drop.

when humans contribute less than 1% of all CO2 output...we're not influencing the environment as much as the politicians would like us to believe.

[DrStrong]

your analogy doesn't work with human involvement with climate change, however. your analogy is assuming that humans have a profound influence on how the earth's climate is altered, and that's simply not the case.

a better analogy would be someone dropping an ice cube into a swimming pool and saying they could feel the temperature drop.

when humans contribute less than 1% of all CO2 output...we're not influencing the environment as much as the politicians would like us to believe.
Al Gore can go fuck himself, i'm more concerned about solar flares than i am about the earth's climate getting too damn hot.

[tgregoryknox]

Pumping billions of tons of new greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is bound to have no effect, right?

can you tell me the main gases that cause the greenhouse effect? i'll give you a hint...

* water vapor/clouds account for 70% of the greenhouse effect
* carbon dioxide.....between 4% - 8%

look at the temperature fluctuations during the industrial revolution when our carbon output was WAY higher than it is now...temperatures actually got cooler.

compare the temperature fluctuations with solar activity and you'll see a more accurate model.

again, this isn't to say we shouldn't watch what we put into the atmosphere...but people have been flipping out over climate change (cold and warm) for centuries. unfortunately the politicians are trying to use this as leverage to gain more power. i don't trust a politician more than i can throw them.

[caveBEAR]

your analogy doesn't work with human involvement with climate change, however. your analogy is assuming that humans have a profound influence on how the earth's climate is altered, and that's simply not the case.

a better analogy would be someone dropping an ice cube into a swimming pool and saying they could feel the temperature drop.

when humans contribute less than 1% of all CO2 output...we're not influencing the environment as much as the politicians would like us to believe.

:wallbash:

We may only account for 1% of all CO2 output, but the fact remains; we are outputting more CO2 than our environment is meant to be exposed to. We are increasing global temperatures.

I'm not really concerned with what politicians have to say, I'm more concerned on the input of researchers and scientists.

[DrStrong]

:wallbash:

We may only account for 1% of all CO2 output, but the fact remains; we are outputting more CO2 than our environment is meant to be exposed to. We are increasing global temperatures.

I'm not really concerned with what politicians have to say, I'm more concerned on the input of researchers and scientists.

Who can gauge what is too much for our atmosphere? The earth wasnt man made, who are we to say what the earth can handle or not?

[caveBEAR]

Who can gauge what is too much for our atmosphere? The earth wasnt man made, who are we to say what the earth can handle or not?

Who? Probably people who's job it is to alert us when shit like this occurs. Holy fuck, would you people question a doctor telling you that you've got cancer this intently?

'Doctor didn't make my body, how the fuck would he know if I had cancer!?'

[DrStrong]

Who? Probably people who's job it is to alert us when shit like this occurs. Holy fuck, would you people question a doctor telling you that you've got cancer this intently?

'Doctor didn't make my body, how the fuck would he know if I had cancer!?'

Analogy doesnt hold up in this case for the following reason.

There is PROOF that cancer is harmfully to the body, plain and simple. What proof is there that the atmosphere is reaching its limit for Co2 intake? There has been nothing significant that has told us the atmosphere is reaching its limit, if there is one. The fluctuation of temperatures is a minuscule effect, which has happened since recorded weather readings.

I firmly believe that the earth will adapt to higher levels of any contaminant in the atmosphere, rather than get destroyed by something that has only been happening for a couple of centuries.

On the other hand

I think that one major thing that will effect that earth, is the destruction of the rain forrests, and big areas of trees in general. Everyone knows, they produce oxygen, so wiping these things out will eventually, if the rate continues, will harm us directly. In the past, im sure the ice age and things like that have wiped out most of the oxygen source, but who cared back then, there were no humans around.

[caveBEAR]

Analogy doesnt hold up in this case for the following reason.

There is PROOF that cancer is harmfully to the body, plain and simple. What proof is there that the atmosphere is reaching its limit for Co2 intake? There has been nothing significant that has told us the atmosphere is reaching its limit, if there is one. The fluctuation of temperatures is a minuscule effect, which has happened since recorded weather readings.

I firmly believe that the earth will adapt to higher levels of any contaminant in the atmosphere, rather than get destroyed by something that has only been happening for a couple of centuries.

On the other hand

I think that one major thing that will effect that earth, is the destruction of the rain forrests, and big areas of trees in general. Everyone knows, they produce oxygen, so wiping these things out will eventually, if the rate continues, will harm us directly. In the past, im sure the ice age and things like that have wiped out most of the oxygen source, but who cared back then, there were no humans around.

:yawn:

Too long, didn't care.

[DrStrong]

:yawn:

Too long, didn't care.
Wow, not even a rebuttal?

[caveBEAR]

Analogy doesnt hold up in this case for the following reason.

There is PROOF that cancer is harmfully to the body, plain and simple. What proof is there that the atmosphere is reaching its limit for Co2 intake? There has been nothing significant that has told us the atmosphere is reaching its limit, if there is one. The fluctuation of temperatures is a minuscule effect, which has happened since recorded weather readings.

I firmly believe that the earth will adapt to higher levels of any contaminant in the atmosphere, rather than get destroyed by something that has only been happening for a couple of centuries.

On the other hand

I think that one major thing that will effect that earth, is the destruction of the rain forrests, and big areas of trees in general. Everyone knows, they produce oxygen, so wiping these things out will eventually, if the rate continues, will harm us directly. In the past, im sure the ice age and things like that have wiped out most of the oxygen source, but who cared back then, there were no humans around.

Ignore that previous comment, I still don't care, but when I saw 'rainforests' I had to check for the bullshit I suspected.

You're arguing that introducing all the pollution we have since the Industrial Revolution won't be endangering us or the planet because the Earth will just roll with the punches, but the deforestation of the rainforest may do the planet in.


Think about the bullshit in there for a moment, then get back to me.

[caveBEAR]

Wow, not even a rebuttal?

Just posted it.

[paper halo]

I firmly believe that the earth will adapt to higher levels of any contaminant in the atmosphere, rather than get destroyed by something that has only been happening for a couple of centuries.

It's cool guys, he believes the earth will be fine. Anything you can back this up with?

[tgregoryknox]

:wallbash:

We may only account for 1% of all CO2 output, but the fact remains; we are outputting more CO2 than our environment is meant to be exposed to. We are increasing global temperatures.

I'm not really concerned with what politicians have to say, I'm more concerned on the input of researchers and scientists.

but history and science claims otherwise.

and when 1) scientists have been wrong about the "Day After Tomorrow"-like circumstances time and time again, 2) there are extreme flaws in how much of this data was captured/interpreted and 3) many scientists disagree with the other scientists... what do you believe?

[caveBEAR]

It's cool guys, he believes the earth will be fine. Anything you can back this up with?

Ha ha ha, gotta love it when I consider his argument to be complete baseless and pointless...and I didn't even notice this little gem.

[caveBEAR]

but history and science claims otherwise.

and when 1) scientists have been wrong about the "Day After Tomorrow"-like circumstances time and time again, 2) there are extreme flaws in how much of this data was captured/interpreted and 3) many scientists disagree with the other scientists... what do you believe?

I'm not responding to these vague 1's, 2's and 3's. You want to post actual events, information, statistics, etc., then we can revisit this, but I'm not swinging in the dark with you.

[DrStrong]

Just posted it.
I dont have the specefic numbers, but there are statistics of how much oxygen is produced during photosynthesis. But where are the statistics that state how much the Co2 can be in the earth's atmosphere?

Oxygen generation by trees/plants is proven, there is no theory there. Removing oxygen production is far worse than the Co2 debate because we know what will eventually happen. Everything regarding Co2 contamination is just theorized by scientists, there are no facts supporting the arguement; "We are introducting too much Co2 into our atmosphere.".

[caveBEAR]

I dont have the specefic numbers, but there are statistics of how much oxygen is produced during photosynthesis. But where are the statistics that state how much the Co2 can be in the earth's atmosphere?

Oxygen generation by trees/plants is proven, there is no theory there. Removing oxygen production is far worse than the Co2 debate because we know what will eventually happen. Everything regarding Co2 contamination is just theorized by scientists, there are no facts supporting the arguement; "We are introducting too much Co2 into our atmosphere.".

There's more trees on the planet now then there were 150 years ago.

Fact.




The problem with rainforest deforestation has much more to do with the altering of weather and climate levels than CO2/Oxygen levels, you putz.

[DrStrong]

All of this global worming is just speculation.

BEERfortheBEAR, I know there is one thing we can agree on; No one knows what exactly will happen if in fact, there are too many contaminants in the atmosphere. Why? Because something like this has never happened before. You know how every living thing has some sort of defense mechanism? Well, im sure the earth has something that can defend against contaminants in the atmosphere, i dont think we've seen that yet.

[DrStrong]

There's more trees on the planet now then there were 150 years ago.

Fact.




The problem with rainforest deforestation has much more to do with the altering of weather and climate levels than CO2/Oxygen levels, you putz.

Removing oxygen effects people/animals directly.

The weather/climate levels effects the planet directly.

There is a difference of what effects what.

[caveBEAR]

All of this global worming is just speculation.

BEERfortheBEAR, I know there is one thing we can agree on; No one knows what exactly will happen if in fact, there are too many contaminants in the atmosphere. Why? Because something like this has never happened before. You know how every living thing has some sort of defense mechanism? Well, im sure the earth has something that can defend against contaminants in the atmosphere, i dont think we've seen that yet.

The Earth's not fucking Mogo, the Earth is a rock. It has no defense mechanism. Don't try to lower me to your level in one of those 'we'll just agree to disagree' bullshit statements; you're, at best, naive, but more likely willfully ignorant of the basic building blocks of this entire subject.

[tgregoryknox]

I'm not responding to these vague 1's, 2's and 3's. You want to post actual events, information, statistics, etc., then we can revisit this, but I'm not swinging in the dark with you.

quick google search...

1) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_contro versy (a scientist who blasts the government research process: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/11594 and to be fair, he believes in man-made global warming)

3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3313785/Weather-Channel-boss-calls-global-warming-the-greatest-scam-in-history.html

http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm

[DrStrong]

The Earth's not fucking Mogo, the Earth is a rock. It has no defense mechanism. Don't try to lower me to your level in one of those 'we'll just agree to disagree' bullshit statements; you're, at best, naive, but more likely willfully ignorant of the basic building blocks of this entire subject.
What the hell is Mogo?

Time will tell exactly what is going to happen. I can honestly care less about the subject, because i feel it to be insignificant.

[caveBEAR]

What the hell is Mogo?

Time will tell exactly what is going to happen. I can honestly care less about the subject, because i feel it to be insignificant.

This much is obvious.


Don't worry what a Mogo is.

[caveBEAR]

quick google search...

1) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_contro versy (a scientist who blasts the government research process: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/11594 and to be fair, he believes in man-made global warming)

3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3313785/Weather-Channel-boss-calls-global-warming-the-greatest-scam-in-history.html

http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm

1.) Al Gore's documentary was full of shit, and overblown and cinematic to make a buck! Woah, holy fucking shit?! Doesn't change what's happening.

2.) Their e-mails did nothing to change the numbers and facts, however, their conduct was lacking. There was an article on this like a week ago. As well, the guy who 'blasts' the e-mail controversy still believes in man-made global warming. You're missing the bigger point here.

3.) An Alex Jones website and 'Weather Channel boss'? :lol: You've got to be fucking kidding me.

[paper halo]

quick google search...

1) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/

What does a shitty film have to do with facts?

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_contro versy (a scientist who blasts the government research process: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/11594 and to be fair, he believes in man-made global warming)
I posted a link with regards to that email controversy on the last page, you should probably read it. Oh, and quoting the Daily Mail is hardly far off quoting Fox News.

EDIT: Here it is. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31climate.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes. com%2Fpages%2Fscience%2Fearth%2Find ex.jsonp)

3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3313785/Weather-Channel-boss-calls-global-warming-the-greatest-scam-in-history.html
No shit? An actual weather channel boss!?

http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm
Yeah great, except it's not hard to find sources claiming the opposite. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_chang e#Scientific_consensus)

[tgregoryknox]

1.) Al Gore's documentary was full of shit, and overblown and cinematic to make a buck! Woah, holy fucking shit?! Doesn't change what's happening.

2.) Their e-mails did nothing to change the numbers and facts, however, their conduct was lacking. There was an article on this like a week ago. As well, the guy who 'blasts' the e-mail controversy still believes in man-made global warming. You're missing the bigger point here.

3.) An Alex Jones website and 'Weather Channel boss'? :lol: You've got to be fucking kidding me.


are you in middle school? do you just get on these forums and disregard any thought different from your own?

if you're not even going to try and prove your side then there's no point in debating.

[tgregoryknox]

What does a shitty film have to do with facts?

exactly. my point was to point out the overblown hysteria that surrounds climate change fanatics. (both past and present) good to see you agree. ;)


I posted a link with regards to that email controversy on the last page, you should probably read it. Oh, and quoting the Daily Mail is hardly far off quoting Fox News.

sorry i posted a link to a site you disagree with. i don't watch fox news and i think the republicans are douchebags. there...does that eliminate the rest of your talking points?


Yeah great, except it's not hard to find sources claiming the opposite. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_chang e#Scientific_consensus)

yeah... and i never said there weren't scientists who didn't agree with man-made climate change. you know, it's ok for people to have a different opinion than yourself. regardless of what your mother or local politician told you, you're not always right.

[caveBEAR]

are you in middle school? do you just get on these forums and disregard any thought different from your own?

if you're not even going to try and prove your side then there's no point in debating.

Am I in middle school? You're the one with (surprise, surprise) no real grasp on any of the building blocks, basic facts, etc., of the entire subject. You called a 'Weather Channel boss' a 'scientist'. Get the fuck out of here.

I'm not going to try and prove my side because I am not going to argue an adult subject with someone who has an middle school grasp on the subject.

[caveBEAR]

exactly. my point was to point out the overblown hysteria that surrounds climate change fanatics. (both past and present) good to see you agree. ;)

Overblown hysteria does not change facts. Do you consider researchers and scientists to be overblown hysterics? Because if you do, there's no 'good guy' (because who's left? Government? Corporations? The everyman? Oh yeah, Alex Jones :rolleyes:), and therefore no reason to even debate you on the subject.

sorry i posted a link to a site you disagree with. i don't watch fox news and i think the republicans are douchebags. there...does that eliminate the rest of your talking points?

The Daily Mail is the UK's equivalent to FoxNEWS, so what he was saying is that you posted the equivalent of a FoxNEWS article, i.e., bullshit. You didn't eliminate his talking point, he merely pointed out you posted an article full of them.

yeah... and i never said there weren't scientists who didn't agree with man-made climate change. you know, it's ok for people to have a different opinion than yourself. regardless of what your mother or local politician told you, you're not always right.

Different opinions are fine. Having the opinion of '2 + 2 = 5' does not make it so, however.

[paper halo]

exactly. my point was to point out the overblown hysteria that surrounds climate change fanatics. (both past and present) good to see you agree. ;)

It's a film, it's not representative of anything, it proves no points, we use actual sources here in politics.

sorry i posted a link to a site you disagree with. i don't watch fox news and i think the republicans are douchebags. there...does that eliminate the rest of your talking points?

No, you posted an opinion piece by a right wing blogger, about a complete non-issue. Go back and read the link I posted, it debunks the point about those emails, and so the point of the blog you posted.

yeah... and i never said there weren't scientists who didn't agree with man-made climate change. you know, it's ok for people to have a different opinion than yourself. regardless of what your mother or local politician told you, you're not always right.

What's ironic here is that I'm going with what the majority of climate scientists believe, while you're believing what oil companies and right wing politicians tell you.

[tgregoryknox]

Am I in middle school? You're the one with (surprise, surprise) no real grasp on any of the building blocks, basic facts, etc., of the entire subject. You called a 'Weather Channel boss' a 'scientist'. Get the fuck out of here.

I'm not going to try and prove my side because I am not going to argue an adult subject with someone who has an middle school grasp on the subject.

got anymore four letter words that you heard on your dad's VHS collection you can toss my way?

John Coleman started the Weather Channel. i'd say he knows a little bit about the climate.

sorry my links on scientists who disagree with your stance offended you. if you don't want to be anymore upset then i certainly wouldn't try researching the topic cause you might find more stuff you disagree with and we don't want that.

[tgregoryknox]

It's a film, it's not representative of anything, it proves no points, we use actual sources here in politics.

and i think it's fair to say that there are just as many sources out there that show how global warming is not man-made; but i know you'll find some way to just throw it off as being irrelevant.


No, you posted an opinion piece by a right wing blogger, about a complete non-issue. Go back and read the link I posted, it debunks the point about those emails, and so the point of the blog you posted.

it was an issue as i was pointing out how there are discrepancies in how some of this scientific data is recorded.


What's ironic here is that I'm going with what the majority of climate scientists believe, while you're believing what oil companies and right wing politicians tell you.

the right-wing, and left-wing, politicians have their heads up their asses. the majority of climate scientists associated with IPCC and funded by government agencies, or climate scientists in the private field who don't hold allegiance with any entity?

(i'm not a right-winger, by the way. no need to lump people who disagree with you into groups.)

[caveBEAR]

got anymore four letter words that you heard on your dad's VHS collection you can toss my way?

What does this even mean? Is this about me saying 'fuck'? 'Your dad's VHS collection'? Is that some Family Guy reference or something I'm missing?

John Coleman started the Weather Channel. i'd say he knows a little bit about the climate.

Weather forecasting =/= (in any way) knowledge on climate change.

sorry my links on scientists who disagree with your stance offended you. if you don't want to be anymore upset then i certainly wouldn't try researching the topic cause you might find more stuff you disagree with and we don't want that.

You didn't offend me, don't worry (although the 'Dad's VHS' comment has me a little concerned that you may have had your feathers ruffled), but I am definitely confused people can still be this ignorant in 2010.

The sheer thought that I would refuse 'fact' because I disagreed with it is mindboggling.

[caveBEAR]

(i'm not a right-winger, by the way. no need to lump people who disagree with you into groups.)

You're right, you're just clueless.

[tgregoryknox]

Overblown hysteria does not change facts. Do you consider researchers and scientists to be overblown hysterics? Because if you do, there's no 'good guy' (because who's left? Government? Corporations? The everyman? Oh yeah, Alex Jones :rolleyes:), and therefore no reason to even debate you on the subject.

so your debate style goes as follows...

1. disagree with the person
2. attack their sources
3. ..........?

good luck with that.

The Daily Mail is the UK's equivalent to FoxNEWS, so what he was saying is that you posted the equivalent of a FoxNEWS article, i.e., bullshit. You didn't eliminate his talking point, he merely pointed out you posted an article full of them.

sorry... i think foxnews is full of shit, too but just because they post an article doesn't mean it's untrue. you can't cover yourself in news sources that suit your own opinions...sometimes it's good to branch out and see what else is out there.

Different opinions are fine. Having the opinion of '2 + 2 = 5' does not make it so, however.

you're mighty confident of your opinion despite the fact that it's still not proven that man alters the climate. (not to mention the history of our planet shows it changes just fine without human involvement) and your analogies aren't even closely related to the topic by scale.

if it was shown that man, WITHOUT A DOUBT, altered the climate then we'd be on agreement. (except for the whole "writing people off as idiots because they disagree with me" part)

[paper halo]

and i think it's fair to say that there are just as many sources out there that show how global warming is not man-made; but i know you'll find some way to just throw it off as being irrelevant.

Why don't you post some of these actual scientific sources then?

it was an issue as i was pointing out how there are discrepancies in how some of this scientific data is recorded.

Read. The. Link. I. Posted.

the right-wing, and left-wing, politicians have their heads up their asses. the majority of climate scientists associated with IPCC and funded by government agencies, or climate scientists in the private field who don't hold allegiance with any entity?

The Wikipedia article I linked has a list of scientific organisations and their positions :wallbash:

(i'm not a right-winger, by the way. no need to lump people who disagree with you into groups.)

I never said you were and I don't give a shit either way. You're currently lumped in the group entitled: 'idiots'.

[caveBEAR]

so your debate style goes as follows...

1. disagree with the person
2. attack their sources
3. ..........?

good luck with that.

No, it's just that we've seen your arguments time and time again, and they've been debunked a long time ago in our research on the subject. You're literally screaming '2 + 2 = 5' at the top of your lungs as far as we're concerned.

sorry... i think foxnews is full of shit, too but just because they post an article doesn't mean it's untrue. you can't cover yourself in news sources that suit your own opinions...sometimes it's good to branch out and see what else is out there.

I don't trust unreliable news sources.

you're mighty confident of your opinion despite the fact that it's still not proven that man alters the climate. (not to mention the history of our planet shows it changes just fine without human involvement) and your analogies aren't even closely related to the topic by scale.

if it was shown that man, WITHOUT A DOUBT, altered the climate then we'd be on agreement. (except for the whole "writing people off as idiots because they disagree with me" part)

I'm mighty confident of my opinion because it's been proven that we're altering the planet, and not for the better. My analogies don't have to be closely related to the subject, they're my analogies. Did you know 'anal' is in 'analogy'?

I write you off as an idiot because you're an idiot, not because you disagree with me.

[tgregoryknox]

Weather forecasting =/= (in any way) knowledge on climate change.

"in any way", really? i'm not saying having a knowledge of global weather has EVERYTHING to do about climate change...but i'd be ignorant to ignore their views, as well.


...but I am definitely confused people can still be this ignorant in 2010.

i just find that as discouraging that someone could be so hardheaded in their beliefs, and so sure that they're right, that they want to write-off any other opinions...even while there's still no consensus on the topic!

what do you make of this (it's on many news sites, but i'd hate to cite one that you would disagree with):

The world could be in for a spell of cooler temperatures, rather than hotter conditions, as a result of cyclical changes in ocean currents for the next 20 or 30 years, it is predicted.

Research by Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modellers, questions the widely held view that global temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.


Controversially, he also said that the fluctuations could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.


Prof Latif told one newspaper at the weekend: "A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.



"They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely.
"Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.
"The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt.
"For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling."


the thought that the earth's climate is a...cycle? what a bizarre thought.


just think of the debates over the years people must've had: http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/ (http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/)


i can imagine you, 100 years ago, blasting people for not believing in man-made global cooling.


i respect your opinion, but to tout your stance as fact and that everyone else is an idiot for not listening to these government agencies...that's just arrogant.

[tgregoryknox]

1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F02E1D8163CE433A 25757C2A9649C94649ED7CF)
1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A04EED7113AE633A 25754C0A9669D946396D6CF)
1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924 (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C14FB3C5B12738 DDDA10A94D1405B848EF1D3&scp=1&sq=%93MacMillan+Reports+Signs%22&st=p)
1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933 (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00617FF3D5E1A7A9 3C5AB1788D85F478385F9&scp=1&sq=%22America+in+Longest+Warm+Spell +Since+1776%22&st=p)
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962 (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EF6345A107B9 3C2A81783D85F468585F9&scp=1&sq=%22has+been+getting+warmer+in+th e+last+half+century%22&st=p)
1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969 (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40A11FC395914749 3C2AB1789D85F4D8685F9&scp=1&sq=%22Arctic+pack+ice+is+thinning+a nd+that+the+ocean+at+the%22&st=p)
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post
1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York TimesCassandras are becoming
increasingly apprehensive,
for the weather
aberrations they are
studying may be the
harbinger of another
ice age
1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975 (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1FFD395D137B9 3C3AB178ED85F418785F9&scp=1&sq=%22Scientists+Ponder+Why+World%9 2s+Climate+is+Changing%22&st=p)
1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf) before Congress, see His later quote (http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/#hype) and His superior’s objection (http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/#horror) for context
1989 -”On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999630,00.html)
2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb? (http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html), 2003
2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006 (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html)
Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for four years in a row (http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/2008_global_land_ocean_temperature_ index.gif/image_preview), which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?

[caveBEAR]

You win. I don't give a shit anymore.

[Machu505]

can you tell me the main gases that cause the greenhouse effect? i'll give you a hint...

* water vapor/clouds account for 70% of the greenhouse effect
* carbon dioxide.....between 4% - 8%

look at the temperature fluctuations during the industrial revolution when our carbon output was WAY higher than it is now...temperatures actually got cooler.

compare the temperature fluctuations with solar activity and you'll see a more accurate model.

again, this isn't to say we shouldn't watch what we put into the atmosphere...but people have been flipping out over climate change (cold and warm) for centuries. unfortunately the politicians are trying to use this as leverage to gain more power. i don't trust a politician more than i can throw them.
Tell me sir, can we make more water a large scale? Nope. Can we make more carbon dioxide than we already have? Yeeeep.

[Machu505]

OH SHIT. PEOPLE USED TO THINK THINGS THAT WE KNOW AREN'T TRUE NOW. ALL SCIENCE IS DISPROVED. CALL THE FUCKING COPS.

x

[tgregoryknox]

OH SHIT. PEOPLE USED TO THINK THINGS THAT WE KNOW AREN'T TRUE NOW. ALL SCIENCE IS DISPROVED. CALL THE FUCKING COPS.

x


not saying that, just don't be quick to jump on the bandwagon for something without learning a little history.

[Jason Tate]

not saying that, just don't be quick to jump on the bandwagon for something without learning a little history.
Hello sweet irony.

[caveBEAR]

Hello sweet irony.

You can borrow my head-bashing wall for this if you want. This tool already caused me to put quite a dent in it yesterday.

[Jason Tate]

You can borrow my head-bashing wall for this if you want. This tool already caused me to put quite a dent in it yesterday.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

The dude's been spouting the same shit.

What's with people ignoring factual evidence?

[caveBEAR]

What's with people ignoring factual evidence?

It's simple, and this forum/FoxNEWS have shown it to me;

People firmly stand behind 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion' (which is fine), but they lack an understanding of the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion'.

It has become for them, 'everyone is entitled to their own facts'.

[Machu505]

It's simple, and this forum/FoxNEWS have shown it to me;

People firmly stand behind 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion' (which is fine), but they lack an understanding of the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion'.

It has become for them, 'everyone is entitled to their own facts'.
This is how every conspiracy hunch ever has survived.

[caveBEAR]

This is how every conspiracy hunch ever has survived.

Exactly, but heaven forbid you tell a Teabagger they're just as bad as the 9/11 Truthers...ooooooh man. :rolleyes:

It's all rooted in ignorance to history and lack of comprehension in subjects beyond their grasp.

[tgregoryknox]

Hello sweet irony.

You can borrow my head-bashing wall for this if you want. This tool already caused me to put quite a dent in it yesterday.

a simple question... have scientists, over the years, brought up global warming and cooling concerns with the results not panning out as thought? yes. (http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/)

so what makes you think THIS time around they're gonna get it right when they've been unable to predict the future in the past?

again, i think we need to protect the environment...but running around saying the sky is falling is not going to do us any good; as the past has taught us.

[Jason Tate]

a simple question... have scientists, over the years, brought up global warming and cooling concerns with the results not panning out as thought? yes. (http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/)

so what makes you think THIS time around they're gonna get it right when they've been unable to predict the future in the past?

again, i think we need to protect the environment...but running around saying the sky is falling is not going to do us any good; as the past has taught us.
It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970's but a very cursory comparison of then and now reveals a huge difference. Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49) supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause and the warming will worsen unless we reduce emissions. On the other hand, in the 1970's, there was a book (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ponte.html)in the popular press, a few articles (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nat-geog-1976-11.html) in popular magazines (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/misc-non-science.html), and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm) and the recent slight cooling trend (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/what-about-mid-century-cooling.php) from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements.

:yawn:

Is your best argument contingent on me accepting that technology has not dramatically changed in over a hundred years? REALLY?

[CaryGrant]

It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970's but a very cursory comparison of then and now reveals a huge difference. Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49) supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause and the warming will worsen unless we reduce emissions. On the other hand, in the 1970's, there was a book (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ponte.html)in the popular press, a few articles (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nat-geog-1976-11.html) in popular magazines (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/misc-non-science.html), and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm) and the recent slight cooling trend (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/what-about-mid-century-cooling.php) from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements.

:yawn:

Is your best argument contingent on me accepting that technology has not dramatically changed in over a hundred years? REALLY?

-.-- . ... --..-- / .-- .... .- - / .- -. / .. -.. .. --- - .-.-.- / -.-. .- -. / -.-- --- ..- / -... . .-.. .. . ...- . / - .... .. ... / --. ..- -.-- ..--..

[Jason Tate]

-.-- . ... --..-- / .-- .... .- - / .- -. / .. -.. .. --- - .-.-.- / -.-. .- -. / -.-- --- ..- / -... . .-.. .. . ...- . / - .... .. ... / --. ..- -.-- ..--..
.... . ... ..- -.-. -.- ...

[Enolase]

Tell me sir, can we make more water a large scale? Nope. Can we make more carbon dioxide than we already have? Yeeeep.
What the fuck does this mean? Combustion of hydrocarbons yields carbon dioxide and water...

[tgregoryknox]

:yawn:

Is your best argument contingent on me accepting that technology has not dramatically changed in over a hundred years? REALLY?

none of the global warming doom and gloom cheerleaders are willing to at least accept the fact that there are other ideas out there and that man-made climate change theories are still just theories. if they proved tomorrow that the reason the climate is changing is because of what man is doing then i'd totally accept that fact, but it hasn't been so.

that's cool you believe 100% that the climate is changing because of "man's evil ways", but don't get all pissy when someone has a different opinion than that of your own. especially when they actually are trying to have a civil discussion.

cute morse code conversation, too.

[loveisdead]

none of the global warming doom and gloom cheerleaders are willing to at least accept the fact that there are other ideas out there and that man-made climate change theories are still just theories. if they proved tomorrow that the reason the climate is changing is because of what man is doing then i'd totally accept that fact, but it hasn't been so.

that's cool you believe 100% that the climate is changing because of "man's evil ways", but don't get all pissy when someone has a different opinion than that of your own. especially when they actually are trying to have a civil discussion.

cute morse code conversation, too.

You're blind if you don't think Jason has made the far better points regarding this discussion.

[caveBEAR]

none of the global warming doom and gloom cheerleaders are willing to at least accept the fact that there are other ideas out there and that man-made climate change theories are still just theories. if they proved tomorrow that the reason the climate is changing is because of what man is doing then i'd totally accept that fact, but it hasn't been so.

Do you accept that gravity is real? Keep in mind that gravity is also just a theory.

As well, iif the scientists are right about this round of climate change, it's going to be really fucking miserable if we don't get our shit together, but, fuck it, right? We probably won't be around to deal with the fallout, so why should we care.



A final note; climate change may be natural, may be man-made, I don't give a fuck; however, scientists have been telling us for a while that pollution and carbon levels are getting too high. Sure, maybe they're lying, maybe every scientist got together to fuck over every corporation and right-winger in the country, maybe they're just bored, or maybe...just maybe...the guys who went through lots of training to understand things like pollution and carbon levels know what they're talking about more than you.

[peder458]

none of the global warming doom and gloom cheerleaders are willing to at least accept the fact that there are other ideas out there and that man-made climate change theories are still just theories. if they proved tomorrow that the reason the climate is changing is because of what man is doing then i'd totally accept that fact, but it hasn't been so.


...I am so tired of people not knowing what a scientific theory entails and how it differs from the colloquial term theory. seriously, why don't people know this?

[caveBEAR]

...I am so tired of people not knowing what a scientific theory entails and how it differs from the colloquial term theory. seriously, why don't people know this?

Let's be realistic. People who don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial term don't really understand what 'colloquial' means.

[peder458]

Let's be realistic. People who don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial term don't really understand what 'colloquial' means.

you're right! good catch... just couldn't think of a better term at first thought.

but seriously, isn't the scientific theory something they go over in multiple classes throughout high school and earlier? i thought they did in my public education, but i just don't get how so many people don't understand it..... evolution is another prime example of this type of reasoning. annoying to say the least.

[Jason Tate]

none of the global warming doom and gloom cheerleaders are willing to at least accept the fact that there are other ideas out there and that man-made climate change theories are still just theories. if they proved tomorrow that the reason the climate is changing is because of what man is doing then i'd totally accept that fact, but it hasn't been so.

that's cool you believe 100% that the climate is changing because of "man's evil ways", but don't get all pissy when someone has a different opinion than that of your own. especially when they actually are trying to have a civil discussion.

cute morse code conversation, too.
No, what you would do is bitch and moan that it hasn't been "proven" - because the evidence is OVERWHELMING that it has already been "proven" beyond any reasonable doubt that the climate is changing because of what man is doing (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/).

You can pretend it's an opinion all you want - but the only way you can come to said opinion is if you completely ignore facts.

[Jason Tate]

...I am so tired of people not knowing what a scientific theory entails and how it differs from the colloquial term theory. seriously, why don't people know this?
:appl:

[peder458]

:appl:

it is baffling. the rest of someone's argument is moot when they start by saying something along the lines of "evolution, climate change, big bang, etc. is just a theory." really, how can they know any respectable amount of information about any of these topics, but still not know what a scientific theory is?

done venting now.

[paper halo]

Another update on the email enquiry. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice)

[Eric+TheSliders]

There is a reason it is called GLOBAL WARMING, although we may be responsible for alot of the carbon emissions, it is not only our problem, but everyones. If we want to solve this issue, international powers need to get together and really make some changes. If you ask me, this should have come first before Health Care Reform

[caveBEAR]

:yawn:


Obvious post is obvious.

[vodyanoj]

Is climate change of 2010 getting warmer or colder?

The average global temperatures are rising. Glaciers are being lost. Of course, local climates are not that simple: some places will get warmer, some will get colder. (As an example, if the thermohaline circulation shuts down and the Gulfstream goes kaput, which is quite likely if the temperatures in the Atlantic rise more than 1-2 degrees, UK and Scandinavia will plunge straight into Ice Age even as the rest of the world warms up and sea levels rise. Just saying).

[vodyanoj]

the earth changes climate on its own and has done so for millions of years. this isn't to say that we shouldn't care for our environment, but to think we can alter the climate is naive.

in the early 1900's they were saying the earth was going to flood due to global warming, seals would become extinct, etc... in the 1970's they were saying we were on the verge of a new ice age.

Well, we do, and there is nothing naive about it, unless you think that sophisticated analysis and all observations supporting the idea are the height of naivete.

And no, in the 1970s we were saying that there is a good chance that the Earth is approaching another ice age. Nothing new about that, really, we've been in an interglacial for a while now and it's about time. The fact that the onset of an ice age happens to coincide with our warming activities is giving us a bit of a decent chance: things would be a lot worse now if the planet wasn't beginning to cool down by itself.

[vodyanoj]

your analogy doesn't work with human involvement with climate change, however. your analogy is assuming that humans have a profound influence on how the earth's climate is altered, and that's simply not the case.

a better analogy would be someone dropping an ice cube into a swimming pool and saying they could feel the temperature drop.

when humans contribute less than 1% of all CO2 output...we're not influencing the environment as much as the politicians would like us to believe.

As in all physical problems, it is not the amount but the rate of change that is important. Just when you fall out of the building, it's not how fast you are going but how fast you decelerate when you hit the ground that is going to kill you.

[vodyanoj]

Analogy doesnt hold up in this case for the following reason.

There is PROOF that cancer is harmfully to the body, plain and simple. What proof is there that the atmosphere is reaching its limit for Co2 intake? There has been nothing significant that has told us the atmosphere is reaching its limit, if there is one. The fluctuation of temperatures is a minuscule effect, which has happened since recorded weather readings.

I firmly believe that the earth will adapt to higher levels of any contaminant in the atmosphere, rather than get destroyed by something that has only been happening for a couple of centuries.

On the other hand

I think that one major thing that will effect that earth, is the destruction of the rain forrests, and big areas of trees in general. Everyone knows, they produce oxygen, so wiping these things out will eventually, if the rate continues, will harm us directly. In the past, im sure the ice age and things like that have wiped out most of the oxygen source, but who cared back then, there were no humans around.

The limit is reached, since the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are increasing with no sign of slowing down. This is not a system in equilibrium.

Rainforests have some effect on the climate, granted, and their loss is a major (and perhaps fatal) blow to biodiversity, but saying that doesn not mean that our greenhouse emissions are unimportant.

[caveBEAR]

The limit is reached, since the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are increasing with no sign of slowing down. Theis is not a system in equilibrium.

Rainforests have some effect on the climate, grantged, and their loss is a major (and perhaps fatal) blow to biodiversity, but saying that doesn not mean that our greenhouse emissions are unimportant.

I love it when you come in here and give all the scientific reasoning for the things we were saying to morons earlier. It's like this extra reminder to them that they are wrong.

[vodyanoj]

got anymore four letter words that you heard on your dad's VHS collection you can toss my way?

John Coleman started the Weather Channel. i'd say he knows a little bit about the climate.

sorry my links on scientists who disagree with your stance offended you. if you don't want to be anymore upset then i certainly wouldn't try researching the topic cause you might find more stuff you disagree with and we don't want that.

I personally know a physicist that thinks GR is bullshit. I personally know people with degrees (in engineering, though) that think the Earth is 6000 years old and/or flat.

They are all full of shit, or, in more polite language, incredibly fucking wrong. The same applies to the deniers.

And come on, since when are blog columns and opinion pieces a substitute for peer-reviewed work?

EDIT: Oh, you may not be clear on the concept, but meteorology (which is what you need for weather forecasts) is quite different from climatology and atmospheric physics (which is what you need for climate modeling and description). Again, from persional experience and access to college records, I can tell you that most people graduating with a degree in meteorology do not have any math or physics above undergraduate level (if that!) and have never taken a class in climatology.

[vodyanoj]

I love it when you come in here and give all the scientific reasoning for the things we were saying to morons earlier. It's like this extra reminder to them that they are wrong.


Thx. It would help if I could type worth shit at this time of the day! :-|

[caveBEAR]

Thx. It would help if I could type worth shit at this time of the day! :-|

What time is it? ??:45.

[vodyanoj]

What time is it? ??:45.


Happy hour at the local bar...:-)

[ImTheSheriff]

i liked it when he went in to the smut for smut thread. that made me laugh.

[zion the lion]

I was perfectly fine with this climate change thing when everyone was scare tactics like "the world is going to melt, its going to get so fucking hot"

But now its snowing, on april 14th its snowing. Around this time last year it was getting near the 60s and 70s but now it's mother fucking snowing and I was supposed to learn how to drive today.

[loveisdead]

Happy hour at the local bar...:-)

Great response.

[vodyanoj]

I was perfectly fine with this climate change thing when everyone was scare tactics like "the world is going to melt, its going to get so fucking hot"

But now its snowing, on april 14th its snowing. Around this time last year it was getting near the 60s and 70s but now it's mother fucking snowing and I was supposed to learn how to drive today.

The warmer it becomes, the more moisture the air can hold. I remember learning back in the sophomore days, that the air above Greenland and Antarctica and the Alaskan glaciers (in the winter, at least) was drier than the air above the Death Valley, for example. As the temperature rises, more ice and snow will sublimate directly into the atmosphere and it will be able to hold more of the water vapor, leading to more precipiotation, and yes, greenhouse effect (hopefully not as drastic as that of Venus!)

[vodyanoj]

Great response.

4th pint of Guinness. I think I am almost finished here. One more, maybe 2.

[zion the lion]

The warmer it becomes, the more moisture the air can hold. I remember learning back in the sophomore days, that the air above Greenland and Antarctica and the Alaskan glaciers (in the winter, at least) was drier than the air above the Death Valley, for example. As the temperature rises, more ice and snow will sublimate directly into the atmosphere and it will be able to hold more of the water vapor, leading to more precipiotation, and yes, greenhouse effect (hopefully not as drastic as that of Venus!)

I dont even know what that means because I'm too blinded by my anger.

there are a lot of alaskans (including me and my I dont give a fuck because I was tricked into thinking it included dramatic temperature increases and I want warmth) who have the sarah palin view on climate change, and now it really makes sense to me why they dont believe.

[caveBEAR]

I dont even know what that means because I'm too blinded by my anger.

there are a lot of alaskans (including me and my I dont give a fuck because I was tricked into thinking it included dramatic temperature increases and I want warmth) who have the sarah palin view on climate change, and now it really makes sense to me why they dont believe.

Because they're idiots? Because 'I believe something that Sarah Palin believes' = 'I'm an idiot'.

[zion the lion]

Because they're idiots? Because 'I believe something that Sarah Palin believes' = 'I'm an idiot'.

Before sarah palin started her crazy country wide speeches about her stupidity. Anyway, I know a lot of people up here who think its all bullshit.

Do you want me to let you in on a crazy secret? She actually was way different before that whole election thing. But not many people here like her or whatever, its just some dumdums down there who like her now.

[vodyanoj]

I dont even know what that means because I'm too blinded by my anger.

there are a lot of alaskans (including me and my I dont give a fuck because I was tricked into thinking it included dramatic temperature increases and I want warmth) who have the sarah palin view on climate change, and now it really makes sense to me why they dont believe.

Blinding anger is not conducive to any discussion or rational thought. I prefer to go out and drink when I feel that way. As long as I stay off whiskey, everything ends well.

That said, they "don't believe" because they are idiots that cannot see beyond naive cause-effect correlations. Is that it?

Again, warming causes higher rates of precipitation. In the winter, it would be snow. Are you really surprised by snow in April? Where I am from, there was snow on the ground till early May and it even snowed on my birthday in June once.

[ImTheSheriff]

Because they're idiots? Because 'I believe something that Sarah Palin believes' = 'I'm an idiot'.

don't even try to talk to her.

[caveBEAR]

don't even try to talk to her.

I've had much more zion interaction than you, I'm a qualified Zion Handler.

Please back away from the cage and remain calm.

[caveBEAR]

That said, they "don't believe" because they are idiots that cannot see beyond naive cause-effect correlations. Is that it?

:appl:

[ImTheSheriff]

I've had much more zion interaction than you, I'm a qualified Zion Handler.

Please back away from the cage and remain calm.

haha, fair enough. i'll leave it to you.

[zion the lion]

Blinding anger is not conducive to any discussion or rational thought. I prefer to go out and drink when I feel that way. As long as I stay off whiskey, everything ends well.

That said, they "don't believe" because they are idiots that cannot see beyond naive cause-effect correlations. Is that it?

Again, warming causes higher rates of precipitation. In the winter, it would be snow. Are you really surprised by snow in April? Where I am from, there was snow on the ground till early May and it even snowed on my birthday in June once.

I'm more of an attacker not a drinker. If you hear that sly and the family stone song "I wanna take you higher" though...Just think about me and know that he succeeded.

No, more like "natural cycles" and "alaska used to be tropical" or something so they dont want to care about the polar bears. When I come down from this I'll take care of it more and make more sense of it.

Yeah I know but I hate it.

I've had much more zion interaction than you, I'm a qualified Zion Handler.

Please back away from the cage and remain calm.

The one with the animal avatar is referring to me as the one with the cage? Really Yogi?

[caveBEAR]

"alaska used to be tropical"

That one's new.

[zion the lion]

That one's new.

You havent heard that one? God I hear that one all the time, about how there are fossils of palm trees up here.

[caveBEAR]

You havent heard that one? God I hear that one all the time, about how there are fossils of palm trees up here.

Wow. Next time you hear that one, remind the morons that there were dinosaurs, too. If they need the extra help, remind them that the humans didn't live with the dinosaurs, and it was a lot more than 6000 years ago.

[vodyanoj]

You havent heard that one? God I hear that one all the time, about how there are fossils of palm trees up here.

The world was tropical a couple of hundred million years ago. That would include Alaska, which in any case would have been much closer to the equator back then.

[zion the lion]

Wow. Next time you hear that one, remind the morons that there were dinosaurs, too. If they need the extra help, remind them that the humans didn't live with the dinosaurs, and it was a lot more than 6000 years ago.

I've only heard one person try to pull that whole "the world is 6000 years old thing" shit on me and they were hard core greenies (aka they were for recycling and shit). I'd rather believe in the whole flintstone way of life though, where dinosaurs and mammoths and saber toothed tigers all lived together working for humans...would you really want to shatter that belief for anyone?

The world was tropical a couple of hundred million years ago. That would include Alaska, which in any case would have been much closer to the equator back then.

Yes, I know (because watching 12 hours of the history channel and national geographic end up equaling a diploma somewhere) and I also know that I've said relatively the same thing at which point two of them told me (at the same time while sitting/laying on the bed watching Glenn Beck while waiting for Bill O'Riley and drinking their slimfast and no, neither of them are fat) that it doesnt change the fact that the world has had multiple ice ages so "la di da" and I said if you cant beat them join them and sat on the bed and drank a slimfast too...because they're my aunts and I dont argue with their logic...

To put it in perspective, me arguing with their logic is like everyone else trying to argue with mine.

[vodyanoj]

I've only heard one person try to pull that whole "the world is 6000 years old thing" shit on me and they were hard core greenies (aka they were for recycling and shit). I'd rather believe in the whole flintstone way of life though, where dinosaurs and mammoths and saber toothed tigers all lived together working for humans...would you really want to shatter that belief for anyone?



Yes, I know (because watching 12 hours of the history channel and national geographic end up equaling a diploma somewhere) and I also know that I've said relatively the same thing at which point two of them told me (at the same time while sitting/laying on the bed watching Glenn Beck while waiting for Bill O'Riley and drinking their slimfast and no, neither of them are fat) that it doesnt change the fact that the world has had multiple ice ages so "la di da" and I said if you cant beat them join them and sat on the bed and drank a slimfast too...because they're my aunts and I dont argue with their logic...

To put it in perspective, me arguing with their logic is like everyone else trying to argue with mine.

The easiest way to put in in perspective is to note that the onset of an ice age (or an end of it) takes place over tens of thousands of years--at least. Meanwhile, the crap we are doing to the planet takes place on the scale of decades. Evolution operates just fine on the former scale, not so on the latter. The same with atmosphere: over a long periood of time, it has plenty of chances to absorb pollutants, change its structure etc. Not so now.

As I have said, it is not the magnitude of changes per se, but the rate at which the changes are happening.

[zion the lion]

The easiest way to put in in perspective is to note that the onset of an ice age (or an end of it) takes place over tens of thousands of years--at least. Meanwhile, the crap we are doing to the planet takes place on the scale of decades. Evolution operates just fine on the former scale, not so on the latter. The same with atmosphere: over a long periood of time, it has plenty of chances to absorb pollutants, change its structure etc. Not so now.

As I have said, it is not the magnitude of changes per se, but the rate at which the changes are happening.

My long term memory is wonderful (obviously since I can recall all these wonderful family moments and put them into stories for all of you), and sometimes my short term memory is good (not so much anymore because of the seroquel/prozac/amphetamine/anti seizure meds mix) my point is, arent you the one who's planning on moving to alaska? If so, I'm passing the baton onto you and I can take you on a field trip to my family's house and you can explain it to them like professor Vody in a School House Rock way...it will be wonderful.

[caveBEAR]

Oooooh man, vody's gonna get eaten by the Aunts...

[vodyanoj]

My long term memory is wonderful (obviously since I can recall all these wonderful family moments and put them into stories for all of you), and sometimes my short term memory is good (not so much anymore because of the seroquel/prozac/amphetamine/anti seizure meds mix) my point is, arent you the one who's planning on moving to alaska? If so, I'm passing the baton onto you and I can take you on a field trip to my family's house and you can explain it to them like professor Vody in a School House Rock way...it will be wonderful.

I'll make sure to wear my greenest liberty spikes, a Cthulhu t-shirt and lots of leather and chains when I do that...:-)

[zion the lion]

I'll make sure to wear my greenest liberty spikes, a Cthulhu t-shirt and lots of leather and chains when I do that...:-)

Just make sure to offer to take your shoes off before you go inside their house. And be prepared to get your food taken away. They like to do the "you dont agree with me? Well no food for you!" thing a lot.

[caveBEAR]

Just make sure to offer to take your shoes off before you go inside their house. And be prepared to get your food taken away. They like to do the "you dont agree with me? Well no food for you!" thing a lot.

A very effective evolutionary strategy.

[zion the lion]

A very effective evolutionary strategy.

I have a story that would go for socialism...I should post it there, or even health care, where they took my food away, it was hilarious just their view point and then their reason for not wanting it and then their "proof" and then they took my salmon and rice away for the night and my ice cream. Oh I was pissed.

In a family of really good cooks and really politically passionate people, I decided that I just wasnt going to be care about certain issues, because I dont know how to shut about.

[vodyanoj]

Just make sure to offer to take your shoes off before you go inside their house. And be prepared to get your food taken away. They like to do the "you dont agree with me? Well no food for you!" thing a lot.

I always take my boots off indoors. I used to carry a pair of slippers with me when I was on campus, and wear them to classes.

[vodyanoj]

Oooooh man, vody's gonna get eaten by the Aunts...

Heebie geebies! That's OK: I am mostly indigestible. And poisonous, no doubt.

[zion the lion]

I always take my boots off indoors. I used to carry a pair of slippers with me when I was on campus, and wear them to classes.

I carry a pair of flip flops with me, but I'm a barefoot person, I go barefoot outside and inside half of the time, which is dangerous (its sad that I have a story for that too, I'm going to make a story-aholics anonymous sooner or later).

[vodyanoj]

I carry a pair of flip flops with me, but I'm a barefoot person, I go barefoot outside and inside half of the time, which is dangerous (its sad that I have a story for that too, I'm going to make a story-aholics anonymous sooner or later).


You must be a mathematician. Mathematicians have a well-known fear and distrust of socks, and close-toed shoes.

[rawesome]

I have a lecture by a Nobel Laureate tomorrow on Climate Change. I'm pretty excited. Hopefully I'll be able to bring in some good information!

[zion the lion]

You must be a mathematician. Mathematicians have a well-known fear and distrust of socks, and close-toed shoes.

I would be one just for that.

[vodyanoj]

I would be one just for that.

It's never too late to start! I recommend "Mathematics Made Difficult" by Carl Linderholm.. :)

[zion the lion]

It's never too late to start! I recommend "Mathematics Made Difficult" by Carl Linderholm.. :)

Thank you thank you thank you very much. I always say that I'm going to be a astrophysicist (or that I was born to be one) but I left school so early that I ended up neglecting the whole little math corner of the whole thing. But I think you might have just given me the kick in the ass I needed for math.

[DrStrong]

It would be crazy if the seasons were totally reversed. Having summer in December would be crazy.

[mattmatumbo]

It's been snowing/raining on most days, other days it's 70 degrees and sunny as all hell. WTF is going on!!! It's May for fuck's sake!

[DrStrong]

It's been snowing/raining on most days, other days it's 70 degrees and sunny as all hell. WTF is going on!!! It's May for fuck's sake!
Exactly. Im here in Socal and its chilly outside right now. Last year, it was blistering by now.

I think in 2012, if something does happen, the beginning of a new "cycle", I bet the seasons will be reversed.

[caveBEAR]

I think in 2012, if something does happen, the beginning of a new "cycle", I bet the seasons will be reversed.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/picard_facepalm.jpg

[DrStrong]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/picard_facepalm.jpg
Damn i cant see your post, I'm at work.

What do you think about 2012? Is it the new Y2K or something legitimate?

[caveBEAR]

Damn i cant see your post, I'm at work.

What do you think about 2012? Is it the new Y2K or something legitimate?

Beyond the new Y2K. Anyone who believes that bullshit has a woeful misunderstanding of the climate, the planet, weather systems, and just how fucked up the Mayans were. I tend not to believe anything that cultures who sacrifice virgins have to say.

Believing that 2012 is going to have some sort of shift on our world is like getting to December in your calender, and then killing yourself because 'obviously the world's going to end'.

'Legitimate' and '2012' shouldn't be allowed in each others vicinities.

[Smash Adams]

Damn i cant see your post, I'm at work.

What do you think about 2012? Is it the new Y2K or something legitimate?
Can I ask you a question, this is legit not facetious at all, how many Mayans do you know? You'd think if they were psychic they'd make sure their race wasn't wiped out

[caveBEAR]

Can I ask you a question, this is legit not facetious at all, how many Mayans do you know? You'd think if they were psychic they'd make sure their race wasn't wiped out

Someone forgot to mark down 'Conquistador Day' on the Mayan Calendar.

[DrStrong]

Beyond the new Y2K. Anyone who believes that bullshit has a woeful misunderstanding of the climate, the planet, weather systems, and just how fucked up the Mayans were. I tend not to believe anything that cultures who sacrifice virgins have to say.

Believing that 2012 is going to have some sort of shift on our world is like getting to December in your calender, and then killing yourself because 'obviously the world's going to end'.

'Legitimate' and '2012' shouldn't be allowed in each others vicinities.
I agree, I dont believe the world will end. BUT, didnt something significant happen the last time all of the planets aligned with the sun?

Can I ask you a question, this is legit not facetious at all, how many Mayans do you know? You'd think if they were psychic they'd make sure their race wasn't wiped out
I agree with you completely, but the entire south American/Egyptian cultural studies really intrigue me. Especially how some of these cultures vanished without a trace. Even more intriguing, the cultures that vanished had the "ancient alien" hieroglyphics all over their structures.

[Jonasmurdock]

It's gettin warmer every day

[caveBEAR]

I agree, I dont believe the world will end. BUT, didnt something significant happen the last time all of the planets aligned with the sun?

No.

[caveBEAR]

It's gettin warmer every day

That's called 'summer'.

[Smash Adams]

I agree, I dont believe the world will end. BUT, didnt something significant happen the last time all of the planets aligned with the sun?


I agree with you completely, but the entire south American/Egyptian cultural studies really intrigue me. Especially how some of these cultures vanished without a trace. Even more intriguing, the cultures that vanished had the "ancient alien" hieroglyphics all over their structures.
I agree, especially how ancient Baghdad was the cultural center of the world and then boom nothing for thousands of years

[DrStrong]

No.
Hmm, I could have sworn something happened. Maybe I'm getting confused.

I think the last last time the Mayan calender changed cycles, the planets aligned. Maybe thats what I was thinking about.

[DrStrong]

The Solstice on December 21, 2012 ~ precisely at 11:11 AM Universal Time ~ marks the completion of the 5,125 year Great Cycle of the Ancient Maya Long Count Calendar.
Rather than being a linear end-point, this cycle that is closing is naturally followed by the start of a new cycle. What this new cycle has in store for humanity is a mystery that has yet to unfold...


http://www.13moon.com/prophecy%20page.htm#1

I accept that the Mayan time cycle is going to end(again) on this date...which is fine. But I really dont get the relation between the cycle ending, and it somehow affecting humanity.

[caveBEAR]

Hmm, I could have sworn something happened. Maybe I'm getting confused.

I think the last last time the Mayan calender changed cycles, the planets aligned. Maybe thats what I was thinking about.

That sounds like it may be right, as the Mayan calendar is based on astrological events; however, nothing in the physical realm happened of any significance.

[caveBEAR]

http://www.13moon.com/prophecy%20page.htm#1

I accept that the Mayan time cycle is going to end(again) on this date...which is fine. But I really dont get the relation between the cycle ending, and it somehow affecting humanity.

People are stupid. Some people know how to capitalize on that stupidity. That's the relation.

[DrStrong]

People are stupid. Some people know how to capitalize on that stupidity. That's the relation.
I cant remember where i heard this, might of been someones stand-up; But it was said that people should have known y2k was a hoax from the get go, why would something happen on US time?

[caveBEAR]

I cant remember where i heard this, might of been someones stand-up; But it was said that people should have known y2k was a hoax from the get go, why would something happen on US time?

When people start having meltdowns over 2012, remind them that the Earth has been here for billions of years, and it hasn't split in two or any of that nonsense.

[DrStrong]

When people start having meltdowns over 2012, remind them that the Earth has been here for billions of years, and it hasn't split in two or any of that nonsense.
Thats my way of thinking when people mention Global Warming.

[caveBEAR]

Thats my way of thinking when people mention Global Warming.

Well that's stupid. The Earth has been around for billions of years. Factories, cars and other man made items spewing pollution have only been around for about 200-300 years maximum.

As well, it's climate change, not global warming.

[vodyanoj]

I agree, I dont believe the world will end. BUT, didnt something significant happen the last time all of the planets aligned with the sun?


I agree with you completely, but the entire south American/Egyptian cultural studies really intrigue me. Especially how some of these cultures vanished without a trace. Even more intriguing, the cultures that vanished had the "ancient alien" hieroglyphics all over their structures.

Nope, and nothing will. Remember: the gravitational field of the doctor delivering you at the hostpital you wereborn in was stronger for you than that of the Moon. Plus, where do you get the planetary alignment? That is not a part of 2012.