ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

global warming questions

StatetheNatureoftheEmerge
ncy

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2550

Report this Nov. 12 2007, 12:54 am

Quote (dryson @ Nov. 11 2007, 7:25 pm)
Colemen is full of deuturium. How I know global warming is happening is from pulling expierences from my younger days.

When I was between the ages of 6 and 13 I could accuratelly predict that after Thanksgiving the snow would start to fall. The accumulation wasn't poltry either, the snow was usually around 5" to a foot throughout January until April. This remained a constant until around age 14 when the weather patterns started to change and less snow fell and the winter season started to shorten. That was 19 years ago and to this day I have watched the winter season steadily erode to nothing more then a few weeks of snow drizzle, with the occassional heavy snowfall. I have lived in the same 30 mile area except for a few years in the military so I know that global warming is valid. If global warming wasn't happening then the same amount of snow would fall at roughly the same time every year and the snow would last the same amount oftime. But it hasn't. Global Warming is happening.

Actually, dryson, the only thing you know is valid is you. Nothing you've said relates to humans being at fault for global warming. You've just listed your perceptions. The Earth may have warmed, but did you consider increased solar activity? Did you delve back in history and find that there's a pattern of warming and cooling over millenia? Note the above post of mine citing Krakatoa. Last time it burst, we experienced global cooling. It's active again....

So, if you'd like to predict what happens after, feel free. I concur with Coleman that it's propoganda, and a politically motivated topic. Once you move beyond being a sheep to a former VP and study, you'll see it too.

I'm by no means against measures to conserve and protect the environment, I just don't like it when PT Barnum (Gore) usurps a cause for profit and all of you intelligent folks fall for his schtick.

Recycle, use conserving light bulbs, turn off lights you're not using, set your heater back a degree or two. That is important and good for the environment.

What's not good for the political and environmental environment is when folks like you just fall in lockstep with charlatans.

We had one less snow drift this winter... It's global warming! I was able to tan up until October 5th!... It's global warming! The woolie worm said it's gonna be a mild winter... It's global warming!

Just click on some of the links I provided above. Please. Be informed.

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Nov. 12 2007, 11:13 am

Quote (StatetheNatureoftheEmergency @ Nov. 11 2007, 1:54 am)
Quote (dryson @ Nov. 11 2007, 7:25 pm)
Colemen is full of deuturium. How I know global warming is happening is from pulling expierences from my younger days.

When I was between the ages of 6 and 13 I could accuratelly predict that after Thanksgiving the snow would start to fall. The accumulation wasn't poltry either, the snow was usually around 5" to a foot throughout January until April. This remained a constant until around age 14 when the weather patterns started to change and less snow fell and the winter season started to shorten. That was 19 years ago and to this day I have watched the winter season steadily erode to nothing more then a few weeks of snow drizzle, with the occassional heavy snowfall. I have lived in the same 30 mile area except for a few years in the military so I know that global warming is valid. If global warming wasn't happening then the same amount of snow would fall at roughly the same time every year and the snow would last the same amount oftime. But it hasn't. Global Warming is happening.

Actually, dryson, the only thing you know is valid is you. Nothing you've said relates to humans being at fault for global warming. You've just listed your perceptions. The Earth may have warmed, but did you consider increased solar activity? Did you delve back in history and find that there's a pattern of warming and cooling over millenia? Note the above post of mine citing Krakatoa. Last time it burst, we experienced global cooling. It's active again....

So, if you'd like to predict what happens after, feel free. I concur with Coleman that it's propoganda, and a politically motivated topic. Once you move beyond being a sheep to a former VP and study, you'll see it too.

I'm by no means against measures to conserve and protect the environment, I just don't like it when PT Barnum (Gore) usurps a cause for profit and all of you intelligent folks fall for his schtick.

Recycle, use conserving light bulbs, turn off lights you're not using, set your heater back a degree or two. That is important and good for the environment.

What's not good for the political and environmental environment is when folks like you just fall in lockstep with charlatans.

We had one less snow drift this winter... It's global warming! I was able to tan up until October 5th!... It's global warming! The woolie worm said it's gonna be a mild winter... It's global warming!

Just click on some of the links I provided above. Please. Be informed.

That not proof, proof is :

Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with the surface record of warming. The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by Nasa for example use only rural stations to calculate trends. Recently, work has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see a bigger trend for calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn't resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes. Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979.

Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process, particularly in the satellite era (since 1979). Readings from different satellites need to be tied together, and each has its own problems with orbital decay and sensor drift. Two separate analyses show consistent warming, one faster than the surface and one slightly less. Within the uncertainties of the data, there is no discrepancy that needs to be dealt with. Information from balloons has its own problems but the IPCC concluded this year: "For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming".  

Basically Proof is in samples, temperature reading, and measurement of ice cap shrinkage. Non of the opponents of Globaling warming have counter evidents that this is not occuring.

No matter how you tried to spin it, no matter how you tried to deny, there is physical data. When this data is enter into present climate model they show that global warming is occuring.

The evident is so overwhelming that the oil companies no longer deny it, their new drive is to show how they are now a major supporter of Green Technologies.. LOL

StatetheNatureoftheEmerge
ncy

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2550

Report this Nov. 12 2007, 11:47 pm

Quote (lanceromega @ Nov. 12 2007, 11:13 am)
Quote (StatetheNatureoftheEmergency @ Nov. 11 2007, 1:54 am)
Quote (dryson @ Nov. 11 2007, 7:25 pm)
Colemen is full of deuturium. How I know global warming is happening is from pulling expierences from my younger days.

When I was between the ages of 6 and 13 I could accuratelly predict that after Thanksgiving the snow would start to fall. The accumulation wasn't poltry either, the snow was usually around 5" to a foot throughout January until April. This remained a constant until around age 14 when the weather patterns started to change and less snow fell and the winter season started to shorten. That was 19 years ago and to this day I have watched the winter season steadily erode to nothing more then a few weeks of snow drizzle, with the occassional heavy snowfall. I have lived in the same 30 mile area except for a few years in the military so I know that global warming is valid. If global warming wasn't happening then the same amount of snow would fall at roughly the same time every year and the snow would last the same amount oftime. But it hasn't. Global Warming is happening.

Actually, dryson, the only thing you know is valid is you. Nothing you've said relates to humans being at fault for global warming. You've just listed your perceptions. The Earth may have warmed, but did you consider increased solar activity? Did you delve back in history and find that there's a pattern of warming and cooling over millenia? Note the above post of mine citing Krakatoa. Last time it burst, we experienced global cooling. It's active again....

So, if you'd like to predict what happens after, feel free. I concur with Coleman that it's propoganda, and a politically motivated topic. Once you move beyond being a sheep to a former VP and study, you'll see it too.

I'm by no means against measures to conserve and protect the environment, I just don't like it when PT Barnum (Gore) usurps a cause for profit and all of you intelligent folks fall for his schtick.

Recycle, use conserving light bulbs, turn off lights you're not using, set your heater back a degree or two. That is important and good for the environment.

What's not good for the political and environmental environment is when folks like you just fall in lockstep with charlatans.

We had one less snow drift this winter... It's global warming! I was able to tan up until October 5th!... It's global warming! The woolie worm said it's gonna be a mild winter... It's global warming!

Just click on some of the links I provided above. Please. Be informed.

That not proof, proof is :

Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with the surface record of warming. The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by Nasa for example use only rural stations to calculate trends. Recently, work has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see a bigger trend for calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn't resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes. Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979.

Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process, particularly in the satellite era (since 1979). Readings from different satellites need to be tied together, and each has its own problems with orbital decay and sensor drift. Two separate analyses show consistent warming, one faster than the surface and one slightly less. Within the uncertainties of the data, there is no discrepancy that needs to be dealt with. Information from balloons has its own problems but the IPCC concluded this year: "For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming". ¿

Basically Proof is in samples, temperature reading, and measurement of ice cap shrinkage. Non of the opponents of Globaling warming have counter evidents that this is not occuring.

No matter how you tried to spin it, no matter how you tried to deny, there is physical data. When this data is enter into present climate model they show that global warming is occuring.

The evident is so overwhelming that the oil companies no longer deny it, their new drive is to show how they are now a major supporter of Green Technologies.. LOL

I'm not denying global warming, lancer, I'm just saying that it hasn't been proven that MAN is the cause. I've offered differing scenarios which you dismiss, I've offered data, which you've dismissed, and I've offered contrary opinion, which you've dismissed.

The globe may be warming, lancer, but it isn't your fault. Nor is it mine or anyone's. It's a natural process that may be reversed by Krakatoa Jr. here soon. I believe that 96.3% of CO2 is naturally occuring. That's the major crux of the global warming argument. Plants breathe it out after photosynthesis, for cripes sake.

Do you know what's a greater contributor to global warming, lancer? Water vapor. It produces cloud cover that increases the greenhouse effect and the more water we have in the atmosphere, the greater warming we have. Are you going to post here and tell me that we should conserve or use more water so our planet doesn't warm?

You see, the global warming theory is a red herring, not because it isn't happening, but because it's become a political football and there are loud voices telling you that it's your fault.

As I've said and maintained... Conserve energy, decrease your carbon footprint, make every effort to be a global samaritan.

Just don't be surprised when your efforts are in vain and don't blame others, because it's ultimately going to be a natural process, not something humans can switch on and off. If that were the case, go gripe at India and China. Yell at them for being an upcoming industrial nation and demand they hear your ecological concerns. Make them understand the gravity of what they're doing.

If you want to focus your BS against humans, there's your target.

Us rational folk will see what happens naturally and adapt.

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Nov. 13 2007, 11:51 am

Quote (StatetheNatureoftheEmergency @ Nov. 12 2007, 12:47 am)
Quote (lanceromega @ Nov. 12 2007, 11:13 am)
Quote (StatetheNatureoftheEmergency @ Nov. 11 2007, 1:54 am)
Quote (dryson @ Nov. 11 2007, 7:25 pm)
Colemen is full of deuturium. How I know global warming is happening is from pulling expierences from my younger days.

When I was between the ages of 6 and 13 I could accuratelly predict that after Thanksgiving the snow would start to fall. The accumulation wasn't poltry either, the snow was usually around 5" to a foot throughout January until April. This remained a constant until around age 14 when the weather patterns started to change and less snow fell and the winter season started to shorten. That was 19 years ago and to this day I have watched the winter season steadily erode to nothing more then a few weeks of snow drizzle, with the occassional heavy snowfall. I have lived in the same 30 mile area except for a few years in the military so I know that global warming is valid. If global warming wasn't happening then the same amount of snow would fall at roughly the same time every year and the snow would last the same amount oftime. But it hasn't. Global Warming is happening.

Actually, dryson, the only thing you know is valid is you. Nothing you've said relates to humans being at fault for global warming. You've just listed your perceptions. The Earth may have warmed, but did you consider increased solar activity? Did you delve back in history and find that there's a pattern of warming and cooling over millenia? Note the above post of mine citing Krakatoa. Last time it burst, we experienced global cooling. It's active again....

So, if you'd like to predict what happens after, feel free. I concur with Coleman that it's propoganda, and a politically motivated topic. Once you move beyond being a sheep to a former VP and study, you'll see it too.

I'm by no means against measures to conserve and protect the environment, I just don't like it when PT Barnum (Gore) usurps a cause for profit and all of you intelligent folks fall for his schtick.

Recycle, use conserving light bulbs, turn off lights you're not using, set your heater back a degree or two. That is important and good for the environment.

What's not good for the political and environmental environment is when folks like you just fall in lockstep with charlatans.

We had one less snow drift this winter... It's global warming! I was able to tan up until October 5th!... It's global warming! The woolie worm said it's gonna be a mild winter... It's global warming!

Just click on some of the links I provided above. Please. Be informed.

That not proof, proof is :

Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with the surface record of warming. The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by Nasa for example use only rural stations to calculate trends. Recently, work has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see a bigger trend for calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn't resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes. Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979.

Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process, particularly in the satellite era (since 1979). Readings from different satellites need to be tied together, and each has its own problems with orbital decay and sensor drift. Two separate analyses show consistent warming, one faster than the surface and one slightly less. Within the uncertainties of the data, there is no discrepancy that needs to be dealt with. Information from balloons has its own problems but the IPCC concluded this year: "For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming". ?

Basically Proof is in samples, temperature reading, and measurement of ice cap shrinkage. Non of the opponents of Globaling warming have counter evidents that this is not occuring.

No matter how you tried to spin it, no matter how you tried to deny, there is physical data. When this data is enter into present climate model they show that global warming is occuring.

The evident is so overwhelming that the oil companies no longer deny it, their new drive is to show how they are now a major supporter of Green Technologies.. LOL

I'm not denying global warming, lancer, I'm just saying that it hasn't been proven that MAN is the cause. I've offered differing scenarios which you dismiss, I've offered data, which you've dismissed, and I've offered contrary opinion, which you've dismissed.

The globe may be warming, lancer, but it isn't your fault. Nor is it mine or anyone's. It's a natural process that may be reversed by Krakatoa Jr. here soon. I believe that 96.3% of CO2 is naturally occuring. That's the major crux of the global warming argument. Plants breathe it out after photosynthesis, for cripes sake.

Do you know what's a greater contributor to global warming, lancer? Water vapor. It produces cloud cover that increases the greenhouse effect and the more water we have in the atmosphere, the greater warming we have. Are you going to post here and tell me that we should conserve or use more water so our planet doesn't warm?

You see, the global warming theory is a red herring, not because it isn't happening, but because it's become a political football and there are loud voices telling you that it's your fault.

As I've said and maintained... Conserve energy, decrease your carbon footprint, make every effort to be a global samaritan.

Just don't be surprised when your efforts are in vain and don't blame others, because it's ultimately going to be a natural process, not something humans can switch on and off. If that were the case, go gripe at India and China. Yell at them for being an upcoming industrial nation and demand they hear your ecological concerns. Make them understand the gravity of what they're doing.

If you want to focus your BS against humans, there's your target.

Us rational folk will see what happens naturally and adapt.

Actually we already agrued about the sun being a cause, it is not, solar radiation from the sun has been on a down cycle for the last 10 years, while global temperature are peaking.

As for my BS? how can it be BS when we know from precise measurement of the output of coal plants, and other power plants, along with air emission from automobiles that in the USA alone we putout around 6,049,435 kilotons (metric tons) of CO2 per year!!

This is stats from our own goverment.. And we are only around 22 % of the total amount..

Please enlighten me what other source exceeds that amount..

Remember that CO2 is just one of three Greenhouse gases. Other such as ozone and methane are also man made. We put out around an additional 26.6 million metric tons of methane that is equal to effect of an additional 611.9 million metric tons carbon dioxide....

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.

Additional data from dozens of sampling stations around the globe show the sum total of all volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate about 1/150th that of anthropogenic ( man made) emissions.

Anyone can check the number themselves by going to the Department of energy website: http://www.eia.doe.gov

So it not my BS but figures posted by our goverment and data collected by scientists.. Attacking the messenger still doesnot change the message.

?;)

Parynthesis

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this Nov. 14 2007, 5:40 pm

I think that the temperatures this year is the first time they have changed drastically enough so that people really cannot deny a noticable difference.

When I was a child, 15 years ago We had snow drifts you could build igloos out of in mid november, last year we didn't get any snow until christmass day, and it barely covered the ground.

I'm sorry but global warming really is happening, and it simply needs to be addressed and FIXED

StatetheNatureoftheEmerge
ncy

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2550

Report this Nov. 14 2007, 10:38 pm

Quote (Parynthesis @ Nov. 14 2007, 5:40 pm)
I think that the temperatures this year is the first time they have changed drastically enough so that people really cannot deny a noticable difference.

When I was a child, 15 years ago We had snow drifts you could build igloos out of in mid november, last year we didn't get any snow until christmass day, and it barely covered the ground.

I'm sorry but global warming really is happening, and it simply needs to be addressed and FIXED

Welp, perhaps in your lifetime, some 30 years ago, the scientists were all screaming 'the sky is falling' about global cooling. They were up in arms about what they figured was going to be a coming Ice Age that would devastate mankind as we knew it and knock us back to the dark ages. They had the scientific data to prove it, they had political backing, and their suggestions for curbing the global cooling included such radical ideas as introducing more CO2 into the atmosphere to prevent global disaster.

Fast forward to today. The internet allows the faster spread of information and the scientific conglomerate is at it again. Rather than just newspapers and TV to pervade prevailing thought, they have a far greater reaching medium to exploit their ideas, suppressing those that disagree, and a tool to make their coffers nearly explode with funding. They get a known politician on their side to promote, not only himself, but their ideas, and the masses become anesthetized to truth and their purported 'facts' become a mantra espoused, not only in the media, but by folks even here that have been duped by it. The coffers grow... More money is fed into the propoganda and it perpetuates itself and it becomes it's own 'religion'. Then you have folks that buy into it so completely, that they become zealots for the cause. It broadens the range and scope of the initial theory until anyone that denies it becomes a focus of hatred, or are pounded down until their voice is so muted, it cannot be heard.

This cycle will be repeated for other topics, not just this global warming red herring. I can give you a recent example.

At some point early in this decade, the WHO (World Health Organization) performed a study about second hand smoke and their finding concluded that there was little or no appreciable influence on one's health.

http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html

I suggest you scroll down and read some of the relevant responses to the articles.

You might find an eerie similarity to the global warming theory. A theory gets latched onto by some PHD. The media sees potential as well as politicians, so they latch on. Once that becomes ingrained into you sheep, and by that I mean the gullible that get force fed crap and believe it, it becomes an accepted fact, when it's really just a theory. Then that 'fact' becomes a focal point of politicians that have 'the health and welfare of the people' in mind and laws come and smokers are ostracized by a large section of the population. But there is little or no basis in fact. Smoke smells bad and makes folks not want to be around it, so it's an easy mark and further, it's a good pawn for lawmakers to make money ie: taxing the sweet Jesus directly out of your fellow man.

Just wait 'til they figure a way to tax you fat folks. Murmers have started. A fast food tax. I could even see them going so far as taxing a family by the pound. Don't cry to me when you have to pay 10 bucks for a big mac. They've raped smokers almost to extinction, but the greedy bastards know the health risks fat folks burden our society with. They're looking for that next target to fill the bloated pig we have as government. Fitting, the next one is already bloated.

Mark these words and remember them. When you're wailing about being taxed to the hilt for enjoying food, remember that you let these folks tax your fellow man without saying a word because you thought it was a nasty habit.

You can also expect a carbon footprint tax or something akin to that once these global warming folks get a huge lobby in Washington. ¿

But that's your tax dollars at work, folks and fat folks alike.

When do we become the leaders and say NO to curtailing our personal freedoms? When we don't get our french fries? Mind you, the Mayor of NYC pronounced an edict that doesn't allow certain fats in frying. You think I'm joking?

We'll see.

I feel for you sheeple that buy every media and politically driven cause. You make the future a shaky time.

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Nov. 15 2007, 3:44 pm

Quote (StatetheNatureoftheEmergency @ Nov. 13 2007, 11:38 pm)
Quote (Parynthesis @ Nov. 14 2007, 5:40 pm)
I think that the temperatures this year is the first time they have changed drastically enough so that people really cannot deny a noticable difference.

When I was a child, 15 years ago We had snow drifts you could build igloos out of in mid november, last year we didn't get any snow until christmass day, and it barely covered the ground.

I'm sorry but global warming really is happening, and it simply needs to be addressed and FIXED

Welp, perhaps in your lifetime, some 30 years ago, the scientists were all screaming 'the sky is falling' about global cooling. They were up in arms about what they figured was going to be a coming Ice Age that would devastate mankind as we knew it and knock us back to the dark ages. They had the scientific data to prove it, they had political backing, and their suggestions for curbing the global cooling included such radical ideas as introducing more CO2 into the atmosphere to prevent global disaster.

Fast forward to today. The internet allows the faster spread of information and the scientific conglomerate is at it again. Rather than just newspapers and TV to pervade prevailing thought, they have a far greater reaching medium to exploit their ideas, suppressing those that disagree, and a tool to make their coffers nearly explode with funding. They get a known politician on their side to promote, not only himself, but their ideas, and the masses become anesthetized to truth and their purported 'facts' become a mantra espoused, not only in the media, but by folks even here that have been duped by it. The coffers grow... More money is fed into the propoganda and it perpetuates itself and it becomes it's own 'religion'. Then you have folks that buy into it so completely, that they become zealots for the cause. It broadens the range and scope of the initial theory until anyone that denies it becomes a focus of hatred, or are pounded down until their voice is so muted, it cannot be heard.

This cycle will be repeated for other topics, not just this global warming red herring. I can give you a recent example.

At some point early in this decade, the WHO (World Health Organization) performed a study about second hand smoke and their finding concluded that there was little or no appreciable influence on one's health.

http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html

I suggest you scroll down and read some of the relevant responses to the articles.

You might find an eerie similarity to the global warming theory. A theory gets latched onto by some PHD. The media sees potential as well as politicians, so they latch on. Once that becomes ingrained into you sheep, and by that I mean the gullible that get force fed crap and believe it, it becomes an accepted fact, when it's really just a theory. Then that 'fact' becomes a focal point of politicians that have 'the health and welfare of the people' in mind and laws come and smokers are ostracized by a large section of the population. But there is little or no basis in fact. Smoke smells bad and makes folks not want to be around it, so it's an easy mark and further, it's a good pawn for lawmakers to make money ie: taxing the sweet Jesus directly out of your fellow man.

Just wait 'til they figure a way to tax you fat folks. Murmers have started. A fast food tax. I could even see them going so far as taxing a family by the pound. Don't cry to me when you have to pay 10 bucks for a big mac. They've raped smokers almost to extinction, but the greedy bastards know the health risks fat folks burden our society with. They're looking for that next target to fill the bloated pig we have as government. Fitting, the next one is already bloated.

Mark these words and remember them. When you're wailing about being taxed to the hilt for enjoying food, remember that you let these folks tax your fellow man without saying a word because you thought it was a nasty habit.

You can also expect a carbon footprint tax or something akin to that once these global warming folks get a huge lobby in Washington. ?

But that's your tax dollars at work, folks and fat folks alike.

When do we become the leaders and say NO to curtailing our personal freedoms? When we don't get our french fries? Mind you, the Mayor of NYC pronounced an edict that doesn't allow certain fats in frying. You think I'm joking?

We'll see.

I feel for you sheeple that buy every media and politically driven cause. You make the future a shaky time.

30 years ago global warming, acid rain and ozone loss were the issues just as they were today, the internet did nothing more than provide people the facts.

This is not a red herring, the numbers have been collected and are available from not just from enivormental groups but our own department of energy and Nasa..

This is not an issue of personal freedom, unlike eating fast food that effect only the person consuming it, your carbon foot prints effect weather world wide. Not only for our generation but for the also our childern and their childern generation.

This also isn't a fad, the first predictions of what increasing temperature caused by CO2 level due to activities of Man was made back in the 1860's. The numbers and models of effect of greenhouse gases and their effect on the climate has been tested over and over again, not just by nameless phd but by physicists such as Knut ¿ngstr¿m, E.O. Hulburt,Gilbert N. Plass , Edward Teller, Fenynam and countless others.

If you are worried about the cost to battle Global warming , just think that the damage done will eventually outweight whatever we will dish out today. Billions of dollars in property damage, when coast line flood or lost in crops due to changing weather pattern. We cannot place a cost on the lifes that will be lost, France suffer thousands of death due extremely hight temperatures over the last 2 summer those thousands will become millions and then billions...

Go ahead and eat french fries, it is your arteries, but CO2 emissions effect everyone.  ;)

StatetheNatureoftheEmerge
ncy

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2550

Report this Nov. 15 2007, 11:11 pm

Quote (lanceromega @ Nov. 15 2007, 3:44 pm)
Quote (StatetheNatureoftheEmergency @ Nov. 13 2007, 11:38 pm)
Quote (Parynthesis @ Nov. 14 2007, 5:40 pm)
I think that the temperatures this year is the first time they have changed drastically enough so that people really cannot deny a noticable difference.

When I was a child, 15 years ago We had snow drifts you could build igloos out of in mid november, last year we didn't get any snow until christmass day, and it barely covered the ground.

I'm sorry but global warming really is happening, and it simply needs to be addressed and FIXED

Welp, perhaps in your lifetime, some 30 years ago, the scientists were all screaming 'the sky is falling' about global cooling. They were up in arms about what they figured was going to be a coming Ice Age that would devastate mankind as we knew it and knock us back to the dark ages. They had the scientific data to prove it, they had political backing, and their suggestions for curbing the global cooling included such radical ideas as introducing more CO2 into the atmosphere to prevent global disaster.

Fast forward to today. The internet allows the faster spread of information and the scientific conglomerate is at it again. Rather than just newspapers and TV to pervade prevailing thought, they have a far greater reaching medium to exploit their ideas, suppressing those that disagree, and a tool to make their coffers nearly explode with funding. They get a known politician on their side to promote, not only himself, but their ideas, and the masses become anesthetized to truth and their purported 'facts' become a mantra espoused, not only in the media, but by folks even here that have been duped by it. The coffers grow... More money is fed into the propoganda and it perpetuates itself and it becomes it's own 'religion'. Then you have folks that buy into it so completely, that they become zealots for the cause. It broadens the range and scope of the initial theory until anyone that denies it becomes a focus of hatred, or are pounded down until their voice is so muted, it cannot be heard.

This cycle will be repeated for other topics, not just this global warming red herring. I can give you a recent example.

At some point early in this decade, the WHO (World Health Organization) performed a study about second hand smoke and their finding concluded that there was little or no appreciable influence on one's health.

http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html

I suggest you scroll down and read some of the relevant responses to the articles.

You might find an eerie similarity to the global warming theory. A theory gets latched onto by some PHD. The media sees potential as well as politicians, so they latch on. Once that becomes ingrained into you sheep, and by that I mean the gullible that get force fed crap and believe it, it becomes an accepted fact, when it's really just a theory. Then that 'fact' becomes a focal point of politicians that have 'the health and welfare of the people' in mind and laws come and smokers are ostracized by a large section of the population. But there is little or no basis in fact. Smoke smells bad and makes folks not want to be around it, so it's an easy mark and further, it's a good pawn for lawmakers to make money ie: taxing the sweet Jesus directly out of your fellow man.

Just wait 'til they figure a way to tax you fat folks. Murmers have started. A fast food tax. I could even see them going so far as taxing a family by the pound. Don't cry to me when you have to pay 10 bucks for a big mac. They've raped smokers almost to extinction, but the greedy bastards know the health risks fat folks burden our society with. They're looking for that next target to fill the bloated pig we have as government. Fitting, the next one is already bloated.

Mark these words and remember them. When you're wailing about being taxed to the hilt for enjoying food, remember that you let these folks tax your fellow man without saying a word because you thought it was a nasty habit.

You can also expect a carbon footprint tax or something akin to that once these global warming folks get a huge lobby in Washington. ?

But that's your tax dollars at work, folks and fat folks alike.

When do we become the leaders and say NO to curtailing our personal freedoms? When we don't get our french fries? Mind you, the Mayor of NYC pronounced an edict that doesn't allow certain fats in frying. You think I'm joking?

We'll see.

I feel for you sheeple that buy every media and politically driven cause. You make the future a shaky time.

30 years ago global warming, acid rain and ozone loss were the issues just as they were today, the internet did nothing more than provide people the facts.

This is not a red herring, the numbers have been collected and are available from not just from enivormental groups but our own department of energy and Nasa..

This is not an issue of personal freedom, unlike eating fast food that effect only the person consuming it, your carbon foot prints effect weather world wide. Not only for our generation but for the also our childern and their childern generation.

This also isn't a fad, the first predictions of what increasing temperature caused by CO2 level due to activities of Man was made back in the 1860's. The numbers and models of effect of greenhouse gases and their effect on the climate has been tested over and over again, not just by nameless phd but by physicists such as Knut ?ngstr?m, E.O. Hulburt,Gilbert N. Plass , Edward Teller, Fenynam and countless others.

If you are worried about the cost to battle Global warming , just think that the damage done will eventually outweight whatever we will dish out today. Billions of dollars in property damage, when coast line flood or lost in crops due to changing weather pattern. We cannot place a cost on the lifes that will be lost, France suffer thousands of death due extremely hight temperatures over the last 2 summer those thousands will become millions and then billions...

Go ahead and eat french fries, it is your arteries, but CO2 emissions effect everyone. ¿;)

There's a pattern I described in that post, lancer. One you'd be well off taking heed of. Type '70's ice age global cooling' into your search engine. Research the opposite of what you so vehemently defend here. Do that research and allow me to feel that you're more credible than a talking head on a swivel. Don't just spout what you think is fact from whatever source you think is credible, do your own.

I don't dislike you, lancer, but I know when you're speaking or typing on your own versus just cutting and pasting things you feel have relevance to a particular point. When you speak with your own tongue, words get misspelled, grammar falls aside, plurals don't exist. Your native tongue probably isn't English.

I challenge you to be a better debater in this discussion by asking you to take the opposite side of it, as I have, and do diligence to the opposite opinion. Attack that side of the argument with as much belief as you do making the HUMAN race as the guilty party that you think will lead to the Earth's downfall in a short period to be a sustainable lifeship.

Can you be objective enough within yourself to take such a challenge? I ask this because I personally think if you cannot, then you're just another propoganda piece for an EX Vice president.

Give me the optimism or hope that you can look at things objectively, and can see both sides of an argument, and can thoroughly diagnose the difference.

If you can't... All Hail the EX vice nobel prize winning chief!!!Sheeple unite under his banner!!!!!!!

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Nov. 16 2007, 2:05 pm

Quote (StatetheNatureoftheEmergency @ Nov. 15 2007, 12:11 am)
Quote (lanceromega @ Nov. 15 2007, 3:44 pm)
Quote (StatetheNatureoftheEmergency @ Nov. 13 2007, 11:38 pm)
Quote (Parynthesis @ Nov. 14 2007, 5:40 pm)
I think that the temperatures this year is the first time they have changed drastically enough so that people really cannot deny a noticable difference.

When I was a child, 15 years ago We had snow drifts you could build igloos out of in mid november, last year we didn't get any snow until christmass day, and it barely covered the ground.

I'm sorry but global warming really is happening, and it simply needs to be addressed and FIXED

Welp, perhaps in your lifetime, some 30 years ago, the scientists were all screaming 'the sky is falling' about global cooling. They were up in arms about what they figured was going to be a coming Ice Age that would devastate mankind as we knew it and knock us back to the dark ages. They had the scientific data to prove it, they had political backing, and their suggestions for curbing the global cooling included such radical ideas as introducing more CO2 into the atmosphere to prevent global disaster.

Fast forward to today. The internet allows the faster spread of information and the scientific conglomerate is at it again. Rather than just newspapers and TV to pervade prevailing thought, they have a far greater reaching medium to exploit their ideas, suppressing those that disagree, and a tool to make their coffers nearly explode with funding. They get a known politician on their side to promote, not only himself, but their ideas, and the masses become anesthetized to truth and their purported 'facts' become a mantra espoused, not only in the media, but by folks even here that have been duped by it. The coffers grow... More money is fed into the propoganda and it perpetuates itself and it becomes it's own 'religion'. Then you have folks that buy into it so completely, that they become zealots for the cause. It broadens the range and scope of the initial theory until anyone that denies it becomes a focus of hatred, or are pounded down until their voice is so muted, it cannot be heard.

This cycle will be repeated for other topics, not just this global warming red herring. I can give you a recent example.

At some point early in this decade, the WHO (World Health Organization) performed a study about second hand smoke and their finding concluded that there was little or no appreciable influence on one's health.

http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html

I suggest you scroll down and read some of the relevant responses to the articles.

You might find an eerie similarity to the global warming theory. A theory gets latched onto by some PHD. The media sees potential as well as politicians, so they latch on. Once that becomes ingrained into you sheep, and by that I mean the gullible that get force fed crap and believe it, it becomes an accepted fact, when it's really just a theory. Then that 'fact' becomes a focal point of politicians that have 'the health and welfare of the people' in mind and laws come and smokers are ostracized by a large section of the population. But there is little or no basis in fact. Smoke smells bad and makes folks not want to be around it, so it's an easy mark and further, it's a good pawn for lawmakers to make money ie: taxing the sweet Jesus directly out of your fellow man.

Just wait 'til they figure a way to tax you fat folks. Murmers have started. A fast food tax. I could even see them going so far as taxing a family by the pound. Don't cry to me when you have to pay 10 bucks for a big mac. They've raped smokers almost to extinction, but the greedy bastards know the health risks fat folks burden our society with. They're looking for that next target to fill the bloated pig we have as government. Fitting, the next one is already bloated.

Mark these words and remember them. When you're wailing about being taxed to the hilt for enjoying food, remember that you let these folks tax your fellow man without saying a word because you thought it was a nasty habit.

You can also expect a carbon footprint tax or something akin to that once these global warming folks get a huge lobby in Washington. ?

But that's your tax dollars at work, folks and fat folks alike.

When do we become the leaders and say NO to curtailing our personal freedoms? When we don't get our french fries? Mind you, the Mayor of NYC pronounced an edict that doesn't allow certain fats in frying. You think I'm joking?

We'll see.

I feel for you sheeple that buy every media and politically driven cause. You make the future a shaky time.

30 years ago global warming, acid rain and ozone loss were the issues just as they were today, the internet did nothing more than provide people the facts.

This is not a red herring, the numbers have been collected and are available from not just from enivormental groups but our own department of energy and Nasa..

This is not an issue of personal freedom, unlike eating fast food that effect only the person consuming it, your carbon foot prints effect weather world wide. Not only for our generation but for the also our childern and their childern generation.

This also isn't a fad, the first predictions of what increasing temperature caused by CO2 level due to activities of Man was made back in the 1860's. The numbers and models of effect of greenhouse gases and their effect on the climate has been tested over and over again, not just by nameless phd but by physicists such as Knut ?ngstr?m, E.O. Hulburt,Gilbert N. Plass , Edward Teller, Fenynam and countless others.

If you are worried about the cost to battle Global warming , just think that the damage done will eventually outweight whatever we will dish out today. Billions of dollars in property damage, when coast line flood or lost in crops due to changing weather pattern. We cannot place a cost on the lifes that will be lost, France suffer thousands of death due extremely hight temperatures over the last 2 summer those thousands will become millions and then billions...

Go ahead and eat french fries, it is your arteries, but CO2 emissions effect everyone. ?;)

There's a pattern I described in that post, lancer. One you'd be well off taking heed of. Type '70's ice age global cooling' into your search engine. Research the opposite of what you so vehemently defend here. Do that research and allow me to feel that you're more credible than a talking head on a swivel. Don't just spout what you think is fact from whatever source you think is credible, do your own.

I don't dislike you, lancer, but I know when you're speaking or typing on your own versus just cutting and pasting things you feel have relevance to a particular point. When you speak with your own tongue, words get misspelled, grammar falls aside, plurals don't exist. Your native tongue probably isn't English.

I challenge you to be a better debater in this discussion by asking you to take the opposite side of it, as I have, and do diligence to the opposite opinion. Attack that side of the argument with as much belief as you do making the HUMAN race as the guilty party that you think will lead to the Earth's downfall in a short period to be a sustainable lifeship.

Can you be objective enough within yourself to take such a challenge? I ask this because I personally think if you cannot, then you're just another propoganda piece for an EX Vice president.

Give me the optimism or hope that you can look at things objectively, and can see both sides of an argument, and can thoroughly diagnose the difference.

If you can't... All Hail the EX vice nobel prize winning chief!!!Sheeple unite under his banner!!!!!!!

the 70 ice age scare is a myth, another tactic in attempt to discredit global warming..

The situation in the 70's was very different from our current situation. There was no scientific consensus on climate change. There was no international body of scientists looking into the matter, no global effort to deal with climate change, and no daily news articles on the subject. There were maybe a couple of magazine articles, a book, and some sporadic newspaper articles.

Today, by contrast, we have the IPCC, an organization of the world's top climate scientists and its four reports, the latest of which claims with 90% certainty that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are primarily responsible for our current warming. We also have other scientific bodies that agree with this assessment, such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Should one ask for a scientific paper from that time period that makes such a claim, one would certainly be left empty-handed. The most common example used is an article that was published in Newsweek in 1975, titled: The Cooling World?, which provides an excellent example of the sensationalist reporting that existed within some media reports.

The situation was also different because the state of climate science was such that there was not enough research to be able to make these supposed predictions with any certainty. A 1975 National Academy of Sciences report stated as much, saying. we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate. Climate science was in its infancy. There wasn?t yet enough data or research available on which to base such a prediction, and scientists were well aware of that fact. Scientists' current statements on the future of our climate are based on decades of research and massive amounts of data that has been collected over that time.

Also, as the climate scientists at RealClimate have pointed out, we know that climate scientists could not have made such predictions based on the scientific information that was available at the time:

Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived. - RealClimate

This argument, like many other skeptical arguments, is simply an ad hominem attack. Rather than addressing the merits of the science behind anthropogenic global warming, it attempts to discredit climate scientists in general based on arguments and statements they never made. Such arguments hold about as much merit as recent attacks against Al Gore and claims that previous high levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere were caused by dinosaur farts. If there were any valid points to be made by skeptics, this would not be one of them.

Parynthesis

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this Dec. 07 2007, 3:09 pm

Lanceromega
  Do you think that it may be opssible that the reason there is so much difficulty dealing with ideas that are not based in any solid footing could be due to the way the argument is structured.  More specifically if the theories involved are not properly mapped out then people can associate statements into the argument that don't even relate to any theory of the argument.
  If someone made the statement that 'a person' has said something and their intents are wrong, does this even relate to the argument about global warming.  The argument about global warming has nothing to do with what someone said, it has something to do with the idea presented.
  Without being able to define what the argument is about precisely people are free to slander anything and claim that it proves end they choose to be working towards.
  Someone should go through the argument - weed out all the slander - and then define a model of the thesie involved in the argument.  Then if someone wants to argue, and not debate the theory, We can tell them they are simply not making any sence and eliminate the whole problem with one foul swoop.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: 22123magic

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum