global warming?

[busby]

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

[going_home]

Here we go again ......... Oh and in before the lock. Heheh. :)

[drg]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/

[vf-xx]

Because I'm too lazy to actually click links and make an intelligent post:

It is caused by Taco bell and the affluence of bean burritos...

That is all.

[fishmishin]

Dang methane gases !
:rofl:

[drg]

Because I'm too lazy to actually click links and make an intelligent post:

It is caused by Taco bell and the affluence of bean burritos...

That is all.

In short it's typical conservative misinformation, taking a few sound bites (in this case email bites) and completely unabashedly misrepresenting them. Confidently and arrogantly. It's too bad that works so well.

[vf-xx]

In short it's typical conservative misinformation, taking a few sound bites (in this case email bites) and completely unabashedly misrepresenting them. Confidently and arrogantly. It's too bad that works so well.

You know that I can't take that at face value right? We know where each of us stands on that spectrum.

Realistically I am not technically informed to make a real decision. But from what I've read and lived, it's real, but it may be beyond our control. I do believe that scientists have shown large fluctuation in earths temperature in the past.

But really. Have you seen the methane capture devices they have for cows? Really!!

http://www.treehugger.com/cow-fart-collection-device-photo

[wetwrks]

Oddly enough the news a few months back admitted that the earths temp hasn't changed one degree in 10 years.

Additionally these scientists cannot explain the fact that all the planets in our solar system experienced the same temp changes. This points that it isn't man or the earth that is changing but an effect from the sun.

[going_home]

Oddly enough the news a few months back admitted that the earths temp hasn't changed one degree in 10 years.

Additionally these scientists cannot explain the fact that all the planets in our solar system experienced the same temp changes. This points that it isn't man or the earth that is changing but an effect from the sun.

Algore is on the way over to spoon feed you his koolaide so you can be healed.


:nono:




















Global warming is.............


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[grEnAlEins]

Ask an MIT scientist:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

Also, there is far from a consensus, so knock off the liberal snobbery in this thread. If you are trusting a UN or IPCC study you are a fool. :tard:

[grEnAlEins]

Does anyone else find it interesting that a "natural phenomenon" can coincide so perfectly with political goals?

How about global cooling? It is many of the same people advocating global warming...

[BiNumber3]

It'd be more "correct" to call it global climate change..

As for the relevance of co2, it has more to do with the fact that it "plugs" holes

Think the primary gas that traps IR radiation from earth is gaseous h2o, what co2 does is block the IR radiation that h20 doesnt, kind of like filling in cracks in a wall preventing the heat from escaping.
So even though co2 isnt a huge part on its own, combined with other factors already present it can make a huge impact.

I've got to ask tho, there's the argument that humans haven't changed much as far as atmospheric composition, and yet throughout the history of humanity, we've been inventing things that gradually affect the atmosphere (cars for example), and we've been changing the environment/ecosystem (cows and deforestation?). So how can people really believe that we humans have an unnooticable impact on the earth?

Ive seen reports saying one thing, and reports saying another, who knows what's true about whether temperature has or has not risen, however, even a couple degrees of change in global temperature will affect the levels of h2o in the atmosphere, and seeing how most of the earth's surface is water, that's a lot of water in or out of the atmosphere with just a small change in temp.

Also, a lot of reports I've read focus on one area, paying no heed to neighboring areas and what not, this is a Global thing, not just local, so you can't look at one area, and say it's the same with everywhere else


Lastly, yes, the earth can and will fix itself in time, assuming of course humans stop breaking things....


As for the political goals, politicians will use information in whatever way they can, merely because theyre using doesnt have to mean anything one way or another

[drg]

Ask an MIT scientist:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

Also, there is far from a consensus, so knock off the liberal snobbery in this thread. If you are trusting a UN or IPCC study you are a fool. :tard:

That has nothing to do with this thread. But it is pretty telling that you immediately became defensive like that.

[bornl33t]

awww c'mon that was an awesome post....


oh well, who cares what's in those emails? If global warming is true then we are either already doomed or fine. Either way the government will spend all our money on solving it.

Besides...this "science" that explains global warming/cooling, that clearly calculates all variables and has no political or religious bias.....is it the same science we are using to explain evolution? It is no small wonder, the argumentational gymnastics a person will perform to interpret data within their own presuppositional framework.

Seriously, there's no human or computer that has the information to explain it all. I cannot believe you are putting your faith in this.

[BiNumber3]

the science we use also provides groundwork for things like... oh, i don't know, automags?

[wetwrks]

It'd be more "correct" to call it global climate change..


That is like saying "There is weather outside".

There is always weather outside and the climate is always changing. A quick study of the history of the earth has a great many global freezes and warmings. And per these same scientists...many of these happened BEFORE man. Ooooo.......how can it be that man wasn't responsible for those?

Ya know...I would be more than willing to allow all those who hold to this global warming thing to go kill them selves off for the betterment of the planet. Please...go to it. Do it for the earth. I promise I'll even shed a tear for you. :cry:

[wetwrks]

the science we use also provides groundwork for things like... oh, i don't know, automags?

Ah, but once again we delve into theory and fact. Once is capable of being reproduced over and over again and the other...isn't or at least hasn't been.

The other part of all this that gets me is the other day President Obama was on tv about Iran and their nuclear program. He stated that they deserve to be allowed to work on nuclear energy. WHAT? Why is it that they DESERVE to be allowed to do this but we arn't allowed to expand our nuclear energy production. We arn't allowed to expand our oil production because it might harm the environment or some fuzzy little critter yet nothing is said about what the arab nations are doing when they expand their production. If it is that dangerous you can't tell me they arn't harming something there. I hear about reduced emissions here yet nothing is being done about it in China much less Mexico. If our emissions are effecting the whole earth then their emissions are affecting us here in the US.

[BiNumber3]

Yea, the earth has gone through numerous large scale temperature changes, but for the most part, they take several millenia between each whereas the changes we see now, can likely be put into a much smaller time frame, but alas I can't prove this without doing research, and even if I did, chances are it wouldnt sway anyone's ideas.

I didn't mean to say that we have definitely caused a change, but I personally find it hard to believe that we haven't caused change, just like many of you believe that we didn't or can't cause change.

Really, all I think we should do here, is look at the "facts" from both sides, and decide for ourselves what to believe, but if possible, don't go off and say things merely because we don't believe it's possible one way or another. I'd be perfectly fine with being wrong, but as of yet, the info I've seen and researched (only researched it for a couple classes:P) have mostly leaned to one side.
And really, I haven't seen many compelling arguments against what I've seen, and I'd love if someone could show me, because I Am biased by the knowledge I believe in, so that may or may not affect what articles I find, what scientific research papers I find, etc.

(please don't take this the wrong way, I don't care to confront people or whatnot, and am truly just seeking knowledge, it's how I was taught to live)

[wetwrks]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/20/warming-on-11-year-hiatus/

http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/scientists_warn_humans_arent_heating_the_planet/

http://www.nofreewind.com/2009/06/global-temperaturs-are-flat-for-12.html

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/06/global_warming_the_science_is.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/alarmists-out-in-cold/story-0-1225704688703

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html

[drg]

There is no good reason not to minimize our impact on the planet.

[BiNumber3]

Main reason why I prefer global climate change over global warming as far as wording:)

I would explain temperatures staying relatively steady globaly due to this:
As temperature in one area rises, temperature in another drops, evidence can be seen in weather, dry areas are more dry whereas wet areas are more humid. Overall, the effects cancel out as far as a global average.

On a counter thought, why have the oceans risen far more in the past century than they ever have before (keeping time/level in perspective)

http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/Science/core/earth/sciber9/Stand_4/html/2d.htm
http://whyfiles.org/091beach/5.html

As for temperatures of say Mars in comparison to Earth, Mars has an ice cap that hasn't melted noticeably despite lacking much of an atmosphere, yet Earths glaciers (inland and polar icecaps) have been shown to have lost much of their mass over the past 50 years despite our oceans and atmosphere providing a temperature buffer that Mars doesnt have.

I havent read through all of your articles yet, but hopefully I can get through some of em when I have time today:) but wanted to post this to provide another perspective

Nother note, increased water in the atmosphere means increased cloud cover, which then decreases the overall amount of energy that can pass through our atmosphere, at least in the visible range. This probably doesnt fully explain the "global cooling" all the sites are talking about, but it might be a part of it

[BobTheCow]

Because I'm too lazy to actually click links and make an intelligent post:

It is caused by Taco bell and the affluence of bean burritos...

That is all.
Hold on... when did bean burritos become so wealthy? I feel like I'm missing out on some important life information here. ;) http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+affluence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[vf-xx]

Hold on... when did bean burritos become so wealthy? I feel like I'm missing out on some important life information here. ;) http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+affluence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

It's a wealth of content. Namely their wealth of ability to allow us to produce methane gas.

They should come with warnings: Do not consume near heavy machinery.

[busby]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html http://www.ecofriendlymag.com/sustainable-transporation-and-alternative-fuel/enough-if-enough-with-joe-romms-climate-mccarthyism/

[drg]

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html http://www.ecofriendlymag.com/sustainable-transporation-and-alternative-fuel/enough-if-enough-with-joe-romms-climate-mccarthyism/

Sure, attack the source rather than the unassailable message. That's usually what you're reduced to when your position has no merit.

There is no shortage of news outlets (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html) that have picked up the story, and the truly significant finding is that there is indeed no conspiracy, as skeptics insist.

The dangerous thing is people who by and large lack the education and/or intellect to understand the science, who desperately want to believe their own narrow worldviews, will accept the completely false spin being put on this by conservatives. But hey conservatism is dangerous to the world, what else is new?

The bottom line is, there doesn't even have to be consensus to make action the smart course. There isn't consensus on tobacco being bad for you, or seat belts saving lives, or helmets as safety devices, etc.

[going_home]

Sure, attack the source rather than the unassailable message. That's usually what you're reduced to when your position has no merit.

There is no shortage of news outlets (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html) that have picked up the story, and the truly significant finding is that there is indeed no conspiracy, as skeptics insist.

The dangerous thing is people who by and large lack the education and/or intellect to understand the science, who desperately want to believe their own narrow worldviews, will accept the completely false spin being put on this by conservatives. But hey conservatism is dangerous to the world, what else is new?

The bottom line is, there doesn't even have to be consensus to make action the smart course. There isn't consensus on tobacco being bad for you, or seat belts saving lives, or helmets as safety devices, etc.


The fact is there is no proof whatsoever of man made global warming/climate change. None.


http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f103/KQ6WQ/Motivational/Trust_Big_Al.jpg


There is however proof in Canada and the UK of whats about to happen to the American people.


http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f139/Yaish/Motivational/obamacare-demotivational-poster-124.jpg


:nono:

[wetwrks]

Sure, attack the source rather than the unassailable message. That's usually what you're reduced to when your position has no merit.

news outlets (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html) that have picked up the story, and the truly significant finding is that there is indeed no conspiracy, as skeptics insist.

At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.”

But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review.

If the scientific data is sound there would be no need to block the release of the data.