Man Made Global Warming
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-11-2011, 11:57 AM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2011 12:00 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: Man Made Global Warming
(07-11-2011 11:32 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  This book came out in 1972.
At the time, we heard a lot of capitalist pundits saying, "Aw, come on! People have been predicting disaster for eons, and it's never happened."* By the same logic, since my death has been predicted and i haven't died, i must be immortal.
By 1976, when all the international talk resulted in no action - indeed, growth was accelerated and governments all over the world were caving to church objections against birth control.... and then we in Toronto began to drink water bottled in France... i knew it's too late: we're well and royally screwed.


* (which of course was a lie; most of the predicted disasters had happened, but it's convenient to forget whatever didn't happen in our own lifetime)

Back in the day, before it became capitalized, more than a few scientists talked about global warming - and more than a few were talking about "downtown Phoenix" - it's concrete - go from my house, to downtown, in July - expect a rise in temperature. This case may not apply to this particular book - but from my research, that's the kinda simple extrapolation more than a few scientists made back then.

I've been keeping an eye on this topic of and on since '98 - and it has become a Major Issue since then. Like I've been saying - I'm playing "devils advocate" to Zat's "savior" - cause we know Zat's on the side of angels - even if they don't exist. Wink
Ya wanna know what happened back then that is real scary shit? Guy called Carter, I believe - made the original graph - that has since become peak oil.

Ignorance ain't bliss - but it's a whole lot less stress. Wink

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2011, 12:47 PM
 
RE: Man Made Global Warming
(07-11-2011 11:57 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I'm playing "devils advocate" to Zat's "savior" - cause we know Zat's on the side of angels - even if they don't exist. Wink

Have I told you yet that alien angels abducted me from Malmac and brought me to Earth, before my planet exploded, so I could spread the word to humanity:

BEWARE of UNCONTROLLED TECHNOLOGY!!!

Big Grin

PS. They told me that if I do a good job, they would come back for me and take me to a sane planet as a reward!

Now, wouldn't that be nice? -- My very own ascension!

Tongue
Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2011, 04:59 PM
RE: Man Made Global Warming
Masturbatory discussions like this make me want to throw a brick through a window.

The question of anthropogenic climate change (ACC)--or if you like, man-made global warming--is a scientific question. Scientific questions are properly addressed by . . . wait for it . . . scientists. Scientists are professionals with advanced academic degrees who conduct research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

If you're a bona fide climate scientist, then present your credentials and I'll listen to your opinion on ACC. If you're not, then you're talking to hear yourself talk, and your opinion isn't worth shit.

We call something a controversy when expert opinion is equally divided, or when there is at least a substantial number of experts in the minority. In the case of global warming, 97% - 98% of expert scientific opinion is on the side of ACC. THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Man-made global warming is a fact. If you don't accept that, then you're no less a whack job than the crazies who think we never really got to the moon, and 9-11 was an Israeli-American conspiracy, and the Holocaust was a hoax, and dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cufflink's post
07-11-2011, 05:24 PM
RE: Man Made Global Warming
(07-11-2011 04:59 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Masturbatory discussions like this make me want to throw a brick through a window.

The question of anthropogenic climate change (ACC)--or if you like, man-made global warming--is a scientific question. Scientific questions are properly addressed by . . . wait for it . . . scientists. Scientists are professionals with advanced academic degrees who conduct research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

If you're a bona fide climate scientist, then present your credentials and I'll listen to your opinion on ACC. If you're not, then you're talking to hear yourself talk, and your opinion isn't worth shit.

We call something a controversy when expert opinion is equally divided, or when there is at least a substantial number of experts in the minority. In the case of global warming, 97% - 98% of expert scientific opinion is on the side of ACC. THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Man-made global warming is a fact. If you don't accept that, then you're no less a whack job than the crazies who think we never really got to the moon, and 9-11 was an Israeli-American conspiracy, and the Holocaust was a hoax, and dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.

Im in a pretty bad mood so I shouldnt really be posting but hey......life isnt rosey all of the time and im sick of holding back.

Yes I do think its a scam.....and yes when I have gathered my research together I shall present it.

As for calling me a nut job.......excuse my french but fuck you......I do my own in-depth research and look at ALL the evidence be it scientific....or whatever....and no im not a scientist but that doesnt mean im not allowed my own opinion on things and again if you think im a nut then again you can.......you know the rest.

You're never going to say the things you want to say.
The things you want to change will usually stay that way
The promises you break outweigh the ones you keep.
Paint upon the wall for the hundredth time.

Jesus Jones
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
07-11-2011, 06:16 PM
 
RE: Man Made Global Warming
(07-11-2011 06:02 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  You, as an avid 'conspiracy-theorist', should know that. Smile

Now I need to clarify this comment I made to bemore:

I said it as both as a joke and as a compliment!

I respect 'conspiracy theorists' as people who have the courage to question established mainstream interpretations.

I am a conspiracy theorist myself -- for example, I am convinced that the US government, at least, had advance information about 9/11 and I don't put it past the bastards to have engineered it.

I hope, bemore, that you don't get offended, or hurt, because I am on your side. Smile
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zatamon's post
07-11-2011, 06:53 PM
RE: Man Made Global Warming
Quote:Lucradis:
As a species are we that selfish and obsessed with profits that we will allow ourselves to completely destroy our own home?

No. It's not the whole species - though people in large groups are easy to lead astray, easy to inflame, easy to delude and befuddle.
It's the few major beneficiaries of this economic/ cultural blind alley we've gone down and don't know how to retreat from.
We're too far removed from our roots, our next of kin and our primary needs - that's what drives us to madness, waste, destruction and aggression.

It's not the mean god I have trouble with - it's the people who worship a mean god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2011, 02:49 AM
RE: Man Made Global Warming
(07-11-2011 05:24 PM)bemore Wrote:  
(07-11-2011 04:59 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Masturbatory discussions like this make me want to throw a brick through a window.

The question of anthropogenic climate change (ACC)--or if you like, man-made global warming--is a scientific question. Scientific questions are properly addressed by . . . wait for it . . . scientists. Scientists are professionals with advanced academic degrees who conduct research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

If you're a bona fide climate scientist, then present your credentials and I'll listen to your opinion on ACC. If you're not, then you're talking to hear yourself talk, and your opinion isn't worth shit.

We call something a controversy when expert opinion is equally divided, or when there is at least a substantial number of experts in the minority. In the case of global warming, 97% - 98% of expert scientific opinion is on the side of ACC. THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Man-made global warming is a fact. If you don't accept that, then you're no less a whack job than the crazies who think we never really got to the moon, and 9-11 was an Israeli-American conspiracy, and the Holocaust was a hoax, and dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.

Im in a pretty bad mood so I shouldnt really be posting but hey......life isnt rosey all of the time and im sick of holding back.

Yes I do think its a scam.....and yes when I have gathered my research together I shall present it.

As for calling me a nut job.......excuse my french but fuck you......I do my own in-depth research and look at ALL the evidence be it scientific....or whatever....and no im not a scientist but that doesnt mean im not allowed my own opinion on things and again if you think im a nut then again you can.......you know the rest.

bemore,

We’re both in pretty bad moods.

In debates, ideas should be attacked, not people. So I apologize for going over the line on the personal level. But I stand by everything else I said.

People are entitled to their opinion about absolutely anything . . . in the sense they have, or should have, the right to think and say what they want without fear of being thrown in jail. But the world of opinion is not a democracy, where it’s one opinion, one vote. The opinions of professionals in their field of expertise count more than the opinions of lay people. I can ask Joe in Accounting, “Hey, whaddaya think? Is our building earthquake-safe or does it need to be retrofitted?” Joe may very well have an opinion, but unless he’s a structural engineer who’s examined the building, why should his opinion be valued? On the other hand, if I want to find the best method of accounting for certain investments on the company’s balance sheet, I might value Joe’s opinion highly.

I respect the enterprise of science. The scientific method along with the academic structure of peer-reviewed research may not be perfect, but it’s the best thing we’ve come up with so far for determining truth about the natural world. It’s basically self-correcting: here and there a scientist can be bought off, but eventually the fudged data comes to light and the disgraced cheat is booted out of the fraternity. When a new theory comes along that better explains the data, the field changes. I believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old rather than 6,000 not because I’ve discovered that fact for myself—I wouldn’t know how to begin—but because I rely on the conclusions of scientists who have devoted their professional lives to investigating such questions and have reached a consensus. Unless my scientific background and ability is equal to theirs and I have special insight that’s escaped them all, it would be the height of arrogance for me to doubt them. I suppose I might think it’s just a big conspiracy and they’ve all agreed to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting public. But that wouldn’t be healthy skepticism; it would be paranoia.

Unlike the age of the earth, the question of man-made global warming has real consequences for the future of the planet. And here in the U.S., politicians are trashing the science because it doesn’t fit in with their political philosophy. Of the eight major Republican candidates for President, only one has gone along with the consensus of 98 percent of the scientific community. (John Huntsman: “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”) That’s just sad.

And in Gov. Rick Perry’s Texas, a state agency commissioned an oceanographer to write a report about Galveston Bay, then removed sections of the report that referenced sea level rise and global warming! Why? The agency said, "We are paying for this report and the assertions and statements will be attributable to [us] . . . Why should we include questionable information we don't agree with?"

Right. These non-scientists are entitled to their opinion. And of course they paid for the report.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cufflink's post
08-11-2011, 02:54 AM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2011 03:31 AM by bemore.)
RE: Man Made Global Warming
Just a quick update......im still gathering all my information and I still have a way to go but the first thing I would like to bring to peoples attention is this.

In 2007 the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) wrote a report saying that...... "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world ........... if that rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate"

(the actual date for the melting is 2350)

They said that nearly a billion people in Asia would be affected by this.

These particular findings were based upon three reports

1: A 2005 WWF Nature report on glaciers
2: A 1996 Unesco document on hydrology.
3: A 1999 news report in New Scientist.

NONE and I repeat NONE of these reports were peer reviewed by the IPCC which they are mandated to do.......they shouldnt have published these particular "facts" as they are ridiculous and nothing but fear mongering based on no scientific evidence whatsoever (none that has been tried, tested and verified)

They have since admitted this.

Now dont get me wrong people........im not basing my view on this one mistake alone....it is just the tip of the slowly melting iceberg that my research has uncovered and Im currently correlating my information about how much of an effect water vapour has on "greenhouse" effects compared to CO2 emissions.

Will post when I have finished compiling a decent arguement.


(08-11-2011 02:49 AM)cufflink Wrote:  In debates, ideas should be attacked, not people. So I apologize for going over the line on the personal level. But I stand by everything else I said.

Apology accepted and please accept my apology as well. I understand what you are saying and I agree that none of us are experts in the field and we all rely solely on people who like you have rightly said have studied this for most of there working life. There seems to be scientific evidence that goes against what the "experts" have published though and it is these findings im hoping to share with everybody for review and discussion.

I look forward to recieving your feedback on the things I will post.
(08-11-2011 02:54 AM)bemore Wrote:  There seems to be scientific evidence that goes against what the "experts" have published though and it is these findings im hoping to share with everybody for review and discussion.




Al Gore.......the "expert" who has dedicated 30 years of his life to this apparently.......unable to give straight answers and debate in a serious manner to congress.




You're never going to say the things you want to say.
The things you want to change will usually stay that way
The promises you break outweigh the ones you keep.
Paint upon the wall for the hundredth time.

Jesus Jones
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2011, 11:04 AM
RE: Man Made Global Warming
The millions of earthlings without food and water, whose farms are blowing away in the wind or washing out to sea, right this minute, probably aren't much concerned with the temperature of Venus or whether Gingrich is scoring political points.

If it's a question of debating or changing the way we do business, we'll debate every time... until the problem comes, goes, and becomes subject for historical debate. Only, in this case, there won't be any historians - at least, on this planet.

It's not the mean god I have trouble with - it's the people who worship a mean god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peterkin's post
08-11-2011, 12:23 PM
RE: Man Made Global Warming
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers

~from Cufflink.

In recent years 18,000 people have qualified as climatologists. It would be reasonable to assume that this constitutes no more than half the total number of climatologists, on that basis the number will be upwards of 36,000. There is no international register of climatologists so it's very hard to provide a specific number.

~from Answers by Yahoo

How'sit go? Lies, lies, lies; and damn statistics. Big Grin

Back in the day, the numbers went the other way. I don't care, I won that argument - there ain't no Global Warming. Here I'm being "devil's advocate" 'cause there's a whole fuckload of devil in the details.

While I mainly align with the contention that ACC is occuring, I also align that we are part of Gaia. We are part of the ecology. People make "assessments" as if this were not the case. After reviewing Dyer's proposal, referred by Zatamon, it made me reconsider - if we're doing something wrong, we need to be pushed around. We need human controls on humans.

Throwing seven blimploads of sulfur into the atmosphere may be acceptable to eggheads - 'cause they don't think about pushing people around, they're eggheads; and I can't help but think of deterministic chaos.

You know, the butterfly effect? We ain't butterflies. Besides, as for a crisis to have a crisis over, ACC doesn't even rank. This is taking the eyes off the ball - which is peak oil. Which is globalization occurring when there isn't (to my knowledge) a global economic theory that even works on paper.

So yeah, if you're hating on humanity "because we pollute," and you were praying for a Revelation -you're prayers were answered. Humanity all kind of fucked - next thirty years. Drink up.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The Universe is made of pocket watches... which are holograms. PoolBoyG 2 158 10-04-2014 10:16 PM
Last Post: Alex_Leonardo
  (THE) holocaust was made up I and I 83 4,833 01-04-2013 10:17 AM
Last Post: I and I
  Global Warming Idlecuriosity 38 1,941 02-12-2012 07:35 AM
Last Post: Chas
Exclamation The Global Vaccine Agenda JahFSM 16 1,489 01-06-2012 10:27 AM
Last Post: TheBeardedDude
  The Great Global Warming Swindle ashley.hunt60 25 2,294 21-06-2011 03:38 AM
Last Post: robotworld
Forum Jump: