or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another setback for Teh Global Warming™
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another setback for Teh Global Warming™ - Page 2

post #41 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You are mixing two different facts into the same statement.

1) The IPCC projection for sea level rise by 2100 of 40 cm, which at this point appears to be a conservative estimate based on recent peer reviewed papers examining the empirical data of actual sea level rise to date...

2) Gore's 7 meter scenario is what would happen if the entire Greenland ice sheet were to melt completely, and this will take several hundred years, at a minimum (hopefully)...

This is what really bothered me about Gore's movie. As much as it raised awareness for what is going on in the IPCC, he created so many straw-men for the GW deniers by not stating explicitly the time-frames for many of his assertions. Keep fighting the good fight!

Let me also point out a specific point about the IPCC reports that seems to be lost on people like SDW. The IPCC report is a conservative document by its very nature. It is a consensus report of hundreds of scientists, peer-reviewed by thousands of scientists, and whose conclusions were agreed to by a political body (the IPCC). The only way that you get 150 governments to agree to sign off on a report like the IPCC report is to be conservative about the conclusions. And as you mention, frank, when you look at the latest research, that conservative nature to the IPCC report is often seen.

SDW: what will actually happen in the next century will be worse than the worst-case scenario in the IPCC report. Scientists were shocked when the Larson B ice sheet broke up in 2002. We are in for much worse shocks than that.
post #42 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

There. Teh Fixed Tehat for Teh You.

Let me get this straight...you're comparing those who are skeptical of Teh Global Warming to those that interpret the bible literally and subscribe to Creationism? You are further claiming that there is as much evidence supporting global warming theory as there is for The Theory of Evolution?


Wow. It's worse than I thought.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let me get this straight...you're comparing those who are skeptical of Teh Global Warming to those that interpret the bible literally and subscribe to Creationism? You are further claiming that there is as much evidence supporting global warming theory as there is for The Theory of Evolution?


Wow. It's worse than I thought.

To be true, the Theory of Evolution (natural selection and the transmutation of "species") that explains the fact of evolution (the observation that "species" change over time) is far more robust a theory than that human activity is the cause (the theory) of global warming (the fact).

In situations such as these, I love to recall the words of my girl when I told her about the argument that I had with my brother on Thanksgiving 2006: "Well, if the theory of evolution is false, I might as well just quit my program because none of my experiments will work!" (She's a PhD student in cell biology at UNC Chapel Hill)



xkcd.com
post #44 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let me get this straight...you're comparing those who are skeptical of Teh Global Warming to those that interpret the bible literally and subscribe to Creationism? You are further claiming that there is as much evidence supporting global warming theory as there is for The Theory of Evolution?


Wow. It's worse than I thought.

The evidence is so thoroughly overwhelming that to deny is like denying evolution, yes, and global warming deniers use the same kinds of defences, yes.
post #45 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

The evidence is so thoroughly overwhelming that to deny is like denying evolution, yes, and global warming deniers use the same kinds of defences, yes.

The evidence for global warming due to CO2/greenhouse effects is quite strong, but we still have no idea if the CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere is 10% of the total or 90% of the total (or, like I believe, +500% of the total, with -400% being the slide into the ice age).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #46 of 333
There's a good article about this winter's temperature and the implications for climate change generally in the New York Times. In short, it's a real blip in a long-term trend.
post #47 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

The evidence is so thoroughly overwhelming that to deny is like denying evolution, yes, and global warming deniers use the same kinds of defenses, yes.

I have no problem if someone wants to debate what % of climate change is effected by mankind, it's the ones who say nothing is happening that disturb me.

We had a discussion on global warming in my Technology and Society class this week, one guy out of a class of about 25 said that the thought global warming was a 'red herring' created by the 'Mainstream Media' to distract the 'sheeple' from the 'Real News' and to drive policy.

Needless to say, he had no facts to defend his position...
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #48 of 333
'Enjoy life while you can'

Quote:
Climate science maverick James Lovelock believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam. So what would he do?

Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.

Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem - the bigger challenge will be food. "Maybe they'll synthesise food. I don't know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco's, in the form of Quorn. It's not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it." But he fears we won't invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects "about 80%" of the world's population to be wiped out by 2100. Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says. "But this is the real thing."

Sobering. A little frightening. But another view or theory out there. Sure hope he's wrong. But another interesting view was also presented by Robert Newman in the last quarter of his "The History of Oil" piece. Very, very desperate outlook too. "No. Way. Out."

My gut feeling is that these men are on to something. The entire Save The Planet thing is a lot like teaching CPR to civilians throughout the community when everyone knows that there is no statistical difference in the ultimate survival of someone having a cardiac arrest who receives CPR in the field and ones who don't receive CPR. Things are so far gone that the tipping point has probably been reached.

Nothing short of a sudden and radical reduction in humans on earth will cause an effect, even if that will. We may as a species just have to go into lifeboat mode and wait for nature to come back into a new equilibrium.
post #49 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

The evidence is so thoroughly overwhelming that to deny is like denying evolution, yes, and global warming deniers use the same kinds of defences, yes.

Wow...you just came out and said it. That takes some balls, I must admit. Of course, it's utterly delusional and blind, but no matter.

The fact is that we're not sure humans cause global warming. We think we might based on various pieces of evidence, C02 levels included. We know for example that humans only contribute about 3% of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Of course, we're not sure that greenhouse gases even cause global warming at all. There is evidence to suggest sunspot activity may have more to do with it than greenhouse gases.

Oh, and let's not forget: We're not even sure the Earth is actually warming at all, not beyond how it typically does.

But yeah, it's just like evolution.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #50 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wow...you just came out and said it. That takes some balls, I must admit. Of course, it's utterly delusional and blind, but no matter.

The fact is that we're not sure humans cause global warming. We think we might based on various pieces of evidence, C02 levels included. We know for example that humans only contribute about 3% of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Say the right wing blogs that are the entire basis for my opinion on the topic.

Quote:
Of course, we're not sure that greenhouse gases even cause global warming at all. There is evidence to suggest sunspot activity may have more to do with it than greenhouse gases.

Say the right wing blogs that are the entire basis for my opinion on the topic.

Quote:
Oh, and let's not forget: We're not even sure the Earth is actually warming at all, not beyond how it typically does.

Say the right wing blogs that are the entire basis for my opinion on the topic.

Quote:
But yeah, it's just like evolution.

Right, because against the right wing blogs that are the entire basis for your opinion, there are only the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, statements from the Joint Academy, the U.S. National Research Council, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Astronomical Society, the American Physical Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, the Geological Society of America, the American Chemical Society, the Institution of Engineers Australia, and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, all of whom are lying and at any rate could by no means be considered "consensus", seeing as how there are the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, a handful of dissenters, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, and any number of non-academic right wing pundits.

So that pretty much balances out and give real heft to your beliefs.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #51 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

'Enjoy life while you can'

Quote:
Climate science maverick James Lovelock believes catastrophe is inevitable...

If you are interested in listening to an interview with Lovelock, he was featured on CBC Radio's Ideas: How to Think About Science (iTunes link).

However, I wouldn't consider Lovelock very credible. I've listened to the twelve episodes of "How to Think About Science," and I've come to the conclusion that a more apt name would be "How to Undermine Science." The show seems to be a platform for the minority opinion on the topics under discussion. While the minority opinion is occasionally right, it's far more likely to be wrong. If his ideas have merit (if the ideas of the other twelve episodes have merit), the process of convincing the world should be to withstand the peer-review process. Media exposure is the vanguard of the pseudo-scientist.

Quote:
Nothing short of a sudden and radical reduction in humans on earth will cause an effect, even if that will. We may as a species just have to go into lifeboat mode and wait for nature to come back into a new equilibrium.

This is the real sensible solution: we must decrease the human population. This can happen two ways, and only one is civilised. Would we have to worry about CO2 emissions if there were only 6 million of us instead of 6 billion?
post #52 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We know for example that humans only contribute about 3% of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Just happen to be the ones rapidly changing...


Quote:
Of course, we're not sure that greenhouse gases even cause global warming at all.

This happens to be utterly wrong. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations do cause increases in the thermal content of any gaseous mixture. To state otherwise is to admit ignorance of the basic science behind this entire debate.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #53 of 333
Good thread. And I was beginning to believe I was the only one left who doesn't recognize man made global climate change as real.

Chalk up another 'denier' to the group: John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel.

Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'. TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.'
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
post #54 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanMacMan View Post

Good thread. And I was beginning to believe I was the only one left who doesn't recognize man made global climate change as real.

Chalk up another 'denier' to the group: John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel.

Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'. TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.'

ROTFLMAO!

Quote:
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

sponsored by the Heartland Institute

Psssst, it's the 1st CONTRARIAN "International Conference on Climate Change." And it lasts a full 1.5 days!

Quote:
Heartland has prompted criticism by employing executives from such corporations as ExxonMobil, General Motors, and Philip Morris on its board of directors and in its public relations department.The institute has accepted more than US$500,000.00 in funds from Exxon and more than US$200,000.00 from Philip Morris.

In March 2008, the Heartland Institute sponsored a gathering of global warming skeptics in New York City, at which the participants criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore.

The Institute has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy. The Institute received over $150,000 from the Phillip Morris over three years from 1997 to 1999.

I can't stop laughing, you just can't make this stuff up!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #55 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Say the right wing blogs that are the entire basis for my opinion on the topic.



Say the right wing blogs that are the entire basis for my opinion on the topic.



Say the right wing blogs that are the entire basis for my opinion on the topic.



Right, because against the right wing blogs that are the entire basis for your opinion, there are only the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, statements from the Joint Academy, the U.S. National Research Council, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Astronomical Society, the American Physical Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, the Geological Society of America, the American Chemical Society, the Institution of Engineers Australia, and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, all of whom are lying and at any rate could by no means be considered "consensus", seeing as how there are the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, a handful of dissenters, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, and any number of non-academic right wing pundits.

So that pretty much balances out and give real heft to your beliefs.

Ooohh! That's an impressive list! The IPCC is a bureaucratic pig. The AMS is one of the most hysterical on the topic, while many of their members don't agree with their official position. It's like citing the NEA on the Presidential election for Pete's sake.

Are many of those sources credible? Sure. Do all or even most of their members actually agree with their position? Not necessarily.

Of course, we need to talk about those who have contrary opinions, and looky here...they exist:
  • Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg
  • Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
  • Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
  • Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
  • Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
  • David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
  • William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
  • Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Right-wing bloggers and Big Oil supporters, I guess.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #56 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ooohh! That's an impressive list! The IPCC is a bureaucratic pig. The AMS is one of the most hysterical on the topic, while many of their members don't agree with their official position. It's like citing the NEA on the Presidential election for Pete's sake.

Are many of those sources credible? Sure. Do all or even most of their members actually agree with their position? Not necessarily.

Of course, we need to talk about those who have contrary opinions, and looky here...they exist:
  • Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg
  • Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
  • Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
  • Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
  • Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
  • David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
  • William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
  • Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Right-wing bloggers and Big Oil supporters, I guess.

Seriously!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #57 of 333


Quote:
There are so many well-meaning conservatives around here who just assume global warming is only presented as a moral issue for political reasons.

I swear, Randall Munroe is my hero!
post #58 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Just happen to be the ones rapidly changing...

And does that matter if those gases don't affect the climate?

Quote:




This happens to be utterly wrong. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations do cause increases in the thermal content of any gaseous mixture. To state otherwise is to admit ignorance of the basic science behind this entire debate.

In a lab or controlled environment, yes. Globally? No, we simply don't know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton View Post





I swear, Randall Munroe is my hero!

See, there we go. This is the prime portrayal of skeptics of Teh Global Warming. They have an agenda, which usually involves their wallets. They're tied to the fossil fuel industry. They're stupid. They're intellectually dishonest. Take your pick.

These portrayals alone should make one wonder about those who use them. It should make one wonder if there is an agenda on the other side. But of course, we can't talk about that. Those who embrace Teh Global Warming are pure, just, and only trying to Save the Planet® I mean, it couldn't be that there are people, industries and entire nations that stand to gain from TGW. It can't be that TGW is the Wacko Environmentalists umbrella issue, thereby giving all of their other Wacko causes and Wacko sub-groups ammunition.

Suburban sprawl? TGW.

Acid rain? TGW

Timber use? TGW

SUVs? TGW

Eating meat? TGW

More US aid to fight poverty? TGW

Excuse to damage US economy and help other nations' economies? TGW

Take from the pollution-spewing rich? TGW!!!



Really, what's next? You know what...I'm going to start attributing things to TGW the way many of the GWHs (Global Warming Hysterics) do. My laptop is kind of warm on my lap right now...it's clearly TGW It has been warm the last few days...it's obviously TGW Milk prices are up...must be TGW My steak was overcooked..must be TGW

What's that? It's silly you say? Too bad. Anyone who would deny that my lap is warm because of global warming is a Laptop Warming due to Teh Global Warming DENIER. The debate is over. Until about 10 years from now when we realize our sun has been not as active as it should be, and we get concerned about a new ice age. Of course, then it will be explained easily. "The problem was not really just Teh Global Warming." No, no! It was "Teh Global Climate Change (TGCC).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #59 of 333
I can't disagree that GW/GCC is being over-hyped in the MSM, but that doesn't mean that nothing is wrong and we can keep our collective heads in the sand!



We need to look past the hype, and use the factual data. These guys might argue that something is wrong:



And there is this, from the Christian Science Montior, way back in 2004:



The comic posted by Denton is dead on, there are only two choices, continue on like we are and pray science is wrong, or do something about reducing emissions, just in case they are right. It's like being in a lifeboat but not rowing because help will come along any minute now.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #60 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

I can't disagree that GW/GCC is being over-hyped in the MSM, but that doesn't mean that nothing is wrong and we can keep our collective heads in the sand!

Really...what's "wrong" then?

Quote:

We need to look past the hype, and use the factual data.

So you post this.....

Quote:
These guys might argue that something is wrong:


Of course that photo is deceptive and intended to make the "problem" look worse than it is. It also represents no data whatsoever, but hey...no matter...the poor polar bears are trapped!

Quote:

And there is this utterly hysterical and unsupported speculation, from the Christian Science Montior, way back in 2004:


You forgot a phrase in there. Fixed it for you.

Quote:

The comic posted by Denton is dead on,

So every skeptic is either ill-informed, dishonest, stupid, motivated by his own financial interest or a combination of all 4?

Quote:
there are only two choices,

No, there are infinitely more than two choices. There are only two choices if you're a GoreBot.

Quote:
continue on like we are and pray science is wrong, or do something about reducing emissions, just in case they are right.

When did "science" become the monolithic and faceless "Science®?" There are many in "science" that don't share the opinion of the so-called consensus.

Quote:

It's like being in a lifeboat but not rowing because help will come along any minute now.

No, it's like screaming hysterically that there aren't enough lifeboats even though the ship is not in the water...and you're not on board.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #61 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Really...what's "wrong" then?



So you post this.....



Of course that photo is deceptive and intended to make the "problem" look worse than it is. It also represents no data whatsoever, but hey...no matter...the poor polar bears are trapped!



You forgot a phrase in there. Fixed it for you.



So every skeptic is either ill-informed, dishonest, stupid, motivated by his own financial interest or a combination of all 4?



No, there are infinitely more than two choices. There are only two choices if you're a GoreBot.



When did "science" become the monolithic and faceless "Science®?" There are many in "science" that don't share the opinion of the so-called consensus.



No, it's like screaming hysterically that there aren't enough lifeboats even though the ship is not in the water...and you're not on board.

... instead of incoherent subjective mischaracterizations.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Polar ice packs

Arctic shrinkage

[CENTER][/CENTER]

The Arctic Ice Cap actually acts as an insulator between the warmer Arctic Ocean and colder Arctic air (during the winter season).

Quote:
Extremely cold temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere in the Winter of 2007/2008 helped the Arctic ice pack to grow to near normal levels. The ice was also found to be 10 to 20 centimeters thicker than the previous year. However, it is still uncertain as to how much of this recovery will melt in the summer of 2008.

So a hypothesis for the current colder winter this year in the Northern Hemisphere (and significant growth of the Arctic Ice Cap this winter) would be the fact that the lack of ice cover has accelerated cooling of the greater exposure of the Arctic Ocean to the colder Arctic air in the autumn/winter.

If next summer's Arctic sea ice extent drops to previous levels, or even reaches a new record low, we could see greater perturbations, with much warmer summers and much colder winters in the Northern Hemisphere.

It's really too early to tell until this coming summer/fall.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #62 of 333
Where's that picture of someone beating a dead horse? Well, there is no more horse. All that's left is a growing hole where the body/carcass used to be. Porn might help some of you guys.
post #63 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I can't stop laughing, you just can't make this stuff up!

Yeah. That's pretty funny. Is that Iraqi information minister still alive? Those guys should hire him. No seriously.

post #64 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

Where's that picture of someone beating a dead horse? Well, there is no more horse. All that's left is a growing hole where the body/carcass used to be. Porn might help some of you guys.

Analog:



Digital:



You're welcome.
post #65 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

[CENTER][/CENTER]

One thing here guys, if all that it takes is a 0.7C increase (see above) in global mean temperature. I don't think there's a whole hell of a lot we can do about it.

And when the answer is "ethanol" (expletives fail me) -- we'd be better off doing nothing at all.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #66 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

One thing here guys, if all that it takes is a 0.7C increase (see above) in global mean temperature. I don't think there's a whole hell of a lot we can do about it.

And when the answer is "ethanol" (expletives fail me) -- we'd be better off doing nothing at all.



"I see it with everybody. People just want to go on doing what they're doing. They want business as usual. They say, 'Oh yes, there's going to be a problem up ahead,' but they don't want to change anything."
post #67 of 333

Amen and Amen.

When the answer is a simple as Nuclear power, and we run around like chickens with their heads cut off -- wringing 5 mph more out of a hybrid -- somebody's playing games. Those little green ethanol logos on the backs of the Chevy's make me want to puke.

The dirty little secret is that things like hybrid cars and fluorescents would have been brought to market in due time -- without the Greenpeace marketing -- when they were ready. No one sits down to think where all that mercury is going to go when the whole country is using millions of the curly-Q bulbs, just as no one stops to think about the hidden costs of manufacturing and disposing of a hybrid. My gut tells me that the thermodynamics of a hybrid, taken as a whole, are a joke.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #68 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And does that matter if those gases don't affect the climate?



In a lab or controlled environment, yes. Globally? No, we simply don't know that.

Um...if it happens in a lab it happens globally... otherwise, what would be the point of doing science if scientists weren't able to take data and make larger scale predictions accurately...

in other words, you are wrong, get over it. the properties of carbon dioxide don't suddenly change when you are outside of a laboratory setting...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #69 of 333
EU warned of climate-induced polar security threat

Quote:
European Union leaders will receive a stark warning next week of potential conflict with Russia over energy resources at the North Pole as global warning melts the ice cap and aggravates international security threats.

A report to the leaders by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and the executive European Commission describes climate change as "a threat multiplier," which will exacerbate many existing tensions and heighten instability.

"A further dimension of competition for energy resources lies in potential conflict over resources in Polar regions which will become exploitable as a consequence of global warming," the eight-page report obtained by Reuters said.

"The resulting new strategic interests are illustrated by the recent planting of the Russian flag under the North Pole."

A Russian scientific expedition planted a flag on the ocean floor last summer, staking a symbolic claim to the resource-rich region. President Vladimir Putin decorated the three-man team with "Hero of Russia" medals.



Photo of Putin fishing for Polar Sea Bass.
post #70 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

EU warned of climate-induced polar security threat





Photo of Putin fishing for Polar Sea Bass.

I think you meant to type "grayling".

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #71 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I think you meant to type "grayling".

Grayling puny, Putin eat and drink. Putin Judo kick. Putin kiss bellies of children!



Putin put ass in place.
post #72 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Grayling puny, Putin eat and drink. Putin Judo kick. Putin kiss bellies of children!



Putin put ass in place.

Leave Putin Alone!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #73 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Analog:



Digital:



You're welcome.

"No horse, no matter how dead, can be beaten too much."
post #74 of 333
Thought of you, SDW...



Okay, that was unfair...
post #75 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald View Post

SDW2001: is there anything that could convince you of the validity of global warming / climate change caused by humans?

If so, what?

There are some people who would deny it even when the ocean reaches the top of their chimney.

As for me, I live and work about a meter above sea level and the thought of any increase is pretty scary.

Also, people don't seem to understand that warming in one area disrupts wind patterns and may result in cooling in other areas; they simply do not understand how weather functions.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #76 of 333
science is self correcting

politics is self indulgent
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #77 of 333
What I find truly amazing is that when 100s of scientist agree on something a Republinsane will say: "But there is one guy who says it isn't so, he is not qualified but still, it isn't so. And it doesn't agree with my policy."
Yet when 1 guy says we need to go to war over some bullshit, and 100s of experts are not completely sure we immediately have to go to war and every Republinsane will agree and jump for joy.
Severly
Demented
Wackos
Gay
Old
Perverts
post #78 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


Oh, and let's not forget: We're not even sure the Earth is actually warming at all, not beyond how it typically does.

But yeah, it's just like evolution.


How it typically does...?????

How again do we know what the earth typically does?
Science, core samples..??
Oh, they would proof man made global warming.

How do we know about evolution...?
Genetics, biotechnology..?

Indeed it's exactly like evolution.

Therefore SDW's information must be from god, the very, very, very, very old testament? or Rush Limbough
post #79 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Therefore SDW's information must be from god, the very, very, very, very old testament? or Rush Limbough

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/10/baptist.climate/

Quote:
Several prominent leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention said Monday that Baptists have a moral responsibility to combat climate change -- a major shift within a denomination that just last year cast doubt on human responsibility for global warming.

SDW oughta keep up on new revalations.

Quote:
The signers of "A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change" acknowledged that some of them were skeptics at first.

"Some of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that these are real problems that deserve our attention," the statement says. "But now we have seen and heard enough to be persuaded that these issues are among the current era's challenges that require a unified moral voice."
post #80 of 333
Fewer confessions and new sins

[CENTER]
Quote:
The Vatican has brought up to date the traditional seven deadly sins by adding seven modern mortal sins it claims are becoming prevalent in what it calls an era of "unstoppable globalisation".



New

Environmental pollution
Genetic manipulation
Accumulating excessive wealth
Inflicting poverty
Drug trafficking and consumption
Morally debatable experiments
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

Old

Pride
Envy
Gluttony
Lust
Anger
Greed
Sloth[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another setback for Teh Global Warming™