Post: #26

Global warming is not real. The sun effects 99% of what happens on this planet. Yet most " scientists " don't even include it in their Global warming models. Secondly CO2 is not a poisonous gas. Millions of years ago it made up almost 20% of our atmosphere and today it makes up less than1%. So the earth has clearly survived and thrived in a high CO2 environment.

Now I do agree we are fucking up our environment in other ways. We are over fishing, polluting our water, spraying the skys, genetically modifying everything and on and on. But we are not causing the planet to warm. The same people from the 60's and 70s who said we were going to die of an ice age and that the world was overpopulated then are the ones who claim global warming is real.

Here is a time line of the scare tactics they have tried to use. Global cooling in the 70's, cutting the rain forest down in the 80's, acid rain in the 90's and holes in the ozone, global warming in the 2000's and finally climate change in 2010 and beyond.

If you scroll down to CO2 in the atmosphere you will see how I arrived at my numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_diox...atmosphere

Also make note that 40% of the CO2 produced on this planet alone comes from Volcanoes. So are you guys going to pass a law to stop volcanoes from producing CO2 ? While you are at it maybe make it illegal for the human body to turn O2 into CO2. After that why don't we make an exchange where we can pay Al Gore to stop earthquakes, Tornado's and Hurricanes.

Post: #27

(03-28-2013 10:52 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  Now I do agree we are fucking up our environment in other ways. We are over fishing, polluting our water, spraying the skys, genetically modifying everything and on and on.

This where the conversation should end. Instead of throwing up charts and numbers and talking points, we should be focusing on the consensus that industry (mostly) is--and has for decades--destroying our air, food, and water, and ruining our quality of life in the process. What do you think is creating fatties? It's not just their lack of self control and fat acceptance. Yes, those are problems, but our fucking food supply plays a central role. "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is the sticking point that distracts everyone from all of this other horrendous shit. Classic distraction technique. Focus on the thing you can create doubt about and hammer away at that so the masses will talk about just that.

We're arguing over the letter Z when we agree on A through Y. Who gives a shit if it's getting colder or hotter when we know all this other shit is definitely a problem?

Post: #28

(03-28-2013 11:00 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 10:52 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  Now I do agree we are fucking up our environment in other ways. We are over fishing, polluting our water, spraying the skys, genetically modifying everything and on and on.

This where the conversation should end. Instead of throwing up charts and numbers and talking points, we should be focusing on the consensus that industry (mostly) is--and has for decades--destroying our air, food, and water, and ruining our quality of life in the process. What do you think is creating fatties? It's not just their lack of self control and fat acceptance. Yes, those are problems, but our fucking food supply plays a central role. "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is the sticking point that distracts everyone from all of this other horrendous shit. Classic distraction technique. Focus on the thing you can create doubt about and hammer away at that so the masses will talk about just that.

We're arguing over the letter Z when we agree on A through Y. Who gives a shit if it's getting colder or hotter when we know all this other shit is definitely a problem?

I agree 100% with you on the A to Y. Problem is they are using global warming to extract billions from us, shut down industries and control us. That is why it is a highly contested debate.

Post: #29

(03-28-2013 11:09 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  I agree 100% with you on the A to Y. Problem is they are using global warming to extract billions from us, shut down industries and control us. That is why it is a highly contested debate.

Even if that's true, they're extracting billions from us in a multitude of ways. For instance, they're extracting billions to occupy other countries.

Hypothetically speaking, how do you think we could best prevent industries from polluting or from genetically modifying their crops to, say, maximize profit?

Post: #30

Well without going into great detail I think the best way is to vote with your dollar. At this moment in time the government can't really control what we purchase. But the public would need to get informed if it was going to have a real effect. Monsanto could be bankrupted over night if forced to label their food GMO. If one major company fell because of consumers shifting their spending all the rest would change rapidly.

The major hurdle is convincing people to actually care though.

Post: #31

(03-28-2013 11:00 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  This where the conversation should end. Instead of throwing up charts and numbers and talking points, we should be focusing on the consensus that industry (mostly) is--and has for decades--destroying our air, food, and water, and ruining our quality of life in the process. What do you think is creating fatties? It's not just their lack of self control and fat acceptance. Yes, those are problems, but our fucking food supply plays a central role.

A double barreled set of untruths here.

First, our air and water have never been cleaner.

Second, why are we fat? Because the US government, along with the heath professions, created the food pyramid that says whole grains and carbs are good for you, and that fat is bad. For the last 35 years, this has been the medical and health public policy propaganda.

Post: #32

Change is constant people, ever heard of the Ice Age? There never has been a golden temperature the earth has aspired to maintain.



To all those people who look at graphs showing increased temperatures for the last 60years you should start thinking a little bigger. The earth has been around for over 4 and a half billion years.

Any time there is ice at the poles of the Earth WE ARE IN AN ICE AGE, if we were to leave this ice age a warming gradient and melting of the ice would be pretty normal, maybe not so good for us humans, but the earth is just doing its thing.

So no i am not part of this political movement that is masquerading as a environmental cause.

Post: #33

Interesting topic I was thinking about messaging/asking some people on here about. I think its real to an absolute T.

Makes me want to go into the renewables/energy efficiency field more than anything or try to work abroad doing so? Anybody know anything about this as a career field or experience in it? (Not to distract from the debate here though).

I was looking up Energy companies in Europe (and Latin America/Canada) earlier today, really interested in the energy dynamic of Europe considering you got Germany (and Nordics) with its Renewables and then Nuclear in France, Slovakia, Czech Republic, and Poland? Energy Career anybody?

Post: #34

Amazing how much crap gets thrown around. People like to dismiss sound evidence when it doesn't align with what they "want" to believe. Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. This happens to be my area of study, but like I said earlier, it's just going to be mostly a waste of time trying to convince those who don't want to believe something even when there's clear and sound evidence behind it.

For example, that old sun argument has been proven wrong a long time ago. The solar cycle is on a 11 year period. What we are observing is NOT due to the solar cycle.

There are plenty of information out there that provides sound scientific evidence and explain it in terms that non-scientists can understand. But still, people will pick what they believe based on what they want to believe.

Post: #35

(03-29-2013 12:09 AM)Pacific Wrote:  For example, that old sun argument has been proven wrong a long time ago. The solar cycle is on a 11 year period. What we are observing is NOT due to the solar cycle.

Would you deny that the sun is the biggest factor on the earth's climate?

Post: #36

A bunch of bullshit. Just because some fish died and a river got polluted doesn't mean that global warming is real and we are "ruining teh planet."

Post: #37

(03-29-2013 12:42 AM)TheRookie Wrote:  A bunch of bullshit. Just because some fish died and a river got polluted doesn't mean that global warming is real and we are "ruining teh planet."

How are we not ruining the planet? Just go to a slum in South America and you'll realized that they've for sure ruined that land. Watch this and it will give you an idea of just how much we've been fucking up the planet...

Post: #38

(03-29-2013 12:09 AM)Pacific Wrote:  Amazing how much crap gets thrown around. People like to dismiss sound evidence when it doesn't align with what they "want" to believe. Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. This happens to be my area of study, but like I said earlier, it's just going to be mostly a waste of time trying to convince those who don't want to believe something even when there's clear and sound evidence behind it.

For example, that old sun argument has been proven wrong a long time ago. The solar cycle is on a 11 year period. What we are observing is NOT due to the solar cycle.

There are plenty of information out there that provides sound scientific evidence and explain it in terms that non-scientists can understand. But still, people will pick what they believe based on what they want to believe.

Hey bro look at my comment and explain to me why it is garbage? That graph tells me we are on a cycle.

Post: #39

I have some opinions on this matter which I'll write about later but I think that this video is appropriate:

Post: #40

(03-29-2013 01:18 AM)scotian Wrote:  I have some opinions on this matter which I'll write about later but I think that this video is appropriate:

If I'm not mistaken, Carlin goes on to say that the Earth will be fine, but we'll just succeed in killing ourselves off. The Earth will purge us like the harmful infestation that we've become. That sounds about right to me.

Post: #41

(03-29-2013 12:46 AM)Huck Finn Wrote:  Hey bro look at my comment and explain to me why it is garbage? That graph tells me we are on a cycle.

Sure. Here is the other part of the data from the Vostok ice core data you posted:

The very bottom one is what is used to derived the temperature figure that you linked to. The top three are the three major green house gases. Notice how we are at the top in terms of temperature in this glacial cycle, with our temperature rising at an unprecedented rate. AND, if you look at the stars in the top right corner, that's the concentration of the 3 major green houses gases in the year 2000. All three concentrations are off the charts compared to 600 thousand years of glacial cycles. And since green house gases are mainly what determines the surface temperature, that means our temperature are gonna keep rising at an unprecedented rate even though we are already at the top of the glacial cycle.

And by the way, that year 2000 figure for green house gases.... it's been growing exponentially since then.

And the other guy trying to argue with do I deny the sun is ultimately controlling the Earth's climate. No, I don't. It is ultimately controlling the Earth's climate. But that's irrelevant to what we are talking about here. If you say ok, in 5 billion years, it won't matter how much green house gases we put in the atmosphere, I would agree with you. But that's not the life time of human civilization. When we are talking about the span of a few hundred years, variations in the sun is irrelevant. When you go to the 100k year scale, you have Earth orbital variations that cause the glacial cycles that we were talking about. Again, that's irrelevant to the discussion of anthropogenic climate change on the hundred year scale.

Here is an analogy: Do you deny that you will die eventually? If not, then why not just go kill yourself now?

And this actually demonstrates really well my point of people wanting to believe what they want to believe. So... for any further sound scientific information regarding this topic, I would refer you guys to http://www.ipcc.ch

Post: #42

You cannot use the IPCC as a credible source. End of story.

Did you forget about climategate and climategate 2.0 ?

Post: #43

Maybe the extreme heat will kill off some of the fatties after walking across a parking lot.

Post: #44

.01 percent is nothing. a big volcanic eruption does more than that. temps are changing but theres so many other factors it could be. seems like a .01 % change in the suns output would have a way bigger effect. people still dont know why there seemed to be a mini ice age less than 800 years ago.
that said, pollution does suck.

Post: #45

(03-29-2013 12:09 AM)Pacific Wrote:  Amazing how much crap gets thrown around. People like to dismiss sound evidence when it doesn't align with what they "want" to believe. Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. This happens to be my area of study, but like I said earlier, it's just going to be mostly a waste of time trying to convince those who don't want to believe something even when there's clear and sound evidence behind it.

For example, that old sun argument has been proven wrong a long time ago. The solar cycle is on a 11 year period. What we are observing is NOT due to the solar cycle.

There are plenty of information out there that provides sound scientific evidence and explain it in terms that non-scientists can understand. But still, people will pick what they believe based on what they want to believe.

if this really is what you study i have an honest question: historically, the planet has had more time covered in ice than not. the phrase "ice age" is actually misleading because it implies this is normal and really cold is not, however it is more accurate to say that the planet is always fucking cold interspersed by 5000 year periods of thawing. how does this influence your research?

Post: #46

Quote:The very bottom one is what is used to derived the temperature figure that you linked to.

Hey man please clarify this? The very bottom what? The graph i inserted is from 450000 years ago to ~present day, your graph is 650 years before ~present day, is some of the data missing from your inserted graph?

Quote:Notice how we are at the top in terms of temperature in this glacial cycle

No, looking at my graph we are on an upwards trajectory, to me this infers more warming.

Quote:with our temperature rising at an unprecedented rate

Simply from examination of my graph i would dispute this, i however do not have the data to derive.

Quote: AND, if you look at the stars in the top right corner, that's the concentration of the 3 major green houses gases in the year 2000. All three concentrations are off the charts compared to 600 thousand years of glacial cycles. And since green house gases are mainly what determines the surface temperature, that means our temperature are gonna keep rising at an unprecedented rate even though we are already at the top of the glacial cycle.

Green house gases have risen, has this massive change in their concentration translated to a massive temperature change? Distance from the sun is the biggest factor in what determines our planets warmth. Can you clarify the glacial cycle comment, thanks. We are in an interglacial period atm, this means warmer temperatures.

Also what do you say in reply to the fact that the global temperature has not risen for 17yrs?

For me IPCC lost all credibility with the University of East Anglia scandal.

Post: #47

(03-29-2013 03:56 AM)Huck Finn Wrote:  Also what do you say in reply to the fact that the global temperature has not risen for 17yrs?

Post: #48

(03-29-2013 04:08 AM)thebassist Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:56 AM)Huck Finn Wrote:  Also what do you say in reply to the fact that the global temperature has not risen for 17yrs?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/not...6583112134

Quote:THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office,

Post: #49

Quote:THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office,

You know what this who debate makes me think of:



It's like a posting I recently made showing how a feminist's hamster would run non-stop every time someone pointed out a study showing a higher percentage of false rape accusations than 2%, but how her hamster thinking accepted without question any data supporting the 2% figure, no matter how dubious.

I feel the same way when debating climate change (or when debating whether we really landed on the moon, or whether Obama was born in Hawaii, or debating with a young earth creationist).

That article has been refuted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/australi...rming.html

There is no debate about man-made global warming. There are a lot of people with hamster logic who think otherwise, but I don't like hamster logic, whether it comes from a femnazi in leftfield or a right-wing extremist.

Post: #50

(03-29-2013 03:21 AM)clever alias Wrote:  .01 percent is nothing.

I'm getting tired of saying this.

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

(03-28-2013 10:52 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  Secondly CO2 is not a poisonous gas. Millions of years ago it made up almost 20% of our atmosphere and today it makes up less than1%. So the earth has clearly survived and thrived in a high CO2 environment.

Umm...what?

1) Yes, CO2 is poisonous. 3-5% will have long term detrimental effects on your blood - acidosis. I believe anywhere over 5% concentration in your air supply will kill you.

2) Millions of years ago humans did not exist. The Earth certainly did not thrive in that environment - and perhaps more importantly, neither did humans.

(03-28-2013 10:34 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  ...

CLIMATE CHANGE "SCIENCE" is NOT SCIENCE.

...

NO ONE CAN PROVE CLIMATE SCIENCE IS TRUE.

...

This is not science. These guys are reading the equivalent of Tarot cards.

Well, no.

Einstein's work and all that are theories.

Same as climate scientists work. Theories.

I don't know how much clearer it has to be made to some people, but there is a difference between the colloquial "theory" and scientific theories.

Scientific theories are put through a grueling testing process, published, then peer reviewed.