And the Global Warming hypers share rhetoric with the "OMG! It's a New Ice-Age! hypers" of the 1970s.

The climate changes. It doesn't need out help. In fact, there is virtually nothing we can do that will effect it.

The warm period befor the Little Ice-Age was warmer that it is now. Continents weren't flooded, deserts were smaller, it was nice.

The Pennsylvanian ice-age was way colder than it is now. I'm talking glaciers in central Indiana. We didn't do anything to cause, end, or prolong it.

give me doughnuts: And the Global Warming hypers share rhetoric with the "OMG! It's a New Ice-Age! hypers" of the 1970s.

FAIL.

The climate changes. It doesn't need out help. In fact, there is virtually nothing we can do that will effect it.

FAIL.

The Pennsylvanian ice-age was way colder than it is now. I'm talking glaciers in central Indiana. We didn't do anything to cause, end, or prolong it.

FAIL.

Anything else you want to feel the need to share with the group? embarrass yourself with?

Without reading the article, I'm guessing the arguments are 1. it's natural, and 2. changing anything would disrupt the economy.

Time to go see if I'm right...

give me doughnuts: And the Global Warming hypers share rhetoric with the "OMG! It's a New Ice-Age! hypers" of the 1970s.

The climate changes. It doesn't need out help. In fact, there is virtually nothing we can do that will effect it.

The warm period befor the Little Ice-Age was warmer that it is now. Continents weren't flooded, deserts were smaller, it was nice.

The Pennsylvanian ice-age was way colder than it is now. I'm talking glaciers in central Indiana. We didn't do anything to cause, end, or prolong it.

BLASPHEMY!!! In AlGore 4:19 it states that all nonbelievers shall be demonized until they vote Democrat and buy a Prius. There are no solar causes, no little ice age, no overpopulation, no cow farts, no natural cycles. The climate was perfectly fine until you bought an SUV that gets 4 miles to a gallon less than a minivan.

Repent and give me nine Manbearpigs.

whidbey: give me doughnuts: And the Global Warming hypers share rhetoric with the "OMG! It's a New Ice-Age! hypers" of the 1970s.

FAIL.

The climate changes. It doesn't need out help. In fact, there is virtually nothing we can do that will effect it.

FAIL.

The Pennsylvanian ice-age was way colder than it is now. I'm talking glaciers in central Indiana. We didn't do anything to cause, end, or prolong it.

FAIL.

Anything else you want to feel the need to share with the group? embarrass yourself with?

Care to elaborate? Or maybe prove him wrong, rather than just shoot him down?

Temescal: Care to elaborate? Or maybe prove him wrong, rather than just shoot him down?

Maybe at one time I might have. It helps to PAIC, Temescal...;) This topic is hashed ad nauseum here at Fark in over a hundred threads, the proof is presented time and again how man is unquestionably influencing climate with polluting emissions. Over and f*cking over again.

I just bash trolls now. I don't debate them.

But for you, since you apparently would really like to learn something instead of coming off like a Rushbot, this (p) is a good place to start...:)

There is no debate on this crap anymore, only questions like "what do we do to reduce the emissions and stop shiatting in our beds?"

give me doughnuts: "OMG! It's a New Ice-Age! hypers" of the 1970s.

There were no such "hypers". I remember, I was there.

Comet goddam Kohoutek was 1000 times a bigger deal than the one stupid slow-news-day "cooling world" article in Newsweek.

I'm pulling for a nuclear winter to offset global warming.

I, Al Gore, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with Blood.

this will end well.

Today: The weather is changing! The Earth is angry at us! We will suffer skin cancer, floods, and famine as the ecosystem returns to normal. The end is near!

The Middle Ages: The weather is changing! The Lord is angry at us! We will suffer plagues, floods, and famine as God's Creation returns to normal. The end is nigh!

10,000 BC: Uuuuuuurrrrrgh!!!


It's always been the same, just replace some of the 'actors' to put blame on.

whidbey: There is no debate on this crap anymore

Oh there very much is a debate. The debate is over what to do about it. The effectiveness of doing plan A in Country Z while Country X pollutes just as much. There is a very real and live debate and rightly so. Theres no question in my mind that the earth is warming but what should we do about it needs to be discussed. If we halve our emissions while China builds 1000 a new coal power plants does it really matter? Can the Earth even support humanity at its current rate of consumption? Is it ethical to stifle country's development in the name of the environment?

whidbey: Maybe at one time I might have. It helps to PAIC, Temescal...;) This topic is hashed ad nauseum here at Fark in over a hundred threads, the proof is presented time and again how man is unquestionably influencing climate with polluting emissions. Over and f*cking over again.

I just bash trolls now. I don't debate them.

But for you, since you apparently would really like to learn something instead of coming off like a Rushbot, this (p) is a good place to start...:)

There is no debate on this crap anymore, only questions like "what do we do to reduce the emissions and stop shiatting in our beds?"

TRANSLATION: "My debating skills are so weak that I, instead, choose to radomly insult people"

Shaggy_C Quote 2008-01-17 08:31:58 PM
Today: The weather is changing! The Earth is angry at us! We will suffer skin cancer, floods, and famine as the ecosystem returns to normal. The end is near!

The Middle Ages: The weather is changing! The Lord is angry at us! We will suffer plagues, floods, and famine as God's Creation returns to normal. The end is nigh!

Yeah dude, kind of like how when lightening struck a tree back in the day we were all like "shiat! god is pissed" and then like, today when we blow up a mountain with high explosives to pave a new road we are all ike "shiat, teh earth is pissed and blowing itself up!'

/yeah, humans with modern technolgoy surely couldn't have any impact on the earth
//sigh

I love the replies on the New Scientist blog on the linked page. They say everything I wanted and needed to say on this subject matter.

What a pretentious load of crap, New Scientist.

TRANSLATION: "My debating skills are so weak that I, instead, choose to radomly insult people"

and I suppose your post translates to "My debating skills are so weak that I, instead, choose to radomly insult people that insulted someone else"

HeadLever: TRANSLATION: "My debating skills are so weak that I, instead, choose to radomly insult people"

fark off, whidbey is good people and would whip your ass in a debate. Believe me, I've had plenty of arguments with him and he's definitely got a good head on his shoulders.

Global warming believers are like pedophiles.

We all know that child molestation > racism in the ad hominem game.

Bill Frist: Yeah dude, kind of like how when lightening struck a tree back in the day we were all like "shiat! god is pissed" and then like, today when we blow up a mountain with high explosives to pave a new road we are all ike "shiat, teh earth is pissed and blowing itself up!'

Heh, it was supposed to be a joke...I found a cartoon today with that as the subject, and was hoping to find a GW thread to paste it into. Alas, I could not find it this evening, so I tried to recreate it. I don't think it had that same 'zing' factor

whidbey: Temescal: Care to elaborate? Or maybe prove him wrong, rather than just shoot him down?

Maybe at one time I might have. It helps to PAIC, Temescal...;) This topic is hashed ad nauseum here at Fark in over a hundred threads, the proof is presented time and again how man is unquestionably influencing climate with polluting emissions. Over and f*cking over again.

I just bash trolls now. I don't debate them.

But for you, since you apparently would really like to learn something instead of coming off like a Rushbot, this (p) is a good place to start...:)

There is no debate on this crap anymore, only questions like "what do we do to reduce the emissions and stop shiatting in our beds?"

Wow. So people who don't agree with you are trolls and you've declared there is no debate? You know who else de-humanized people who didn't agree with them and thought his views were not to be questioned?

The crux of Davidson's argument is that the US economy now relies on oil in much the same way as the economy of the Southern States relied on slaves 200 years ago - as a key source of energy

The Global Warming Denial Industry is a multi-million dollar onslaught by the usual suspects (the globes biggest polluters, Exxon, BP etc) who use pseudo scientists in their attempts to sow seeds of cognative dissonance amongst the scientifically illiterate.

In many instances they use the same "scientists" who a decade or so ago were standing up in courtrooms around the globe saying that there was no consensus that cigarette cause cancer.

The cognitive dissonance breaks down into 4 consistent forms.
A) Global Warming is a scam (This is fer the truly brain dead)
B) Global Warming is Real but it's a good thing. (Room temperatue IQs)
C) Global Warming is real but humans aint the cause. (Not as dim as B)
D) Global Warming is real but it's too expensive/ massive to fix.

If you buy into any of the above, yer a certified nutter.

It's just a matter of degree.

Bill Frist: and I suppose your post translates to "My debating skills are so weak that I, instead, choose to radomly insult people that insulted someone else"

Yes, I have not problem calling out somone whose sole purpose is to insult. When I respond to an argument, I like to be persuasive. Alienating yourself to your fellow man is not the way. Sorry, I am more optimistic than that.


/Sorry to say, but whidbey has become very cynical lately

D) Global Warming is real but it's too expensive/ massive to fix.

If you buy into any of the above, yer a certified nutter.

Come on, option D doesn't make you a nutter at all.

The other three I hear you though.

Do i even need to read the article to assume how much of a strech the author made?

spacechicken170am: BLASPHEMY!!! In AlGore 4:19 it states that all nonbelievers shall be demonized until they vote Democrat and buy a Prius. There are no solar causes, no little ice age, no overpopulation, no cow farts, no natural cycles. The climate was perfectly fine until you bought an SUV that gets 4 miles to a gallon less than a minivan.

cy·cle-noun
1. any complete round or series of occurrences that repeats or is repeated.

I have seen no evidence that global average temperature (or what ever else is used to measure climate change) is cyclical. There is no repetition of temperature changes with respect to time that matched any other in the data that I have seen (which is precious little in the first place). A cyclic process (sinusoidal or otherwise) is the response to a linear differential equation, and easily and accurately predictable.

Given that many factors affecting temperature are nonlinear (e.g. solubility of gasses in seas and oceans with respect to temperature, absorbtivity and emissivity of gas mixtures with respect to concentration), the solution to any governing model differential equations would be highly chaotic, much like the historical data shows. Predictability would be impossible for any useful duration. In conclusion, based upon mathematical analysis of the system in question, predicting the direction and time climate change is impossible.

I do think that people should conserve energy and other resources, but not for the grandkids. Do it for your own pocket book or corporate bottom line. Get the payoff now by spending less on your electric bill after switching to CFLs. Holding up the mythical threat of future calamity as reason for conservation is missing the point.

Shaggy_C: fark off, whidbey is good people and would whip your ass in a debate. Believe me, I've had plenty of arguments with him and he's definitely got a good head on his shoulders.

Oh, have had my fair share of run-ins with whidbey. I don't mind him at all. We don't agree on much but I enjoy, and can even respect, his point of view. I know that he is better than his boobies. Let just say that my post was a nudge to get him going.

Shaggy_C
Today: The weather is changing! The Earth is angry at us! We will suffer skin cancer, floods, and famine as the ecosystem returns to normal. The end is near! etc

What the hell is that supposed to mean? You have a field of scientists using the scientific method to try and determine why the Earth's average temperature is increasing and what effects it will have. Some of them are nice enough to take time out from reporting to the scientific community or whichever government they might work for to explain, in reasonably clear language what they have found and then predicted on the web, and you have that to say?

Why bother.

give me doughnuts: And the Global Warming hypers share rhetoric with the "OMG! It's a New Ice-Age! hypers" of the 1970s.


The global warming deniers are the New Ice-Age! hypers of the 1970s. Seriously. Same scientists.

Graeme Garden: What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Link (new window)

I wonder how many Democrats realize that their party was the pro-slavery party...

Temescal: Care to elaborate? Or maybe prove him wrong, rather than just shoot him down?

No see, whidbey is a libertarian and wouldn't ever, ever suggest that government have a mandate over, and sovereignty from, the People.

Isn't that right whidbey?

Yoyo

In conclusion, based upon mathematical analysis of the system in question, predicting the direction and time climate change is impossible

That's not a mathematical analysis and you know it. Lets leave the science to the scientists shall we?

Doc Lee:
The global warming deniers are the New Ice-Age! hypers of the 1970s. Seriously. Same scientists.

I was not a scientist during the 1970s, but I am now. And of the "deniers" I do know who were around in the '70s, then denied the "new ice age" then too.

Blacklight: I wonder how many Democrats realize that their party was the pro-slavery party...

I wonder how many people realize your an idiot for bringing that up, being you and everyone else knows that the at the time, democrats were conservatives and republicans were liberals, and now it has reversed.

Blacklight: I wonder how many Democrats realize that their party was the pro-slavery party...

Liar, it was the wigs!!!

Seriously, ideologies change. It could be argued that the Republicans are trying to make a new slave class out of the middle class. Not that i want to have that arguement, but you get my point.

Global Warming theory:

1. Human industry produces billions of tons of carbon dioxide per year; due to this, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen 40% since pre-industrial times
2. Carbon dioxide, because of its physical characteristics, absorbs heat and causes warming. Period. This is simple physics that has been essentially understood for nearly a hundred years; while there is definitely still scientific debate over global warming, it is only over the details.

So long as humans continue to increase levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet will get warmer. You can argue with scientists; you can't argue with physics.

Is that picture pro or con?

Graeme Garden:
That's not a mathematical analysis and you know it. Lets leave the science to the scientists shall we?

a·nal·y·sis- noun
5. Mathematics.
c. the branch of mathematics consisting of calculus and its higher developments.

One of those higher developments is differential equations.

Do I need to scan in my diplomas to prove I am a scientist?

Yoyo: Doc Lee:
The global warming deniers are the New Ice-Age! hypers of the 1970s. Seriously. Same scientists.

I was not a scientist during the 1970s, but I am now. And of the "deniers" I do know who were around in the '70s, then denied the "new ice age" then too.

Reid Bryson was a scientist quoted in the now infamous Newsweek article on global cooling. George Kukla is also a denier and in the same article.

whidbey: give me doughnuts: And the Global Warming hypers share rhetoric with the "OMG! It's a New Ice-Age! hypers" of the 1970s.

FAIL.

The climate changes. It doesn't need out help. In fact, there is virtually nothing we can do that will effect it.

FAIL.

The Pennsylvanian ice-age was way colder than it is now. I'm talking glaciers in central Indiana. We didn't do anything to cause, end, or prolong it.

FAIL.

Anything else you want to feel the need to share with the group? embarrass yourself with?

Where give me doughnuts made points, you substituted a knee-jerk cliche, see? So I declare give me doughnuts the victor in this one. Try a little next time, kay?

whidbey: Temescal: Care to elaborate? Or maybe prove him wrong, rather than just shoot him down?

Maybe at one time I might have. It helps to PAIC, Temescal...;) This topic is hashed ad nauseum here at Fark in over a hundred threads, the proof is presented time and again how man is unquestionably influencing climate with polluting emissions. Over and f*cking over again.

I just bash trolls now. I don't debate them.

But for you, since you apparently would really like to learn something instead of coming off like a Rushbot, this (p) is a good place to start...:)

There is no debate on this crap anymore, only questions like "what do we do to reduce the emissions and stop shiatting in our beds?"

We haven't ignored your "proof;" We have analyzed it, judged it, and found it lacking.

Like Darwinism, the "Greenhouse Effect" is just another attempt by American liberals to attack America's heritage. They force children to attend government schools where they censor God's word in the name of Political Correctness. They tell them that they're really just monkeys, and ban them from prayer. They tell them that the world is going to end if they don't put big government tax and spend liberals into office and give up their private property. We cannot allow the "scientific" agenda to continue to brainwash our children and saturate our culture with these lies and moral depravity. "Scientists" are wrong time and time again, due to the inherent sinfulness of their human nature, but God's Word has yet to be proven wrong. In Psalm 23, verse 4, the Lord says, "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." Don't put your faith in "science", put your faith in Jesus Christ, the reason for this great nation and it's position as leader of the free world.

In other news, a study shows that global warming believers also believe in other things such as santa claus and the tooth fairy.

Doc Lee:
Reid Bryson was a scientist quoted in the now infamous Newsweek article on global cooling. George Kukla is also a denier and in the same article.

So, some people (ibid.) stick to their guns and maintain hypothesis and theories about global cooling for decades. Others (myself included) take issue with the lack of predictability (either way) of climate systems. Other than band wagon appeal, I don't see how the AGW crowd is any better.

Study: Climate change "deniers" share rhetoric, shortsightedness with pro-slavery campaigners of the 19th century

And the ID proponents creationists of the 21st century.

Study: Climate change "deniers" share rhetoric, shortsightedness with pro-slavery campaigners of the 19th century

Who the hell denies that the climate changes? It changes constantly! That's part of the reason why we have those people on the news who give us their best guess as to what the weather will be like tomorrow.

I'm still not sure what to think about those people who want to stop the climate from changing.

Yoyo

One of those higher developments is differential equations.

Do I need to scan in my diplomas to prove I am a scientist?


Your profile says engineer, which is it? And no, engineers are not scientists, I'm a scientist and I don't presume to call myself an engineer. Aside from that, if you have taken a course in analysis then you should know that pointing out that linear DE can have periodic solutions hardly constitutes a proof that non-linear equations cannot describe periodic systems. The DE equation for a pendulum is non-linear for example, which I imagine most people would argue is a periodic system.

muck4doo:

you've declared there is no debate?

It isn't us that has declared there is no debate, it's the scientific community who ended the debate particular debate that we have on Fark repeatedly a good half decade before the media even caught even realized that there was a debate to end.

The debate within the scientific community now is how to best mitigate the damage that human influence has caused to the earth's natural cycles, not whether humans have had an influence like the WSJ and MSM keep implying.

whidbey: Temescal: Care to elaborate? Or maybe prove him wrong, rather than just shoot him down?

Maybe at one time I might have. It helps to PAIC, Temescal...;) This topic is hashed ad nauseum here at Fark in over a hundred threads, the proof is presented time and again how man is unquestionably influencing climate with polluting emissions. Over and f*cking over again.

I just bash trolls now. I don't debate them.

But for you, since you apparently would really like to learn something instead of coming off like a Rushbot, this (p) is a good place to start...:)

There is no debate on this crap anymore, only questions like "what do we do to reduce the emissions and stop shiatting in our beds?"


That was a bookmarkable link. I suggest everyone visit.